<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=us-ascii" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi Bruce,<br>
<br>
I think the answer to your question "Why does NTFS need the elaborate
fix procedure you show above" has to do with the fact that the problem
was created by malware, which by definition doesn't follow the rules,
and could create corruption of data structures in memory and on disk,
or just create some data structures on disk that we don't have good and
easily available tools to resolve.<br>
<br>
I think an analogy might be if someone changed the filesystem
attributes of a file or directory to immutable on linux, and then you
weren't able to do anything with that particular file or directory, AND
you didn't have chattr or debuge2fs utilities available to you to fix
it. e2fsck might not report anything wrong because immutable is a
perfectly legitimate attribute. What would you do to get rid of the
last traces of malware in that case? I'm just giving this as an
example of why NTFS might be more problematic to debug and fix than
ext[234]fs, especially because NTFS has the rich ACL permissions model.<br>
<br>
Jim<br>
-- <br>
Jim Ockers, P.E., P.Eng. (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ockers@ockers.net">ockers@ockers.net</a>)<br>
Contact info: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ockers.net/">http://www.ockers.net/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
Bruce Ediger wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:alpine.LNX.2.00.1203080948170.8946@dagoo.intranet"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Wed, 7 Mar 2012, David L. Willson wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">1) Use CHKDSK to repair the filesystem
2) Use TAKEOWN to ...
3) Use ICACLS to ...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I thought about this for a while, and I worry about being contentious
or whatever, so feel free to slap me down for this...
I also may be showing my age. In 1993-94, when NT first came out, the
Windows advocates were all saying that NTFS would never require the
moral eqivalent of a "fsck", because of the great design of NTFS.
Although I've been an at-work Windows user for 8 years now, I've never
really experienced an NTFS oddity that required a CHKDSK (which is the
moral equivalent of "fsck", right?).
On the other hand, I've never since 1988 had a Unix or NetBSD or Linux
filesystem not easily fixable by "fsck -p", except when the disk drive
died with audible scraping noises and thunks.
Why does NTFS need the elaborate fix procedure you show above? And why
is NTFS so "magical" that alternate (linux) tools can't fix it? The
NetBSD folks were able to modify UFS to become ext2fs fairly readily,
and at least a couple of Linux reverse-engineered NTFS implementations
exist, right?
_______________________________________________
clue mailing list: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:clue@cluedenver.org">clue@cluedenver.org</a>
For information, account preferences, or to unsubscribe see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue">http://cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>