Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:03:15 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [LIB] When EZ-Drive is a >must< for W98 * W2K installations
From: Philip Nienhuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> * W2K balked at deleting the partition saying it was in use by some >> program. Though I had none running >Does your Win2K have a virus perhaps? (far out suggestion but who >knows...) I did have an issue with my firewall last week, but as W2K wasn't ever accessed before running the fresh copy of W98 to test the restored backup, I don't think it'd be involved. I had inadvertently set a firewall rule one day to allow an incoming request to access svchost.exe. I spotted the error later that day, and not knowing if something malevolent was let in, I ran Norton Antivirus on the system which had ben updated a couple of weeks previously, but it found nothing. The system hasn't been behaving unusually, so I think I'm safe there for now at least. >> * Booted 110 from FDD and ran part.exe to confirm logical partition G: >> type 0c > Was it 0c already or did you have to change it from 0B? Yes... I found that W2K had created the logical partition as type 0c by default. I didn't have to change it. >> * Rebooted 110 to W2K, and created folder tree for one of the >> files/folders with a pre-existing problem: >What operating system did you use to format the partition? Win2K >or Win98? I'd prefer Win2K. W2K's Disk Management both created the logical drive, and formatted it FAT32 >> * Put the HDD in desktop as slave >> * Booted the system and copied all previously backed up data from G: back >> onto G: >How? What OS does your desktop run? Actually, it was WinXP the 1st time through. The 2nd time I booted the desktop to W98 and tried from there. I used Total Commander on the WXP system, and Windows Explorer on the W98 system. I've also run Beyond Compare at points to confirm files matched at both ends. Something I noted when doing a more time consuming binary comparison of a few MP3 files a while back with BC, is that one particular program character, a 'y' with an umlout above it was replaced with an 'i' character with an umlout when the files were copied over. But it doesn't seem it'd be an issue here, would it? > A suggestion: >- Perhaps your G:-partition has bad blocks? The 1st time through while creating the G: logical drive, W2K's Disk Management did the time consuming full check for bad block/sectors. In fact I run that on the entire drive a few weeks back with the Hitachi/IBM utility, Drive Fitness Test. When I deleted G: the 2nd time through and created a new one, I just had DM create do the faster 'quick format' which skips error checking. >- You might try to make G: a partition on a different location than the > previous one, by making a small partition before it and optionally after > it, and then making a somewhat smaller G:-partition. An interesting suggestion, if for experimental reasons alone. > I remember that Format doesn't wipe out all info on disk. And possible > bad blocks in the FAT tables may be avoided this way. >From tests I've done in the past with MS 'Format', a 'quick' format won't wipe out most data, or check for bad blocks\sectors. But a full format will. In fact I ran Stellar Phoenix recovery software on a drive I did a full MS format on at one point, and it found none of the previous data. Don't know if other data recovery methods could have found anything though. >> * Connected 110 to desktop and copied over the G:\My MP3s\Rock-Pop >> folders and files from backup via ethernet connection >> * Rebooting 110 into W98, I could immediately see about 70% of the files >> and folders in G:\My MP3s\Rock-Pop were corrupted >I wouldn't trust the backup, or the ethernet connection. The 'backup' I refer to doesn't involve a backup >program< per se. What I meant was I had previously put the Lib HDD in the desktop, and copied over the data to the desktop 80GB HDD. Though over time, I >have< been syncing the backed up data to the data on the Lib HDD with Beyond Compare. Now if that y/i character conversion I found while doing binary comparisons has caused problems for some reason, I have no way of telling. >> At that point I gave up... installed EZ-Drive again... ran Scandisk from >> W98, and it found no errors at all. > Because EZ-drive shifts all tracks one up (to hide itself), It seems there's got to be more to it than that Philip. W2K seems to have a much more broad 'understanding' of how partitions and file systems work than W98SE does. It >ought< to for MSs sake. After all, W2K is smart enough to create an 0c logical partition where it's needed. Whereas my very 'MS Windows based' Partition Magic v8.0 doesn't want to do it. AAMOF I found that by merely >running< PM 8.0 on this 40GB HDD in question and not doing any modifications at all, it would auto-convert the 0c partition I set with Ranish to a type 0b! And that no doubt reflected PoweQuest and MS's viewpoint towards disk partitioning at some point in the near past which has now changed. >IIRC the whole EZ-drive avoidance fandango was started because of other >problems involved with EZ-drive. Jog my memory there on problems people were seeing. I had suspected that EZD may have been playing a part in a problem I had develop in a 20GB HDD not being able to image the 1st primary partition with EZD loaded. But I was never sure. All I knew was that I >could< run Ghost to image the1st partition >without< EZB loaded. But that was another issue I encountered that no one else on the list seemed to have problems with. >> Since MS-DOS wasn't able to see the G: drive from the DOS prompt with the >> area of the extended partition it was sitting on set to 0f, I put the HDD >> back in the desktop (actually >before< installing EZB) and reset it to >> 05. > Did MS-DOS see it then? I wouldn't expect that, rather the other way > round. With the extended partition area for G: set to 0F, no... MS-DOS failed to see any logical G: drive at the DOS prompt. It could access logical D:, E: and F: <8GB, but not G: >8GB. With it set to 05, I could access the G: drive in DOS. That seems to be just the opposite of what you wrote below: "DOS can't see both FAT32 partitions unless I change the extended partition type to 0F. Are we talking about the same extended partition components? The first entry for an extended partition I see in Ranish is one that fills the entire drive from just after the 1st primary to the end of the drive. My setup has that set to 0F. Then for each segment of that extended partition, there are individual extended segments that are set to 05: C: Primary type 0B Extended type 0F <Area from end of C: to end of drive D: Logical type 0B Extended type 05 <Area of extended partition D: sits on E: Logical type 0B Extended type 05 <Area of extended partition E: sits on F: Logical type 0B Extended type 05 <Area of extended partition F: sits on G: Logical type 0B Extended type 05 <Area of extended partition G: sits on When I switch the portion of the extended partition G: sits on from 05 to 0F, MS-DOS can no longer see the drive. Are you seeing the opposite? Or are you switching the type 0F to 05 in the entry for the full extended partition that spans all logical drives? > Look, I've got no EZ-drive or similar disk manager on a 60 GB hard > drive; beyond 8 GB are two FAT32 partitions of 10 GB/25,000+ files > and 15 GB / 30,000+ files. Never had any problems with those. > My extended partition = type 05, both FAT32 partitions are 0C. Well... something's going on we haven't put our fingers on. It may have something to do with the character of my backed up data. > DOS can't see both FAT32 partitions unless I change the extended > partition type to 0F. 0F or 05 doesn't make any difference to Windows > (all versions) but the in case of 0F OS/2 Warp can't see the extended > partition. I'm still not grasping what you're saying there. If Windows can't see your FAT32 partitions without setting the extended partition to 0F, it sounds like it >does< make a difference to Windows. > I'm puzzled too, Seems to be going around these daze! ;-P Matt __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
