Disk Utility vs Disk First Aid?
DJW
OS 9.2 and 10.4.11 on my hard drive on the same volume. I ran a verify
in OS 9 Disk First Aid and got errors showing. I decided that it might
be better to reboot into 10.4.11 and do the repair with the newer Disk
Utility since it is more current and it was used originally to format
the hard drive. I ran repair right away and to my surprise it reported
the disk was OK and did not even need repair. I rebooted back into 9.2
and ran Disk First Aid and chose repair right away. It took about
twenty minutes found the same errors again and said it repaired them.
Why could 10.4.11’s Disk Utility could not find the errors? And what
is the reason that Disk Utility shows two entries for each hard drive
(volume) of a drive not portioned? Why one entry of the make of the
hard drive and one with the volumes name. And is the repair or
verification a different procedure for when each entry is selected.
Should a person always select one over the other or if so which one
should be checked or repaired first?
Jamie Kahn Genet
I would say it makes best sense to use the newer utility, or at least
the one used to format the HD. You're inviting trouble by running old
classic MacOS era disk utility software on disks formatted in OSX.
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
nospam
Vilain <vil...@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
> Be very careful about mixing the disk structure of OS 9 and MacOS X.
> There were changes to the filesystem in one of the releases that made OS
> 9 flag things as damaged when MacOS X didn't have a problem with it. I
> stopped doing disk repairs in OS 9 altogether and only did them in MacOS
> X.
both support hfs+. there is no issue other than permissions and acls.
> OS 9 still uses resource forks which were removed in MacOS X.
resource forks were not removed and still actively used, by apple.
> While
> MacOS X's zip and tar can deal with those modifications, I used Stuffit
> for the longest time until I retired MacOS 9 and 10.4.11 entirely over a
> year ago.
stuffit is useful for the occasional .sit file, but that's about it.
> Also, OS 9 knows nothing about the Unix file permissions.
true.
> MacOS 9's Finder file attributes are separate from MacOS X's Unix inode
> attributes.
mac os 9's file attributes are still supported.
> MacOS 9's Finder file creator and type data is changed to
> file name extension at some point in MacOS X.
type and creator codes are still supported but they have a lower
priority than extensions.
> Do some research on the
> Apple web site to know what these issue are and make frequent backups.
yes, you should do both.
> And stay away from Disk Warrior and anything by Symantec. They will
> surely fowl up your system bigtime.
symantec will screw things up, but disk warrior is by far, the best
disk utility made. it's flat out amazing and will repair pretty much
anything.
Jamie Kahn Genet
> In article
> <1b5d19a7-2adc-4149...@a31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
> Be very careful about mixing the disk structure of OS 9 and MacOS X.
> There were changes to the filesystem in one of the releases that made OS
> 9 flag things as damaged when MacOS X didn't have a problem with it. I
> stopped doing disk repairs in OS 9 altogether and only did them in MacOS
> X. OS 9 still uses resource forks which were removed in MacOS X. While
> MacOS X's zip and tar can deal with those modifications, I used Stuffit
> for the longest time until I retired MacOS 9 and 10.4.11 entirely over a
> year ago. Also, OS 9 knows nothing about the Unix file permissions.
> MacOS 9's Finder file attributes are separate from MacOS X's Unix inode
> attributes. MacOS 9's Finder file creator and type data is changed to
> file name extension at some point in MacOS X. Do some research on the
> Apple web site to know what these issue are and make frequent backups.
>
> And stay away from Disk Warrior and anything by Symantec. They will
> surely fowl up your system bigtime.
I've found Diskwarrior to be an exceptional utility, that has never ever
made things worse, and almost always saves damaged disk directories. But
then I know to follow it's system requirements to the letter.
dorayme
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <vilain-369302....@news.individual.net>
> Michael Vilain <vil...@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
> > And stay away from Disk Warrior and anything by Symantec. They will
> > surely fowl up your system bigtime.
>
> There is nothing wrong with Disk Warrior.
Damn good program.
--
dorayme
nospam
Vilain <vil...@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
> > > And stay away from Disk Warrior and anything by Symantec. They will
> > > surely fowl up your system bigtime.
> >
> > There is nothing wrong with Disk Warrior.
>
> The copy I had totally hosed my system making it unbootable. /etc/ was
> gone. And a bunch of other links. The filesystem, when booted in
> single user mode was irrepairable. I'll never trust Disk Warrior again.
what did disk warrior say was wrong with the drive? disk warrior does
not modify anything unless you tell it to at the very end.
