Ok, I've now also successfully tested this with win2000 in addition to
Vista in response to Frans' concern.
Szaka,
I would assume that your patch should work for XP and 2003 as well. Do
you agree?
What about NT4? (VOLUME_MOUNTED_ON_NT4 appears to be some sort of
compatibility flag?)
Cheers,
El miércoles, 6 de diciembre de 2006 00:38, Frans Pop escribió:
On Tuesday 05 December 2006 00:06, David Martínez Moreno wrote:
Frans, I think that, not having a better solution, I am going to apply
the two-line patch to linux-ntfs and release a new version, is it fine
for you?
Yes,
On Tuesday 05 December 2006 00:06, David Martínez Moreno wrote:
Frans, I think that, not having a better solution, I am going to apply
the two-line patch to linux-ntfs and release a new version, is it fine
for you?
Yes, that would be fine with me.
However, I don't fully understand the
On Sunday 03 December 2006 22:06, Andree Leidenfrost wrote:
Okidoki, what happens now? I'd be keen to see this in the package and
then in the installer ASAP.
Note that this was not the only issue affecting resizing Vista partitions
in the installer. There is also #380226 in parted. And I'm
El lunes, 4 de diciembre de 2006 15:49, Frans Pop escribió:
On Sunday 03 December 2006 22:06, Andree Leidenfrost wrote:
Okidoki, what happens now? I'd be keen to see this in the package and
then in the installer ASAP.
Note that this was not the only issue affecting resizing Vista partitions
On Sun, 3 Dec 2006, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
El sábado, 2 de diciembre de 2006 20:44, Frans Pop escribió:
On Saturday 02 December 2006 14:36, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
I put a statically linked version here to ease the testing.
The linux-ntfs CVS now contains an adapted ntfsresize that restores the
old behiour where the volume is not modified until the user says yes to
begin modifications. That is a lot less work than changing the
documentation + output messages of ntfsresize and it is least surprise
for users who
El domingo, 3 de diciembre de 2006 10:04, Anton Altaparmakov escribió:
The linux-ntfs CVS now contains an adapted ntfsresize that restores the
old behiour where the volume is not modified until the user says yes to
begin modifications. That is a lot less work than changing the
documentation +
On Sun, 3 Dec 2006, David Martínez Moreno wrote:
El domingo, 3 de diciembre de 2006 10:04, Anton Altaparmakov escribió:
The linux-ntfs CVS now contains an adapted ntfsresize that restores the
old behiour where the volume is not modified until the user says yes to
begin modifications. That
El domingo, 3 de diciembre de 2006 11:36, Anton Altaparmakov escribió:
Thank you very much, guys. What should we do know, apply the two-line
patch from Szaka to 1.13.1, wait for 1.14, backport any other change...?
Entirely up to you. If you want it immediately it is easiest if you
On Sun, 3 Dec 2006, David [iso-8859-15] Martínez Moreno wrote:
El domingo, 3 de diciembre de 2006 11:36, Anton Altaparmakov escribió:
Thank you very much, guys. What should we do know, apply the two-line
patch from Szaka to 1.13.1, wait for 1.14, backport any other change...?
On Sun, 3 Dec 2006, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
On Sun, 3 Dec 2006, David [iso-8859-15] Martínez Moreno wrote:
El domingo, 3 de diciembre de 2006 11:36, Anton Altaparmakov escribió:
Thank you very much, guys. What should we do know, apply the
two-line
patch from Szaka to
On Sun, 3 Dec 2006, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
On Sun, 3 Dec 2006, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
Sorry I didn't explain myself better. My patch was only for Vista.
Disagree. Your patch is fine for all NTFS volumes. There is no need to
set the mounted on NT4 bit on any volume during what
Hi Andree,
On Sun, 3 Dec 2006, Andree Leidenfrost wrote:
I've tested and all looks well! When booting into Vista after a resize,
chkdsk is started and after another reboot the system starts as usual.
