NT Server Partition & SP4
Clarence NG
Can someone kindly advise me on the
following items:-
1. NT Server Partition
I prefer to partition just one single drive
with NTFS and the server can be either
a file/print server or application server
running MS SQL Server/IBM Universal
DB/2. However, usually IBM Netfinity
server is pre-defined with 2GB FAT of
C-drive and the remaining HDD assigns
to a logical D-drive formatted as NTFS.
So, is one single NTFS drive a good
setup for NT, regardless the server is
used as file/print or application?
2. SP4
In my understanding, SP3 is not Y2k
compliant, so out comes SP4.
I have been informed that SP4 is
'reliable' and 'stable'. On the other
hand, there are reviews reporting that
SP4 brings along many fixes and
enhancements to the NT server.
So, should I take the risk to apply SP4
on the servers running file/print server,
MS SQL Server, IBM Universal DB2
and Pervasive SQL Server v7.0?
Appreciate your response.
Clarence NG
Jerold Schulman
For emergency purposes, install an alternate copy of NT into
C:\ALTNT and compress it.
Use a boot floppy in case you loose the boot files, see tip 012 at my NT Tips,
Tricks and Registry Hacks at http://www.jsiinc.com/reghack.htm
Most people have had no problems with SP4 but some have.
As you still have some time until Y2K, wait a few months to see
if SP5 is relased.
On Fri, 26 Mar 1999 00:16:29 +0800, "Clarence NG" <Clare...@scs.org.sg>
wrote:
Jerold (Jerry) Schulman - Microsoft BackOffice <MVP>
JSI, Inc.
1045 Essex Court, Alpharetta, GA 30004-3811
Orders:+1-800-585-9588 Phone:+1-770-475-3820 Fax:+1-770-442-3820
Web Site: http://www.jsiinc.com Internet Mail: j...@cis.compuserve.com
Barton Wright
> I prefer to partition just one single drive
> with NTFS and the server can be either
> a file/print server or application server
> running MS SQL Server/IBM Universal
> DB/2. However, usually IBM Netfinity
> server is pre-defined with 2GB FAT of
> C-drive and the remaining HDD assigns
> to a logical D-drive formatted as NTFS.
> So, is one single NTFS drive a good
> setup for NT, regardless the server is
> used as file/print or application?
A single NTFS partition is fine under the following
conditions:
1. You're sure you'll never need to boot from a DOS
diskette to fix some file problem on the system
partition. With NTFS on C:, DOS won't recognize the
hard drive at all.
You can work around this with the expensive but
wonderful utility called System Commander Pro (see
http://www.winternal.com), which generates bootable
NT diskettes that allow you to manipulate files on an
NTFS boot partition in an emergency.
2. The first FAT partition on a disk must fit within the
first 1024 cylinders. If your NetFinity servers came
with a FAT C: partition, this is probably the reason.
The only complication for NT is that NT always installs
onto a FAT partition, even if you specify NTFS as an
installation option (Setup converts from FAT to NTFS later
in the installation). This artifically limits the size
of an NTFS C: drive to the same limit that FAT drives have,
which means an NTFS C: partition of no larger than 2 GB
or 4 GB, depending on your BIOS's disk translation
properties.
The workaround to this is either:
a. Take the disk to an existing NT machine and create
a full-disk NTFS partition. Then take the disk back
to the target machine and do NOT reformat or
re-partition during NT installation.
b. Install NT onto the largest C: drive it will accept,
then install and use Partition Magic 4.0 (see
http://www.powerquest.com) to resize the C: drive
to its maximum after NT is installed.
> 2. SP4
> In my understanding, SP3 is not Y2k
> compliant, so out comes SP4.
> I have been informed that SP4 is
> 'reliable' and 'stable'. On the other
> hand, there are reviews reporting that
> SP4 brings along many fixes and
> enhancements to the NT server.
> So, should I take the risk to apply SP4
> on the servers running file/print server,
> MS SQL Server, IBM Universal DB2
> and Pervasive SQL Server v7.0?
