RE: NTFS reliability
- From: "richard" <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 17:16:03 -0700
don't be so worry about it, there's new filesystem coming soon, WINFS. but i
think that NTFS is still the successor one so far.
"technion@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was just wondering if NTFS is really as unreliable as our experiences
> have shown.
> We run one Windows 2003 server with good hardware, battery backed cache
> on the RAID, and one reasonably dodgey machine with Windows 2000, along
> with several Linux and OpenBSD servers off one UPS.
>
> During a series of UPS failures, we had a lot of unexplained shutdowns,
> and every time, both Windows machines would fail to come back up,
> citing INACCESSIBLE_BOOT_DEVICE. A recovery console and chkdsk later,
> we had resolved everything, in all but one case where we had to break
> out a backup and start restoring.
>
> None of the *nix machines experienced any sort of issue at any point.
>
> So, have I had bad luck, or does NTFS really just fail to work?
>
> Before you ask, we have disabled write caching on the server which does
> not have battery backed cache.
>
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: NTFS reliability
- From: Todd J Heron
- Re: NTFS reliability
- References:
- NTFS reliability
- From: technion
- NTFS reliability
- Prev by Date: Re: Program will run in Terminal Session
- Next by Date: RE: unable to see all the nodes
- Previous by thread: Re: NTFS reliability
- Next by thread: Re: NTFS reliability
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
