Corrupt DOS Partition
Joanne Armstrong
partition had become damaged. On examining the partition it was left with
only 3 corrupt files in it and obviously was unable to boot up. After
restoring the files to the partition I discovered no problems with the
volumes and no signs of any hardware failures. My partner who works for a
different organisation has also had this happen twice on a NW6SP3 server.
I am concerned that it may happen again. Any ideas?
Andrew C Taubman
that might explain your partner's problems:
"Corruption of the DOS partition when over 1.5 gb when using the Smart Start
CD version 6.0 or after. This uses the Linux loader."
We and Compaq are still working on that one. Yours I have no real idea
about. Checked for viruses on the Dos partition?
--
Andrew C Taubman
Novell Support Connection Volunteer SysOp
http://support.novell.com/forums
(Sorry, support is not provided via e-mail)
OneNet is better than nothing.NET
Opinions expressed in the above text are not
necessarily those of Novell Inc.
Joanne Armstrong
This probably will explain both instances since mine was also creased using
Smartstart 6.10 just recently.
"Andrew C Taubman" <ataubman.Remo...@Novell.AndThis.com> wrote in
message news:lhRDa.4187$Tm6....@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
le...@hotmail.com
Smartstart
> that might explain your partner's problems:
>
> "Corruption of the DOS partition when over 1.5 gb when using the Smart
Start
> CD version 6.0 or after. This uses the Linux loader."
I am also having this problem, on a number of servers, all created with
Smartstart 6.0 or later.
However I have spoken at length to both Novell and Compaq who both deny
ever hearing of this issue, let alone working on a fix.
Do you have any links to TIDs etc. that can explain this better and also
show that Novell and Compaq are aware of the issue and working on a fix?
Portlock Software Support
to the frontline people as yet.
Both Compaq and Novell will be releasing TIDs very soon describing the
problem.
The problem is that SmartStart v6.x initializes the partition to be
1500MB regardless of the size that you selected in custom. This causes
the following two things to happen
1. FDISK size and the DOS partition header sizes are different.
2. The File Allocation Tables are initialized wrong.
During our testing of the problem we have discovered that as long as you
do not use MS-DOS on your server you should be safe. If however you have
say SYSed the C: drive with MS-DOS and have set the DOS partition to be
less than 1500MB then you may have a serious problem.
Lets say you have an ABEND on your server and you decide to dump it to
the C: drive. Instead of stopping at 500MB (if you set DOS drive to be
500MB in SmartStart) it will keep writing. This would mean that you
would potentially lose your SYS: volume because is normally located
straight after the DOS partition. If you have a traditional volume then
this is catastrophic because the FAT tables of a traditional volume are
located at the beginning and these would be overwritten with no hope of
recovery.
Our recommendations at present are to do the following
If your server was created by SmartStart v6.x then
1. Do not write any data to the C: drive until you have verified if you
have the problem. To see if you have the problem you can download the
evaluation version of Portlock Storage Manager (v3.16 or better). When
it loads it does the C: drive check and it will report it. You can
download it from http://www.portlock.com/download.htm
2. Do not panic if the error comes up (and your server is working fine)
you have not lost anything.
3. You have two choices one is to fix the problem or wait for HP
to release a fix.
If you want to fix the problem then you could do the following:
1) Copy chkdsk.exe to your system. Make sure that you are using the same
version of chkdsk as the OS version. The newer Novell NetWare CDs have
chkdsk.exe on them. You could also purchase a copy of DR-DOS from
www.drdos.com
2) Run chkdsk to see if there is corruption. If the corruption is not
too serious run "chkdsk /F" on each DOS drive to fix the corruption.
Note that this will not correct the problem partitions (this is the size
issue).
3) Use Storage Manager to copy the DOS partition:
a) Partition Commands -> Partition Copy (copy the partition somewhere else)
b) Delete the original DOS partition.
c) Copy the partition back to the original location resizing during the
copy (Select change cluster size).
d) Partition Commands -> Activate Partition (double check that the DOS
partition is ACTIVE)
4) You may need to execute SYS C: to get the partition booting again
(depends on the corruption).You would run this command from a booting
floppy diskette.
--
Portlock Software Support
Portlock Software
65 East Broadway
Butte, MT 59701
T: 406-723-5200
F: 406-723-5205
http://www.portlocksoftware.com/support.htm
sup...@portlocksoftware.com
news://support-forums.portlocksoftware.com/portlock.support.storage-manager
Joseph Moore [SysOp]
> spoken at length to both Novel
>
you may have noticed that Andrew works for Novell - so you can trust
that he knows this issue is true.