You are a star
Thanks for the testing but I object the last sentence because I think
El domingo, 3 de diciembre de 2006 15:13, Szakacsits Szabolcs escribió:
On Sun, 3 Dec 2006, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
On Sun, 3 Dec 2006, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
Sorry I didn't explain myself better. My patch was only for Vista.
Disagree. Your patch is fine for all NTFS volumes.
Szaka, David, Frans,
Okidoki, what happens now? I'd be keen to see this in the package and
then in the installer ASAP.
Is there going to be a new upstream release? Is the patch just going to
be applied to the Debbian package? (Looks easy enough to me.)
If there is anything I can do to help,
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
Apparently Vista refuses to boot if an NTFS volume was mounted on
NT4 earlier. This is also what ntfsresize lied to trick Windows
to be compatible with itself.
Could you please try the below patch against ntfsprogs 1.13.1 that the
theory
On Saturday 02 December 2006 14:36, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
Apparently Vista refuses to boot if an NTFS volume was mounted on
NT4 earlier. This is also what ntfsresize lied to trick Windows
to be compatible with itself.
I put a statically
El sábado, 2 de diciembre de 2006 20:44, Frans Pop escribió:
[...]
P.S. Szakacsits and Anton:
As you both know I've invested a _huge_ amount of time in tracing this
issue and providing the information needed. The first reaction was
basically this can't be our bug and now that it turns out it
El sábado, 2 de diciembre de 2006 20:44, Frans Pop escribió:
On Saturday 02 December 2006 14:36, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
I put a statically linked version here to ease the testing.
http://www.ntfs-3g.org/ntfsresize-1.13.1.1.tgz
This version makes Vista happy too. After
Hi Szaka,
Thanks a lot for the static binary!
I've tested and all looks well! When booting into Vista after a resize,
chkdsk is started and after another reboot the system starts as usual.
You are a star
Cheers,
Andree
On Sat, 2006-12-02 at 15:36 +0200, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
On Sat,
Hi,
Apparently Vista refuses to boot if an NTFS volume was mounted on
NT4 earlier. This is also what ntfsresize lied to trick Windows
to be compatible with itself.
Could you please try the below patch against ntfsprogs 1.13.1 that the
theory is correct? Thank you.
Szaka
---
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
Szaka wrote: pointless to empty journal if clean...
It is NOT pointless to empty.
It depends on how journaling works, on which we disagree. It's useless to
explain the consequences if you're right because I'm obviously aware of it.
You
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
Szaka wrote: pointless to empty journal if clean...
It is NOT pointless to empty.
It depends on how journaling works, on which we disagree. It's useless to
explain the consequences if you're
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
I read the code and it does it. I do not believe in sniffing as you put
it. That is useless as you never know what/why the software is doing
something. The code itself shows exactly what happens. I prefer to stick
with that.
I prefer
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
This fixes ntfsresize on Vista for me.
You didn't answer how the journal looks after running ntfsresize without
your changes. That is, the non-empty journal file detection indeed works on
Vista.
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
I have not the faintest idea what was wrong before. [...] to my surprise
it now made Vista work. Why - no idea, and I could not care less.
So, you have no idea of
- what was wrong before
- why ntfsresize works on your Vista now
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
I have not the faintest idea what was wrong before. [...] to my surprise
it now made Vista work. Why - no idea, and I could not care less.
So, you have no idea of
- what was wrong
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
I understand the impact 100% which is why my patch is so big. It had to
touch a lot of utilities to adapt for the changed libntfs behaviour.
The impact to resizing any kind of NTFS. There are many special cases and
ntfsresize works quite
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
I think it would work fine. The problem is with Vista volumes, not random
volumes attached to Vista.
You know that do you? Given you don't have Vista that is just an
assumption...
I asked very simple technical questions from you:
- How
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
Thank you for persisting with this.
Yes, thank you Frans and Andree for your help. We definitely found
something.
I have now looked at the code and you are right it does not do the same
thing. This is because when Yura ported my $LogFile
Szaka wrote: pointless to empty journal if clean...
