Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 13th May 2012 18:43 UTC
Windows I may not be particularly enamoured with how badly Windows 8 handles mouse, keyboard, and window management right now, but as far as under-the-hood improvements go, Microsoft is packing. They're redone much of the chkdsk utility, but they forgot to fix one important thing: rename the darn thing to checkdisk already!
Thread beginning with comment 517944
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
What is so significant?
by Victor.Drake on Sun 13th May 2012 20:04 UTC
Victor.Drake
Member since:
2012-01-11

They're redone much of the chkdsk utility?

From reading the linked text it seems to me as if MS just separated detecting filesystem errors and fixing them.
So now a FS scan can be run while the FS is online. Only for fixing errors the FS has to taken offline for a short while. (And it does not work for very severe FS damage, in those cases the scan still has to be offline)

So please correct me if I am wrong, but it looks as if NTFS health model is still miles away from ZFS.

Reply Score: 5

RE: What is so significant?
by malxau on Sun 13th May 2012 23:57 in reply to "What is so significant?"
malxau Member since:
2005-12-04

From reading the linked text it seems to me as if MS just separated detecting filesystem errors and fixing them.
So now a FS scan can be run while the FS is online. Only for fixing errors the FS has to taken offline for a short while. (And it does not work for very severe FS damage, in those cases the scan still has to be offline)


It can fix certain errors while remaining online (referred to in the article as self healing.) Per the article, this has been improved to handle more things online in Windows 8.

ReFS does not have a chkdsk, and it can perform salvage entirely online.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: What is so significant?
by Kebabbert on Mon 14th May 2012 10:04 in reply to "RE: What is so significant?"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

ReFS does not have a chkdsk, and it can perform salvage entirely online.

Yeah that is cool. But how safe is ReFS? I would like to see research on ReFS first. As CERN points out, it is not trivial to make a safe filesystem, and CERN examined even Enterprise storage solutions. Even they could not always protect against Data corruption. It is very hard to do correctly.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: What is so significant?
by REM2000 on Mon 14th May 2012 15:23 in reply to "What is so significant?"
REM2000 Member since:
2006-07-25

yeah the one key feature missing is data checksums to know if the data has become silently corrupted.

The changes look good and should really speed up workstations and servers, its the servers im especially looking forward to, i hate having to take them offline to do a thorough check.

I don't think ive come across a file system being completely un-salvageable under NTFS (excluding dynamic volumes) Ive had data corruption but generally the rest of the file system has managed to stand up to it. Overall i find NTFS a solid FS, handles errors well, as well as many files of all types, even when i don't safely unplug external disk drives.

Completely off topic, i just wish Apple would invest in HFS+ or replace it with something else (ZFS would be ideal if it wasn't for the memory overhead). As i find this the least stable of all filesystems ive used.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: What is so significant?
by Kebabbert on Tue 15th May 2012 10:10 in reply to "RE: What is so significant?"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

yeah the one key feature missing is data checksums to know if the data has become silently corrupted.

Completely off topic, i just wish Apple would invest in HFS+ or replace it with something else (ZFS would be ideal if it wasn't for the memory overhead). As i find this the least stable of all filesystems ive used.

CERN says that it is not as simple as adding checksums all over the place. The disks got lot of checksums and error detecting code, and still they get corrupted.

Regarding Apple, Z-410 is a company that sells their ZFS port to Mac OS X.

Reply Parent Score: 2