Joe Moore
Novell Support Connection Volunteer Sysop
http://www.portlocksoftware.com - StorageManager rocks!
http://www.caledonia.net/sysops.html
NO EMAIL PLEASE!!!!!
Joanne Armstrong
server I have used DR-DOS. The DOS partition I have created is 2GB. This
does not fit in with your explanation that it only happens when using MS-DOS
greating a partion less than 1500MB.
I accept the fact that the difference between the actual size and the
reported size may cause problems however this is not restricted to the
conditions which you claim to cause the problem.
"Portlock Software Support" <sup...@portlocksoftware.com> wrote in message
news:ee4Ea.4960$Tm6....@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
Joanne Armstrong
"Andrew C Taubman" <ataubman.Remo...@Novell.AndThis.com> wrote in
message news:lhRDa.4187$Tm6....@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
le...@hotmail.com
>
> > spoken at length to both Novel
> >
>
> you may have noticed that Andrew works for Novell - so you can trust
> that he knows this issue is true.
If an issue of this seriousness is true (as I am not actually doubting, I
just want some official confirmation) then where is the information
regarding this?
Surely Novell should be posting customer advisory notices so that we don't
just blindly run into this problem.
Honesty is the best policy after all.
Joanne Armstrong
they are aware of it. I have however been told that they have no plans in
the pipeline to deal with it. They belive that it is due to selecting the
maximum DOS partition size during the Smartstart install and told me that
they cannot understand why anyone would want to do this! All they can
suggest is to recreate the DOS partition at 1500MB using Smartstart or do a
manual reinstall of NW.
Since the problem I have exists on two live servers does Novell have another
less drastic suggestion?
"Portlock Software Support" <sup...@portlocksoftware.com> wrote in message
news:ee4Ea.4960$Tm6....@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
Andrew C Taubman
another less drastic suggestion?
Did you read Portlock's post? They do say how to determine whether you have
this problem and how to fix it.
Andrew C Taubman
anything new would have to come from HP as it is their bug.
le...@hotmail.com
> have the problem. To see if you have the problem you can download the
> evaluation version of Portlock Storage Manager (v3.16 or better). When
> it loads it does the C: drive check and it will report it. You can
> download it from http://www.portlock.com/download.htm
I looked at this and it says that the evaluation download is limited to
partitions etc. of less than 1GB.
Will this evaluation work for a dos partition of 2GB (or 1.5Gb or whatever
it actually is) The [possibly] affected servers are pretty much 24*7 so I
cannot just take them down when ever I want.
Thanks
Lee
Andy Rowland
in the rear in a hurry sort of supersede this until fixed, don't they?
If it's that 24/7 you need a cluster or something......
In article <LngFa.7211$Tm6....@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com>,
<le...@hotmail.com> wrote:
--
--Andy Rowland
arow...@hannibal.kaytwelve.mo.us
John
had been running NW5.1 for anything up to 2 weeks, and this is how we
fixed them up.
Luckily we had one of the servers that the DOS partition had not been
corrupted so we copied the files off the drive and created a CD.
You can do this by either launching Netbasic and copying the files or
boot with a Network Shell and copy the files to another server.
Create a Floppy DOS Boot disk (the same version of DOS as was
originally installed)
Boot with the floppy
From A:/> type FDISK
You will need to delete the primary Partiton and then you will need to
create a Primary Partition of 1500Mb or less and Re-Write the Master
Boot Record
The server needs to reboot off the floppy again
From A:\> type FORMAT C: /S /X /U
Now your 1500Mb partition is ready for you original files to be copied
back.
We also deleted the servcfg.*
So far we have not had any further problems nowever the "Load
Config.nlm" no longer is able to report from the C: drive (so if
anyone knows an answer for that it would be appreciated)
Portlock Software Support
You are correct the evaluation version is limited to partitions of 1GB
in size.
The suggestion for the download was more a case of seeing if it reported
the problem for you.
Besides the method mentioned previously using Portlock Storage Manager
you of course always have the old fashioned way but as with all of these
sorts of operations make sure that you have a verified backup of your
server before beginning (or better yet use the evaluation version and
image your server before you start).
You could copy all the files from the C: drive to another location.
Delete the DOS partition using FDISK reboot your server to your DOS boot
disk. Create a new DOS partition and reboot again.
Format the newly partitioned C: drive as bootable and then copy all of
your files back. This will also solve the problem.
As always if you are not sure of any of the steps mentioned above
consult a NetWare professional because if you take the wrong step you
could lose all of your data.
We have been told from Novell that HP are working on a fix and will be
releasing a Customer Advisory (for HP) and that Novell will post it as a
TID as soon as Compaq release it.