It is NOT pointless to empty. I think you do not understand how
journalling in Windows works (or I don't understand it... (-;). My
understanding is that regardless whether the journal is clean or not
Windows can/will parse the journal (at
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
Ok, I just committed some more fixes to ntfsresize. It never actually
unmounted the volume, just exited which was very rude of it!
It's intentionally not umounted. Ntfsresize __rewrites__ NTFS and it's
dangerous to umount because that could
Hi Szaka,
On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 12:46 +0100, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
Ok, I just committed some more fixes to ntfsresize. It never actually
unmounted the volume, just exited which was very rude of it!
It's intentionally not umounted.
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
It's intentionally not umounted. Ntfsresize __rewrites__ NTFS and it's
dangerous to umount because that could interfer, corrupt or destroy the
resized, consistent NTFS.
Do you not keep the ntfs_volume of the mount consistent with your
On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 13:08 +0100, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
It's intentionally not umounted. Ntfsresize __rewrites__ NTFS and it's
dangerous to umount because that could interfer, corrupt or destroy the
resized, consistent NTFS.
Do
On Tuesday 28 November 2006 13:08, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
There are two NTFS during resizing. The original and the resized. When
the resizing is over then the latter is consistent and the old one is
irrelevant. ntfsresize doesn't work like the other utilities: mount,
modify, umount. It
Hi Szaka,
No, this does unfortunately not make Vista boot for me. :-(
Cheers,
Andree
On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 04:03 +0200, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
Hi,
Could you please try this after running ntfsresize and before booting
Vista:
dd if=PARTITION bs=512 count=1 | dd of=PARTITION
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006, Frans Pop wrote:
On Sunday 26 November 2006 02:13, you wrote:
Could you please also test that whether Vista boots if you remove
/pagefile.sys after ntfsresize? You can use ntfs-3g for this, it's in
Debian unstable. Usage: http://www.ntfs-3g.org/index.html#usage
Or
On Saturday 25 November 2006 01:17, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006, Frans Pop wrote:
I hope the info available now will be sufficient to track down the
problem. If not, I could repeat the procedure and also generate an
image after running the Windows 2000 chkdsk.
Please.
Hi,
Thanks for your help and the images.
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006, Frans Pop wrote:
I hope the info available now will be sufficient to track down the
problem. If not, I could repeat the procedure and also generate an image
after running the Windows 2000 chkdsk.
Please. That could be very
Hi,
Could you please try this after running ntfsresize and before booting
Vista:
dd if=PARTITION bs=512 count=1 | dd of=PARTITION seek=LAST_SECTOR
where LAST_SECTOR is the last sector on PARTITION. It can be calculated
by running
sfdisk -d DISK | grep PARTITION
and then by
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Frans Pop wrote:
I've tried this in vmware. Apparently you should be able to use the Vista
installer's Recovery Environment [1] to run chkdsk.
Unfortunately it seems that the Vista installer dislikes what ntfsresize
has done so much that that also fails to boot!
It's
On Thursday 23 November 2006 00:27, Szaka wrote:
It's possible that it checks the boot sector for changes, e.g. against
viruses, rootkits, etc.
I still don't see why it should affect booting the _installer_. Is
reinstallation not the final (and in the case of Windows often the only)
option to
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Frans Pop wrote:
On Thursday 23 November 2006 00:27, Szaka wrote:
It's possible that it checks the boot sector for changes, e.g. against
viruses, rootkits, etc.
I still don't see why it should affect booting the _installer_.
I think this is a beta2 bug which was
Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006, Frans Pop wrote:
On Thursday 09 November 2006 09:03, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
Andree confirmed that it's true for data partitions as well. You should
have got a copy too.
But that seems completely inconsistent with what you wrote in the rest of
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
Perhaps try replacing ntdetect.com and ntldr with the versions that came
with an earlier Vista beta? For reference see:
47 matches
Mail list logo