> Your milage may vary.
it absolutely does vary. disk warrior is a phenomenal product and has
recovered several corrupted drives for me.
George Kerby
On 8/25/11 2:33 PM, in article
vilain-369302....@news.individual.net, "Michael Vilain"
<vil...@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
> In article
> <1b5d19a7-2adc-4149...@a31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
> DJW <dd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have a few questions about apple disk repair utilities. I run both
>> OS 9.2 and 10.4.11 on my hard drive on the same volume. I ran a verify
>> in OS 9 Disk First Aid and got errors showing. I decided that it might
>> be better to reboot into 10.4.11 and do the repair with the newer Disk
>> Utility since it is more current and it was used originally to format
>> the hard drive. I ran repair right away and to my surprise it reported
>> the disk was OK and did not even need repair. I rebooted back into 9.2
>> and ran Disk First Aid and chose repair right away. It took about
>> twenty minutes found the same errors again and said it repaired them.
>> Why could 10.4.11零 Disk Utility could not find the errors? And what
>> is the reason that Disk Utility shows two entries for each hard drive
>> (volume) of a drive not portioned? Why one entry of the make of the
>> hard drive and one with the volumes name. And is the repair or
>> verification a different procedure for when each entry is selected.
>> Should a person always select one over the other or if so which one
>> should be checked or repaired first?
>
> And stay away from Disk Warrior and anything by Symantec. They will
> surely fowl up your system bigtime.
You really don't know how to use D.W., do you?
George Kerby
On 8/26/11 12:43 AM, in article
vilain-8E5D37....@news.individual.net, "Michael Vilain"
<vil...@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
> In article <slrnj5dvtc....@ibook-g4-2.local>,
> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>> In message <vilain-369302....@news.individual.net>
>> Michael Vilain <vil...@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
>>> And stay away from Disk Warrior and anything by Symantec. They will
>>> surely fowl up your system bigtime.
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with Disk Warrior.
>
> The copy I had totally hosed my system making it unbootable. /etc/ was
> gone. And a bunch of other links. The filesystem, when booted in
> single user mode was irrepairable. I'll never trust Disk Warrior again.
>
> Your milage may vary.
Like I said above...
Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu
> In article <slrnj5gap7....@ibook-g4-2.local>,
> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
> > In message <vilain-8E5D37....@news.individual.net>
> > Michael Vilain <vil...@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
> > > In article <slrnj5dvtc....@ibook-g4-2.local>,
> > > Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >
> > >> In message <vilain-369302....@news.individual.net>
> > >> Michael Vilain <vil...@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
> > >> > And stay away from Disk Warrior and anything by Symantec. They will
> > >> > surely fowl up your system bigtime.
> > >>
> > >> There is nothing wrong with Disk Warrior.
> >
> > > The copy I had totally hosed my system making it unbootable.
> >
> > Sounds like a PEBKAC problem to me. Thousands of people use Disk
> > Warrior, and have done for many many years. I've never heard anyone
> > claim it destroyed their system.
> >
> > Not to mention that Disk Warrior does *nothing* until you tell it to go
> > ahead and replace the catalog files.
> >
> > Maybe you are confusing it with some other utility? Like one from Norton
> > Virus Suite?
>
> No, I stopped using anything from Symantec in MacOS 9. This was a MacOS
> X disk that had corrupted directories that Disk Utility couldn't fix. I
> used Disk Warrior to 'fix' the directories. When I attempted to reboot,
> the system came up in single-user mode. fsck found a bunch of
> directories and bad links. /etc didn't point to /private/etc any more.
> And a bunch of other things were hosed beyond repair.
Did you actually save the recreated directory that Disk Warrior
created? The default would be not to.
Martin
MartinC
> If clicking 1 button labeled "Repair" is your definition of PEBKAC, then
> I guess I'm guilty.
Disk Warrior does not have a "Repair" button at all, so if you did hit that
in the past then (indeed) it was simply a different tool!
Disk Warrior has two dialogs with different buttons.
The initial dialog has a "Rebuild" button - this will create the new
directory in memory. The disk will not be changed at this stage.
Once it has finished the process, you will get a report window with details
about the results. If it encountered errors you will have the "mount
old/new" option (again, none of it modifies the disk).
The main button of the dialog is labelled "Replace", and if you hit that, DW
will try to write down the fresh directory to the disk. If you don't want
that, you can simply "Cancel".