The good news is that when SmartStart v6.40 gets released it will not
have the problem.
le...@hotmail.com wrote:
--
Portlock Software Support
The best insurance for NetWare is free
Download the evaluation version of Portlock Storage Manager and image
your server before you do your next service pack or version upgrade.
le...@hotmail.com
>
> You are correct the evaluation version is limited to partitions of 1GB
> in size.
>
> The suggestion for the download was more a case of seeing if it reported
> the problem for you.
>
than 1GB, though? I am assuming it will (or there would be no point) but
your instructions imply it may not.
> As always if you are not sure of any of the steps mentioned above
> consult a NetWare professional because if you take the wrong step you
> could lose all of your data.
I like to think I *am* a netware professional.
Joanne Armstrong
identical server which was okay we loaded dosfat.nss on this server. We
then connected through from the other server using a universal client and
copied the files across. Then had to make the DOS partition a system disk.
This allowed us to boot. I cannot however load dosfat.nss on the server I
had a problem with. This just abends the server. I did however leave the
DOS partition at 2GB since this all took place before I reported this
problem.
I accept that we can all find ways around this problem but it does lead to
server down time and I still have no guarantee that this will not happen
again on other servers.
Joanne Armstrong
"John" <john....@npws.nsw.gov.au> wrote in message
news:85af456a.03061...@posting.google.com...
Joseph Moore [SysOp]
> where is the information
> regarding this?
AFAIK, it has not been posted in Novell's database because HP has not
found a fix for it - and Novell cannot afford to alienate vendors right
now. It is an HP bug, it is up to HP to fix it and notify their
customers - if they choose not to fix it, I would start climbing the
ladder and yelling at them - that usually works.
> Honesty is the best policy after all.
>
I agree 100% - however, I don't make policy for Novell. try
jmes...@novell.com :)
Joseph Moore [SysOp]
> I looked at this and it says that the evaluation download is limited to
> partitions etc. of less than 1GB.
>
That is correct - however, it will *tell* you if you have the problem, and
then you have the option to fix it by purchasing a copy of Storage
Manager, or yelling at HP until they fix it, or yelling at HP until they
pay for your copy of Storage Manager
le...@hotmail.com
>
> > where is the information
> > regarding this?
>
> AFAIK, it has not been posted in Novell's database because HP has not
> found a fix for it - and Novell cannot afford to alienate vendors right
> now. It is an HP bug, it is up to HP to fix it and notify their
> customers - if they choose not to fix it, I would start climbing the
> ladder and yelling at them - that usually works.
>
So alienating customers is a better solution?
Novell could highlight the problem and the workround (create dos
partitions smaller than 1.5GB) without actually pointing fingers or
alienating HP/Compaq if they really wanted to.
Dave Lunn
some info from us, but we are likely as close or closer to the ground in
matters like this than Novell, because we hear directly from the users every
day.
Novell does maintain these forums and help us provide *this* information to
you. So, with free support here, and information here at your disposal, you
should be able to manage right?
All you have to do is ask if you can't be bothered to read the forums. I'd
say that's a fair bargain from Novell for keeping you informed about someone
else's problems. You sure don't get close to that from HP/Compaq.
--
Dave Lunn
NSF SysOp
http://support.novell.com
Joanne Armstrong
advisory about this problem before the end of next week.
"Andrew C Taubman" <ataubman.Remo...@Novell.AndThis.com> wrote in
message news:lhRDa.4187$Tm6....@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
Todd Jetzer
That is all well and good, but when will there be a fix and will HP be
responsible for the costs of keeping this equipment running?
I will share my story:
I'm glad to see our company is not the only one but at the same time I
am sorry that you are all experiencing this same problem. We too have
been dealing with this issue.
We have an ML370 that was installed on 02.02.03. Since then it has
gone down 3 times.
The first time Compaq said they had no clue and have never seen this
before. Novell said either something was installed wrong, we had some
sort of virus, or we had been hacked. The more they talked to us and
our supplier the more they made it sound like we had been hacked. We
rebuilt the server with tighter security. This occured 28 days from
the server going live.
The second time, exaclty 28 days from the last time, Compaq's answer
was to throw a new mainboard and raid controller in the box. This
time they acknowledged 5 more cases like ours. Novell said "Not our
problem." Our supplier installed the new hardware and got us up and
running agian.
28 days later happened to be Memorial day. We were concerned about
the server going down again as this seemed to be the pattern. We
periodically checked the server throughout the day to see if it was
still up. Everything worked great. We thought we may have fixed our
issue.
Two weeks later it goes down again. Compaq now tells us there are
hundreds of cases like ours. They say they are working on a solution.