Check first with IBM and Pervasive as to the highest NT
service pack they've tested with their database servers.
Once they've qualified SP4, it's safe to install, but not
before.
On a machine that's just running file and print services,
SP4 is a stabilizing upgrade.
George Amherst
I was just told that I should not do 2) a) and b) because of the
possibility of the boot sector (or the loader or something like that)
getting moved off the first 2GB of disk (due to a defrag utility or
something else) potentially rendering the disk unbootable. Is this
true? Is there any danger from have one big partition?
Barton Wright
> >
> George Amherst wrote:
>
> I was just told that I should not do 2) a) and b) because of the
> possibility of the boot sector (or the loader or something like that) getting
> moved off the first 2GB of disk (due to a defrag utility or something else)
> potentially rendering the disk unbootable. Is this true? Is there any danger
> from have one big partition?
This silly idea may have some merit when discussing a FAT
C: partition, dual-booted between NT and DOS or DOS-based
Windows. In this case, it's possible to boot DOS and run
a DOS defragger that doesn't know not to mess with NT boot
files.
However, we've been discussing one large NTFS partition.
In that context, this theory is like worrying that all the
atoms in your heart are going to simultaneously jump left in
one big Brownian motion and give you a heart attack.
First of all, the boot sector is always, by definition, the
first 512-byte sector of the disk at sector 0, track 0. So,
by definition, it can't be moved. The only classes of software
that write to the boot sector are partitioning utilities and
viruses. If some defrag utility mucks with your boot sector,
you have a large cause of action to sue the utility author's
hiney off.
Now, that leaves us the "loader or something like that".
NT needs three files to boot: ntldr, ntdetect.com, and boot.ini.
Please ask your source for me: where is it written that
these files have to be within the first 2 GB of the disk on
an NTFS partition? Remember, we're talking about one big
NTFS partition here, so FAT limits do not apply.
The real answer: the only limitation on these three files is
that they must be in the root of the C: drive. As far as you
know, the root of the C: drive is physically at the end of
the disk. You don't know the relationship between logical and
physical file placement, and you shouldn't ever have to worry
about it: that's up to the low-level disk controller routines.
That's why they're called low-level, so that you won't have to
worry about them.
Now, that leaves us the last huge hole in this preposterous
theory. Exactly what defrag utility is going to do this heinous
crime? Again, we're speaking of one large NTFS partition.
Therefore, we must be speaking of a defrag utility that runs
under NT and knows how to defrag NTFS drives. You aren't
going to boot DOS and run Norton Speedisk on an NTFS disk,
because the NTFS disk will be invisible from DOS.
As far as I know, there's only one NT defrag utility, DiscKeeper.
I haven't used it, but I know it's NT-specific. Any NT-specific
defragger that tries to move NT-specific files where they
shouldn't go is not a defragger, it's a virus.
In short, rest assured. If the near-impossible happens, and
some NT defrag utility of the future makes your disk unbootable,
you can sue the authors for big bucks and buy a new PC. The new
PC will come with one large NTFS partition already made for
you. :-)
Matt Neimeyer
Here's some text from PartionMagic's user guide (please excuse typing
errors) What it basically says is just what he said... In Dos (Win9x?)
or Windows NT you have to have IO.SYS or NTLOADER.EXE within the first 2
gigs of the Hard Drive.
anyways... here's the text...
An OS's boot code is stored in both the Master Boot Record (MBR)
and the partition boot record, enabling the OS to boot properly.
In some OSs, however, this boot code is written in such a way
that it inadvertantly imposes a limit on the location of both the
partition boot record and the files needed to boot the OS.
Dos (versions 6.x and earlier) and Windows NT (version 4.0 and
earlier) are both affected by this boot code limitation. When
booting these two operating systems, the cylinder-head-sector
(CHS) address of the beginning boot code sector must be calcul-
ated in order to retrieve the sector's information and load and
execute the next part of the boot process. The CHS value for the
needed sector is calculated as follows:
Sector Number / Sectors Per Track
Because of the way the boot code is written, the product of this
calculation must fit in a 16-bit register. The largest value a
16-bit register can contain is 64k. If the number is larger than
64k, the number is truncated, resulting in an incorrect value
that skews the remaining calculations. The boot process fails to
load and execute the needed sector, thus preventing the OS from
booting.