So the sequence is first "Rebuild" and then "Replace" or "Cancel" - and this
is pretty straightforward and certainly not misleading.
David Empson
> In article <CA7D0F61.76375%ghost_...@hotmail.com>,
> Maybe I don't. I just know I had a corrupted directory that Disk
> Utility couldn't fix and Disk Warrior said it could. At the end of it
> all, I had a hosed, unbootable disk.
The problem is not that DiskWarrior hosed your system. It is that your
system was already hosed, and DiskWarrior didn't try to fix that part of
the damage.
DiskWarrior does one thing only: it rebuilds a damaged directory. After
DiskWarrior had worked on your drive, you would have had a valid
directory, but some files and folders might have been missing if
DiskWarrior was not able to locate them (e.g. because they had been
overwritten when the damage occurred).
DiskWarrior does not attempt to reconstruct missing or damaged files,
nor create directories or soft links which should be there as part of a
bootable system. That is your problem to deal with after you at least
have a valid directory to work with.
> Guess I should have read up on following the directions (which I did), but
> I suspect that either the disk was on the way out (I replaced it) or I
> clicked "fix it" in error. Either way, maybe I blamed Disk Warrior for the
> whole mess in error. You say I'm wrong. My experience with my hosed disk
> says otherwise.
Blaming DiskWarrior for the unbootable system is not reasonable.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
George Kerby
On 8/26/11 10:59 AM, in article
vilain-801FE3....@news.individual.net, "Michael Vilain"
<vil...@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
> In article <CA7D0F61.76375%ghost_...@hotmail.com>,
> George Kerby <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe I don't. I just know I had a corrupted directory that Disk
> Utility couldn't fix and Disk Warrior said it could. At the end of it
> all, I had a hosed, unbootable disk. Guess I should have read up on
> following the directions (which I did), but I suspect that either the
> disk was on the way out (I replaced it) or I clicked "fix it" in error.
> Either way, maybe I blamed Disk Warrior for the whole mess in error.
> You say I'm wrong. My experience with my hosed disk says otherwise.
>
Something come to mind: Did you check and see that you had the most recent
version of Disk Warrior? A new one came out for 10.4, another one for 10.5
and yet another, as I recall for Snow Leopard - and that one tells me that
there is NOT a valid operating system when I let it look at my Lion drive.
So, I will assume that I need to get the next version of D.W.
> Meanwhile I have a bunch of Western Digital disks I love to sell you.
> WD hasn't been able to fix them (or they keep saying they have and I
> just keep breaking them--I gave up after the 3rd time and won't buy
> their products ever again, just like Disk Warrior). Go ahead. Put them
> into production. It could be lots of fun.
You can use those for skeet practice for all I care, LOL! I use Seagate
every time I can.
George Kerby
On 8/27/11 5:09 AM, in article CA7E8EE1.BA87B%nor...@nospam.invalid,
"MartinC" <nor...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
True that. Most likely he was using something like TechTool?
DJW
> In article <CA7E6C90.7655A%ghost_top...@hotmail.com>,> > vilain-801FE3.08590726082...@news.individual.net, "Michael Vilain"
> > <vil...@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > > In article <CA7D0F61.76375%ghost_top...@hotmail.com>,> > >> vilain-8E5D37.22434025082...@news.individual.net, "Michael Vilain"
> > >> <vil...@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > >>> In article <slrnj5dvtc.1np0.g.kr...@ibook-g4-2.local>,
> > >>> Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
> > >>>> In message <vilain-369302.12335825082...@news.individual.net>
> could, crossing over your own time line is frowned upon. So, I think
> this thread is dead.
>
> Even Tech Tool Pro says "Be sure to backup your system before you do
> anything." when you boot DVD. Regardless of what utility you use, I
> think that's good advice. I still stand by my "no disk utility will
> save you really...restore from your backups". Don't have any? Sucks to
> be you.
>
> --
> DeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee...
> [I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically ignored]
Original poster here:
Ok OS 9 Vs 10 repair utilities I think I get the idea but still like
to know what and why the two entries in Os 10’s Disk Utility of a non-
partitioned HD. Is there a difference as to what is checked and can be
repaired as to which entry on the left I choose??????
David Empson
> Ok OS 9 Vs 10 repair utilities I think I get the idea but still like
> to know what and why the two entries in Os 10's Disk Utility of a non-
> partitioned HD. Is there a difference as to what is checked and can be
> repaired as to which entry on the left I choose??????