They say SmartStart is causing it and the fix will be in version 6.4.
However there is no time frame for a release. Their answer this
time on how to fix it "We don't know."
Luckily the third time we were able to put in a temporary server and
migrate all the data before taking down the ML370. We are very
fortunate to have a supplier that is willing to let us use a server
while we work out this issue.
Here is a summary of our situation. We have a $10,000 server that was
supposed to run our business but it barely functions. When it does
function we can't trust it. Since the installation it has cost us
over $10,000 to keep it "running." That does not include monetary
loss due to downtime. We now have a temporary server in place that
can not run Zen because of lack of resources. Our ML370 can be put
back in to place in a day or two but will still have same issue.
We have come up with this solution: If SmartStart is causing the
problem we won't load it.
We'll see how far that gets us.
Good luck to you with your woes, I hope they aren't as bad as ours. I
hope to check back here and see some sort of resolution from HP on
this soon.
"Joanne Armstrong" <jarms...@rossceramics.co.uk> wrote
in message news:<8hfGa.1126$gi5...@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com>...
Joanne Armstrong
the DOS Partition again. I love spending my entire weekend at work. Looks
like IBM or Dell will be getting my business from now on. As for these
servers perhaps I will install Windows!
"Todd Jetzer" <tje...@shebareacu.com> wrote in message
news:dbac1122.03061...@posting.google.com...
le...@hotmail.com
goes
> the DOS Partition again. I love spending my entire weekend at work.
Looks
> like IBM or Dell will be getting my business from now on. As for these
> servers perhaps I will install Windows!
>
It is already fairly difficult to justify Netware 6.x over Windows 2000/3
so this just looks like the icing on the cake.
Now with Novell's movement away from meaningful customer services W2K on
IBM seems the best solution.
Andrew C Taubman
> Novell's movement away from meaningful customer services
Excuse me? What on earth are you referring to?
le...@hotmail.com
> > Novell's movement away from meaningful customer services
>
> Excuse me? What on earth are you referring to?
> --
Given this is a problem that Novell must have known about for at least 3
months, and given the impact when this happens, the fact that Novell have
nothing on their knowledgebase regarding this and when phoned claim they
are unaware of this problem sort of indicates a movement away from
meaningful customer services, wouldn't you agree?
Let me ask you this: Do *you* think it is reasonable for Novell to
knowingly and willingly cover up a serious flaw, albeit in a third party
product?
How many people have fallen foul of this when a simple warning from Novell
(or indeed Compaq, but this is not Compaq's forum) could have prevented
the extra work, downtime, and general grief?
I have heard you are a Novell Employee. Assuming that is true does this
all make you feel proud?
Dave Parkes
But it has been discussed in the forums though, isn't that sufficient
warning. And it was the Portlock guys who answered you with the exact
cause of the problem here in this very thread.
Cheers Dave
--
Dave Parkes [NSCS]}}
Occasionally resident at http://support-forums.novell.com/
Andrew C Taubman
> the fact that Novell have
> nothing on their knowledgebase regarding this and when phoned claim
> they are unaware of this problem sort of indicates a movement away
> from meaningful customer services, wouldn't you agree?
No. And as I provide "meaningful customer services" for a living, i
think I'm in a better position to judge than you are.
>Do you think it is reasonable for Novell to knowingly and willingly
cover up a serious flaw, albeit in a third party product?
I don't agree we covered up anything. Our frontline guys were genuinely
unaware of this problem. You are accusing them of being aware of it but
not telling you. I'd like to know your evidence for this libellous
claim.
>I have heard you are a Novell Employee. Assuming that is true does
this all make you feel proud?
It neither make me feel proud nor shame. All I feel is disgust at your
unfounded allegations against the good name of Novell.
Joanne Armstrong
imagined Novell to be should have published something on their website about
this. This problem must be affecting a lot of users since many people have
used HP/Compaq hardware with Netware. I always imagined there to be a good
relationship between the companies and considered Smartstart to be a very
good product. I get the feeling that since the HP/Compaq merger that this
relationship has fallen by the wayside. Installation of Netware is no
longer a primary option within Smartstart and this latest incident shows the
lack of effort HP/Compaq are putting into their testing and research with
Netware products.
Surely Novell should be stepping in here to ensure that its customers are
getting a reliable service or issue a customer advisory against using
Smartstart in the installation process. We do not expect Novell to take the
blame for this problem. We just expect them to provide the customer advice
in the way that Novell has done so often in the past.
The ability to post on this forum is great - at least it gives you a
starting point, however it is not official information/advice from Novell.