Most current hard disks have 63 sectors per track, creating a
64k boot code boundry at 2 GB.
If a partition begins or extends beyond this boundry, the CHS
value of the partition's boot code sector cannot be correctly
calculated; therefore, the partition and its OS cannot boot.
This same limit applies to the DOS IO.SYS file and the Windows
NT file NTLOADER.EXE. If either of these files are installed or
moved beyond the 64k boot code boundry, the corresponding OS fails
to boot.
>>> a. Take the disk to an existing NT machine and create
>>> a full-disk NTFS partition. Then take the disk back
>>> to the target machine and do NOT reformat or
>>> re-partition during NT installation.
>>>
>>> b. Install NT onto the largest C: drive it will accept,
>>> then install and use Partition Magic 4.0 (see
>>> http://www.powerquest.com) to resize the C: drive
>>> to its maximum after NT is installed.
>
>> I was just told that I should not do 2) a) and b) because of the
>> possibility of the boot sector (or the loader or something like that) getting
>> moved off the first 2GB of disk (due to a defrag utility or something else)
>> potentially rendering the disk unbootable. Is this true? Is there any danger
>> from have one big partition?
I did 2a with my NT installation... worked like a charm... my partition
is 11 gig.
> First of all, the boot sector is always, by definition, the
> first 512-byte sector of the disk at sector 0, track 0. So,
> by definition, it can't be moved. The only classes of software
> that write to the boot sector are partitioning utilities and
> viruses. If some defrag utility mucks with your boot sector,
> you have a large cause of action to sue the utility author's
> hiney off.
Actually using PartionMagic (if not some other utilites) to resize the
Cluster Size on a FAT disk can you can result in moving that stuff
elsewhere.... But that is one of those partitioning utilites... Also...
For completeness sakes... Several OS's write to the Boot Sector... NT
and Linux both install OS loaders there... And any program that let's
you load multiple OS's.
> Now, that leaves us the "loader or something like that".
> NT needs three files to boot: ntldr, ntdetect.com, and boot.ini.
> Please ask your source for me: where is it written that
> these files have to be within the first 2 GB of the disk on
> an NTFS partition? Remember, we're talking about one big
> NTFS partition here, so FAT limits do not apply.
Yes and no... NTLOADER still needs to be within the First 2 gig of the
Harddrive.
> Now, that leaves us the last huge hole in this preposterous
> theory. Exactly what defrag utility is going to do this heinous
> crime? Again, we're speaking of one large NTFS partition.
> Therefore, we must be speaking of a defrag utility that runs
> under NT and knows how to defrag NTFS drives. You aren't
> going to boot DOS and run Norton Speedisk on an NTFS disk,
> because the NTFS disk will be invisible from DOS.
> As far as I know, there's only one NT defrag utility, DiscKeeper.
> I haven't used it, but I know it's NT-specific. Any NT-specific
> defragger that tries to move NT-specific files where they
> shouldn't go is not a defragger, it's a virus.
Norton Speedisk works with NTFS I think...
> In short, rest assured. If the near-impossible happens, and
> some NT defrag utility of the future makes your disk unbootable,
> you can sue the authors for big bucks and buy a new PC. The new
> PC will come with one large NTFS partition already made for
> you. :-)
Depends... if the program did it without you telling it to sure... Sue
away... but if you muck up your hard drive(s) moving partitions around
without reading the manuals... Then it's your fault!
Matt
Barton Wright
> ACTUALLY... He's not that far off...
With the exceptions noted below, I stand corrected. I had
forgotten that bit of esoterica from the Partition Magic manual
quoted below.
However, I'm not convinced that passage is 100% correct (see
below). And it's still true that any NT-only defragger that
moves NTLDR where it shouldn't be is a defective product.
