Re: moving filesystems- Unix good, Windows bad
From: Yor Suiris (yor_at_hallgroupNOT.net)
Date: 05/26/04
- Next message: Arcelious Elliott: "win2k bug errors"
- Previous message: msacks: "Tape Backup - Q239892"
- In reply to: Jaz: "moving filesystems- Unix good, Windows bad"
- Next in thread: Matthias Tacke: "Re: moving filesystems- Unix good, Windows bad"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 13:41:32 -0400
YES, YES, YES,
I have always had trouble with MS System Partitions filling up and then no
good/easy method to move them to another disk. From NT 3.51 to my current
2K servers I always created a partition that was at least twice the
recommended size and then put as much as possible on other drives. But!
after time (a year or two) the system drive is chewed up and I need a larger
one.
With NT 4 I would Mirror the old drive with another old drive then break the
mirror and copy the copy to a fresh hard drive, set it active and reboot.
Worked OK.
But since Win2K, Well as soon as the O/S sees a drive it commandeers it and
makes it "Difficult" to get it running in another machine.
Curse Bill! No, Curse all the idiots who keep giving MS money for crap
products.
Ah, that is better. We should have these rants more often Jaz.
-- Yor Suiris Remove the kNOT to reply. But it is best to share it with the group. "Jaz" <harbell@beerburp.com> wrote in message news:hoi9b0tcqrk5ltp1cdsqj2sgvh3eg690i9@4ax.com... > > Hi all, I hope someone can suggest a method of moving filesystems on > Windows. This is just silly, the lack of tools and methods... > > I've tried ghost, cygwin (tar piped to cd;tar), but can't figure out > how to get a large filesystem moved without destroying it. (By > "destroyed" I mean, timeststamps changed, shortcuts replaced by > targets, long filenames truncated, etc.) > > In the case of Ghost -- booting from floppy AND installing Ghost > Enterprise (which then reboots into dos) -- I get 200MB per minute... > PER MINUTE!!! On a 160MByte/second disk interface!!! This between two > Maxtor Atlas 10K drives which should have a throughput of nearly > 90MByte per second (at best). I'm therefore getting 200/(90*60)= 3.7% > of threoritical maximum data transfer. Average! > > Ummm, this simply doesn't happen with Unix systems. Why doesn't M$ > build in tools for managing disk subsystems?! I searched for an > entire day for tools to do this, but with no luck whatsoever. > > <rant> > > I love Sun equipment. I've used Sun from SunOS 3.x, and have > maintained filesystems well over a TB. If I need to a filesystem to a > larger disk or to raid, I just boot into single user, mount up a new > device, and: tar cf - . | (cd newpath; tar xfBp -) > This preserves long paths and symlinks, and i can compare the count of > each file type using find just to make sure nothing is missing. > > But Windows?! What a joke! Why is it that all the companies I've > worked for over the past two years use Windows as file servers (or any > server for that matter). Okay, the answer is clear: Exchange, > Outlook, Project, etc., and the executive mentality is that they can > have their cake and eat it too, if they throw a ton of money at the > security and maintenance problems. > > But for us techies who maintain the hardware... We have to deal with > crap support from Dell (flame on) -- tho I give good marks to HP and > IBM -- and a disgusting mire of OS problem from Microsoft. > > </rant> > > Phew! Feels good to get that off my chest. > So, any suggestions, ideas, or expressions of pity? > > Thanks in advance, > JAZ > (Please excuse the 'burp' when replying)
- Next message: Arcelious Elliott: "win2k bug errors"
- Previous message: msacks: "Tape Backup - Q239892"
- In reply to: Jaz: "moving filesystems- Unix good, Windows bad"
- Next in thread: Matthias Tacke: "Re: moving filesystems- Unix good, Windows bad"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|