Due to this lack of official status any advice given here has to be treated
with a fairly big pinch of salt. No way am I going to do something drastic
to my network just on the sayso of Joe Bloggs who posted something here.
I'm going to check it out first. An official announcement from Novell
however would give network professionals more confidence in their decisions.
How can I go to our board of directors and tell them I want to ditch these
Compaq servers because of something that has been posted on a forum?
Similarly how can I tell my supplier to take them back as they are unfit for
the purpose for which they were sold? It is HP/Compaq we want to hit out
at - but we need Novells ammunition to do this.
This is a serious problem. I have lost my DOS partition twice. On trying
to recreate it smaller the second time I also lost my Netware partition.
Fortunately it was backed up. I'm sure that this is causing a lot of down
time on many networks and that there are many network professionals who do
not want to take their servers down for fear that they will not come back up
again. Like it or not without an official statement many users are going to
assume that it is a Netware problem. After all this problem is only
occuring with Netware! If Novell do not issue official advice it will be
seen as indifference or arrogance. Is this really the image that you want
to portray?
"Andrew C Taubman" <ataubman.Remo...@novell.AndThis.com> wrote in
message news:L9tHa.1574$Qe2....@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
Dave Lunn
> months,
What gives you the idea that Novell knew about this and understood the
problem for "3 months"? Even if initial reports came in then, Novell would
need a fair amount of time to discern that there was a pattern and what it
was.
> Let me ask you this: Do *you* think it is reasonable for Novell to
> knowingly and willingly cover up a serious flaw, albeit in a third party
> product?
First, Novell is not obligated to debug other company's product.
Second, that's a very serious charge to make can you back it up?
These forums are about as close to the front edge of spotting problems like
this as you can get. They are completely open. I have never seen a SysOp
disavow a known problem, and to the contrary, we do not flinch at telling
users here that a given piece of software/patch is a POS and not to install
it.
Consider the problem from another angle. The NTS tech on the phone (who is
a Novell employee) works a caller through this problem and writes it up.
There may well be a substantial time lag between his handling of the problem
and his publication of it. That does not mean by any stretch of the
imagination that the problem is understood yet, nor communicated to all the
other NTS techs. The time to failure is extended and variable in this
problem. Recognition of a pattern here could hardly happen overnight.
You need to lighten up a little. This is a severe problem indeed, but you
have a place to enlighten yourself about it in as timely a manner as
possible made available to you by Novell at no cost.
You got a better place to help you out, there are 30 some SysOps who'll
listen.
You have but to compare to Microsoft whose NOS is shot through with security
holes and their after the fact address of that problem.
le...@hotmail.com
felt like arguing but see no point.
If you are prepared neither to read nor understand what is posted I see no
point in adding to the spam on this topic. If you want to discuss this
further with me the clue is in the question. Or in this case, the email
address is in the email address field, surprised you missed it, actually.
Lance Reynolds
> I'm sure that this is causing a lot of down
> time on many networks and that there are many network professionals
> who do not want to take their servers down for fear that they will
> not come back up again.
I think if I were one of those admins, I'd be copying c:\autoexec.bat.
c:\config.sys, and c:\nwserver\*.* /s to a cd and blowing away that DOS
partition created by SmartStart. Then create a new one with MSDOS or
DRDOS, format c: /s, then copy the contents back. Downtime = 15
minutes tops.
--
Lance Reynolds, CNE
Using XanaNews 1.15.2.7
le...@hotmail.com
Unless you lose your SYS volume as well, of course. And given that there
is still no official confirmation of this from HP or Novell most of those
admins might view this as a bit higher risk than just 15 minutes of
downtime.
Tim Edmonds
causes a serious issue with Vendor B's products, so it is the responsibility
of Vendor B to make the world aware of it and fix it??? Is it the fault of
Vendor B that Vendor A made your world miserable? Interesting concept...
Why is it that people are lambasting (very wrongly, IMHO) Novell over this
instead of pursuing HP to take responsibility and fix it?
"Joanne Armstrong" <jarms...@rossceramics.co.uk> wrote in message
news:WWWHa.3136$Qe2...@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
Lance Reynolds
> Why is it that people are lambasting (very wrongly, IMHO) Novell over
> this instead of pursuing HP to take responsibility and fix it?
Exactly. It's not as if you can't do a manual install of Netware as a
workaround.
Tim Edmonds
Fortunately, (or unfortunately in some cases), we use IBM. We do Now, lets
get into using Storage Manager, CE100 NICs, and what they do to PC-DOS
partitions when doing server to server imaging...
"Lance Reynolds" <lan...@SPAMsatco.biz> wrote in message
news:hFJJa.8229$Qe2....@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...