> Here's some text from PartionMagic's user guide (please excuse
> typing errors) What it basically says is just what he said...
> In Dos (Win9x?) or Windows NT you have to have IO.SYS or
> NTLOADER.EXE within the first 2 gigs of the Hard Drive.
>
> Anyways... here's the text...
>
> An OS's boot code is stored in both the Master Boot Record
> (MBR) and the partition boot record, enabling the OS to boot
> properly.
>
> In some OSs, however, this boot code is written in such a
> way that it inadvertently imposes a limit on the location of
> both the partition boot record and the files needed to boot
> the OS.
>
> DOS (versions 6.x and earlier) and Windows NT (version 4.0
> and earlier) are both affected by this boot code limitation.
> When booting these two operating systems, the
> cylinder-head-sector (CHS) address of the beginning boot
> code sector must be calculated in order to retrieve the
> sector's information and load and execute the next part of
> the boot process. The CHS value for the needed sector is
> calculated as follows:
>
> Sector Number / Sectors Per Track
>
> Because of the way the boot code is written, the product of
> this calculation must fit in a 16-bit register. The largest
> value a 16-bit register can contain is 64k. If the number is
> larger than 64k, the number is truncated, resulting in an
> incorrect value that skews the remaining calculations. The
> boot process fails to load and execute the needed sector,
> thus preventing the OS from booting.
>
> Most current hard disks have 63 sectors per track, creating
> a 64k boot code boundary at 2 GB.
>
> If a partition begins or extends beyond this boundary, the
> CHS value of the partition's boot code sector cannot be
> correctly calculated; therefore, the partition and its OS
> cannot boot.
This is where I think the error lies in the Partition Magic
manual. Remove the two words "or extends" and the passage is
probably correct.
Your experience with an 11 GB NTFS boot drive and my experience
with a 7.2 GB NTFS boot drive contradicts this paragraph and
makes it clear that the bootable partition containing NTLDR
can extend as far beyond 2 GB as it needs to. What I think the
author meant to write is that the partition can't *start* beyond
2 GB and if it starts right at the 2 GB line, the boot code
sector can't extend past that line.
> This same limit applies to the DOS IO.SYS file and the
> Windows NT file NTLOADER.EXE. If either of these files are
> installed or moved beyond the 64k boot code boundary, the
> corresponding OS fails to boot.
Minor correction here. On the two NT 4 systems here in my
cube, there is no file named NTLOADER.EXE. There is a file
named NTLDR.
> >>> a. Take the disk to an existing NT machine and create
> >>> a full-disk NTFS partition. Then take the disk back
> >>> to the target machine and do NOT reformat or
> >>> re-partition during NT installation.
> >>>
> >>> b. Install NT onto the largest C: drive it will accept,
> >>> then install and use Partition Magic 4.0 (see
> >>> http://www.powerquest.com) to resize the C: drive
> >>> to its maximum after NT is installed.
> >
> >> I was just told that I should not do 2) a) and b) because of
> >> the possibility of the boot sector (or the loader or
> >> something like that) getting moved off the first 2GB of disk
> >> (due to a defrag utility or something else) potentially
> >> rendering the disk unbootable. Is this true? Is there any
> >> danger from have one big partition?
>
> I did 2a with my NT installation... worked like a charm... my partition is 11 gig.
And I did 2b to extend a 4 GB NTFS boot disk to 7.2 GB. This
is why it's obvious that the passage noted above in the PM
manual is unnecessarily alarmist.
> > First of all, the boot sector is always, by definition, the
> > first 512-byte sector of the disk at sector 0, track 0. So,
> > by definition, it can't be moved. The only classes of software
> > that write to the boot sector are partitioning utilities and
> > viruses. If some defrag utility mucks with your boot sector,
> > you have a large cause of action to sue the utility author's
> > hiney off.
>
> Actually, using PartionMagic (if not some other utility) to
> resize the Cluster Size on a FAT disk can you can result in
> moving that stuff elsewhere.... But that is one of those partitioning utilites...