Mac OS X's Disk Utility shows a hierarchical view of each drive.
The icon at the left margin (including the capacity and brand/model)
represents the entire drive. Actions taken on that icon will affect
everything on the drive, e.g. erasing or partitioning.
The indented icons (with volume names) represent each volume (partition)
on the drive. Actions taken on those icons will not affect other volumes
on the same drive, e.g. erasing a single volume. You cannot partition
the drive from these icons.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
DJW
I share my computer with my girl friend and she plays a group of games
in OS 9.2. So we switch back and forth between systems. She has some
games that I have not been able to dup in OS 10.
Below is the report I got with 9.2 Disk First Aid wich this time I did
not repair. I went and did the repair with OS 10.4.11 disck utility.
What does it mane below and should I be concerned or is it just going
to happen anyway. Is it Os 9 or 10 that is cusing Reserved fields in
the catalog record have incorrect data?
Below is the repot I got after a verifacation of the HD:
Checking disk “20 GB Slave”.
Checking "Mac OS Standard" volume structures.
Checking wrapper System file.
Checking "Mac OS Extended" volume structures.
Checking for locked volume name.
Checking extent BTree.
Checking extent file.
Checking catalog BTree.
Checking catalog file.
Problem: Reserved fields in the catalog record have incorrect data,
513835, 13897
Problem: Reserved fields in the catalog record have incorrect data,
643969, 1918
Problem: Reserved fields in the catalog record have incorrect data,
644173, 1918
Problem: Reserved fields in the catalog record have incorrect data,
644174, 1918
Problem: Reserved fields in the catalog record have incorrect data,
644175, 1918
Problem: Reserved fields in the catalog record have incorrect data,
646602, 1918
Problem: Reserved fields in the catalog record have incorrect data,
643977, 9778
Checking catalog hierarchy.
Checking attributes BTree.
Problem: Invalid BTree Header, 0, 0
Checking volume bit map.
Checking volume info.
The volume “20 GB Slave” needs to be repaired.
nospam
<4b161afd-8cbc-461b...@dl2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
DJW <dd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I share my computer with my girl friend and she plays a group of games
> in OS 9.2. So we switch back and forth between systems. She has some
> games that I have not been able to dup in OS 10.
> Below is the report I got with 9.2 Disk First Aid wich this time I did
> not repair. I went and did the repair with OS 10.4.11 disck utility.
> What does it mane below and should I be concerned or is it just going
> to happen anyway. Is it Os 9 or 10 that is cusing Reserved fields in
> the catalog record have incorrect data?
..disk errors snipped..
get alsoft disk warrior. it will probably be able to fix it.
DJW
> In article
> <4b161afd-8cbc-461b-b9a5-038e3009b...@dl2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> DJW <d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I share my computer with my girl friend and she plays a group of games
> > in OS 9.2. So we switch back and forth between systems. She has some
> > games that I have not been able to dup in OS 10.
> > Below is the report I got with 9.2 Disk First Aid wich this time I did
> > not repair. I went and did the repair with OS 10.4.11 disck utility.
> > What does it mane below and should I be concerned or is it just going
> > to happen anyway. Is it Os 9 or 10 that is cusing Reserved fields in
> > the catalog record have incorrect data?
>
> ..disk errors snipped..
>
> get alsoft disk warrior. it will probably be able to fix it.
What do the errors mean? And do you think it is OS 9 causing them or
one or more of the pre OS 10 games?
DJW
> In article
> <4b161afd-8cbc-461b-b9a5-038e3009b...@dl2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > I share my computer with my girl friend and she plays a group of games
> > in OS 9.2. So we switch back and forth between systems. She has some
> > games that I have not been able to dup in OS 10.
> > Below is the report I got with 9.2 Disk First Aid wich this time I did
> > not repair. I went and did the repair with OS 10.4.11 disck utility.
> > What does it mane below and should I be concerned or is it just going
> > to happen anyway. Is it Os 9 or 10 that is cusing Reserved fields in
> > the catalog record have incorrect data?
>
> ..disk errors snipped..
>
> get alsoft disk warrior. it will probably be able to fix it.
What do the errors mean? And do you think it is OS 9 causing them or
nospam
<67eca3ef-bda8-41b1...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
DJW <dd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > I share my computer with my girl friend and she plays a group of games
> > > in OS 9.2. So we switch back and forth between systems. She has some
> > > games that I have not been able to dup in OS 10.
