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 518046
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: What is so significant?
by REM2000 on Mon 14th May 2012 15:23 UTC 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

RE[3]: What is so significant?
by REM2000 on Wed 16th May 2012 19:11 in reply to "RE[2]: What is so significant?"
REM2000 Member since:
2006-07-25

i was hoping that something could be added just to check the integrity of files a little better on NTFS, similar to ZFS. It would be nice to now if there has been some corruption as I've experienced it a few times myself (again i blame HFS+ for this) i dread to think how it affects the servers at work. It would allow us to be a little more proactive.

thanks for the reminder, i did look at there web site a few months ago, I'm a little cautious and know i need to bite the bullet and just give it a whirl, i think part of me just hopes that apple will do something about their file system and i can keep my Mac's as vanilla as possible.

Reply Parent Score: 2