Eero Ahonen wrote:
> easily than under 20GB partitions). Still today FAT - or at least it's
> Windows implementations - suck at least on some level when you have
> enough files.

No, that's true. Big directories are searched linearly, and the free space 
needs to get scanned to find blocks. So if your disk is big and close to 
full, allocating a block can take a lot of I/O, or require you to hold the 
entire map in memory.

Fat-64 (aka exFAT) seems to be designed to address just these problems.

>> That's odd. Did you run it manually? 
> Nope.

I suggest maybe "chkdsk /f" at the command line, schedule a scan, and 
reboot? :-)

> That's a known bug, I've hit it some time earlier also - there's no
> failure in filesystem, but Windows thinks it should be checked, like
> after unclean poweroff. There's a simple fix somewhere, I've just been
> too lazy to find it again :).

Oh, I remember that. Some of the disk drives didn't actually flush the last 
blocks written when you power them off. The patch just delays the actual 
remove-power-from-drive for a second or two so the drive will flush out the 
memory. But that's an ooooold bug.

> ...except that I'm running XP on that particular laptop.

Weird.

> I think I've been lucky, since I haven't got such thing. I think one of
> the nastiest things are that when antivirus updates the engine, it might
> ask for reboot - just finishing a line on some script and press enter...
> And there you go.

Yeah. That's what the focus stealing prevention is supposed to prevent. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message