> > > Below is the report I got with 9.2 Disk First Aid wich this time I did
> > > not repair. I went and did the repair with OS 10.4.11 disck utility.
> > > What does it mane below and should I be concerned or is it just going
> > > to happen anyway. Is it Os 9 or 10 that is cusing Reserved fields in
> > > the catalog record have incorrect data?
> >
> > ..disk errors snipped..
> >
> > get alsoft disk warrior. it will probably be able to fix it.
>
> What do the errors mean? And do you think it is OS 9 causing them or
> one or more of the pre OS 10 games?
could be caused by a lot of things. nothing is perfect and directories
get corrupt. if anything will fix it, disk warrior can.
Malcolm
> On Aug 29, 11:18 am, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article
>> <4b161afd-8cbc-461b-b9a5-038e3009b...@dl2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> DJW <d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> I share my computer with my girl friend and she plays a group of games
>>> in OS 9.2. So we switch back and forth between systems. She has some
>>> games that I have not been able to dup in OS 10.
>>> Below is the report I got with 9.2 Disk First Aid which this time I did
>>> not repair. I went and did the repair with OS 10.4.11 Disk Utility.
>>> What does it mean below and should I be concerned or is it just going
>>> to happen anyway. Is it Os 9 or 10 that is causing Reserved fields in
>>> the catalog record have incorrect data?
>>
>> ..disk errors snipped..
>>
>> get Alsoft Disk Warrior. it will probably be able to fix it.
>
> What do the errors mean? And do you think it is OS 9 causing them or
> one or more of the pre OS 10 games?
Those messages do not mean there is anything wrong.
<http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#technotes/tn/tn1150.html>
"Reserved and Pad Fields
In many places this specification describes a field, or bit within a
field, as reserved. This has a definite meaning, namely:
▪ When creating a structure with a reserved field, an implementation
must set the field to zero.
▪ When reading existing structures, an implementation must ignore any
value in the field.
▪ When modifying a structure with a reserved field, an implementation
must preserve the value of the reserved field.
This definition allows for backward-compatible enhancements to the
volume format."
OSX 10.4.11 uses features in the file system that were not present at
the time of OS 9.2. Some fields that were not used is OS 9.2 (and are
set to zero) are now used. Disk First Aid in OS 9.2 doesn't know of
these new features, so is warning you about non-zero reserved fields.
Disk Utility in OSX knows about the new features, so if it doesn't
produce any errors, then there is nothing wrong with the file system.
David Empson
> I share my computer with my girl friend and she plays a group of games
> in OS 9.2. So we switch back and forth between systems. She has some
> games that I have not been able to dup in OS 10.
> Below is the report I got with 9.2 Disk First Aid wich this time I did
> not repair. I went and did the repair with OS 10.4.11 disck utility.
> What does it mane below and should I be concerned or is it just going
> to happen anyway. Is it Os 9 or 10 that is cusing Reserved fields in
> the catalog record have incorrect data?
There is no incorrect data. The only issue is that Mac OS 9.2's Disk
First Aid does not understand new file system features that have been
implemented in Mac OS X 10.4.
Fields in the catalog record which were reserved in Mac OS 9.2 (circa
2001) have been implemented in Mac OS X 10.4 (circa 2005). Mac OS 9.2's
Disk First Aid complains because when it was released, those particular
fields were supposed to be zero. That is no longer the case if you use
the disk with later versions of Mac OS X.
If you repaired the disk with Disk First Aid, it would probably cause
damage to files and folders that are making use of the new features
implemented in Mac OS X 10.4.
As a strict rule, if you have a version of the Mac OS (X, 9 or earlier)
installed on a disk, you must never use utilites from an older version
of the operating system to repair the disk. You need to use the latest
repair tools which understand any new file system features which may
have been implemented.
For Mac OS X, this rule also applies to "Repair Disk Permissions", since
older versions of Disk Utility may not understand the format of the
Receipts database used by later versions of Mac OS X.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
dorayme
dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> As a strict rule, if you have a version of the Mac OS (X, 9 or earlier)
> installed on a disk, you must never use utilites from an older version
> of the operating system to repair the disk. You need to use the latest
> repair tools which understand any new file system features which may
> have been implemented.
>
> For Mac OS X, this rule also applies to "Repair Disk Permissions", since
> older versions of Disk Utility may not understand the format of the
> Receipts database used by later versions of Mac OS X.
Sort of commonsense really, isn't it?
--
dorayme