Once again, any utility that allows you without warning to move
a partition's boot sector beyond the 2 GB limit is profoundly
broken.
> Also... For completeness sakes... Several OS's write to the
> Boot Sector... NT and Linux both install OS loaders there...
> And any program that let's you load multiple OS's.
Well, we should standardize on the terminology in the PM manual.
What I originally called the boot sector, they correctly call
the MBR. The MBR is the one that's always at sector 0, track 0.
Individual OS boot sectors are separate items, found at the
beginning of each bootable partition (according to the PM manual).
With that clarification, I'll restate: the only classes of
software that should be writing to the MBR are partitioning
utilities and the installation programs for operating systems.
Viruses can also try to maliciously write to the MBR.
> > Now, that leaves us the "loader or something like that".
> > NT needs three files to boot: ntldr, ntdetect.com, and boot.ini.
> > Please ask your source for me: where is it written that
> > these files have to be within the first 2 GB of the disk on
> > an NTFS partition? Remember, we're talking about one big
> > NTFS partition here, so FAT limits do not apply.
>
> Yes and no... NTLOADER still needs to be within the First 2 gig
> of the Harddrive.
I stand corrected on this.
> > Now, that leaves us the last huge hole in this preposterous
> > theory. Exactly what defrag utility is going to do this heinous
> > crime? Again, we're speaking of one large NTFS partition.
> > Therefore, we must be speaking of a defrag utility that runs
> > under NT and knows how to defrag NTFS drives. You aren't
> > going to boot DOS and run Norton Speedisk on an NTFS disk,
> > because the NTFS disk will be invisible from DOS.
>
> > As far as I know, there's only one NT defrag utility,
> > DiscKeeper.
> > I haven't used it, but I know it's NT-specific. Any NT-specific
> > defragger that tries to move NT-specific files where they
> > shouldn't go is not a defragger, it's a virus.
>
> Norton Speedisk works with NTFS I think...
Nope. Remember the context: NT alone, booted from an NTFS
partition. Norton includes a Speedisk utility in the DOS
and Win9x versions of the Norton Utilities. The NU for NT
that I have (2.0) does *not* include a version of Speedisk.
OK, actually I own NU for NT but never got around to
installing it here. My memory of it is that no Speedisk
was included.
> > In short, rest assured. If the near-impossible happens, and
> > some NT defrag utility of the future makes your disk unbootable,
> > you can sue the authors for big bucks and buy a new PC. The new
> > PC will come with one large NTFS partition already made for
> > you. :-)
>
> Depends... if the program did it without you telling it to
> sure... Sue away... but if you muck up your hard drive(s)
> moving partitions around without reading the manuals... Then
> it's your fault!
I'd take a slightly different stance. As a professional tech
writer, I'm a firm believer in software that doesn't require
reading the manual first! :-)
If a utility detects that it's about to do something that will
render your OS unbootable, it should warn you in a clearly
written warning message -- written by a tech writer, not a
programmer! :-) -- followed by least two levels of "Are you
sure?" messages.
It's possible that the user's intention is to destroy the
current OS and rearrange partitions in preparation for
loading a new one. So the utility should go ahead and
let the destruction proceed. But only after careful and
clear warnings onscreen. No reading of manuals should be
required, ever.
Don't worry, I'm not trying to put myself out of business.
Somebody's got to write all those careful and clear warning
messages!
Matt, thanks for clarifying the issues without rancor. That's
so rare in newsgroups nowadays.
Jefferson Krogh
> OK, actually I own NU for NT but never got around to
> installing it here. My memory of it is that no Speedisk
> was included.
Just to set the record straight, it is indeed included. My copy of it arrived
yesterday, and it is a part of NU for NT 2.0. (It was the main reason I picked it up.)
--
Jefferson Krogh
IS Manager
Kennerley-Spratling, Inc.
aomeite...@gmail.com
>
> Can someone kindly advise me on the
> following items:-
>
> I prefer to partition just one single drive
> with NTFS and the server can be either
> a file/print server or application server
> running MS SQL Server/IBM Universal
> DB/2. However, usually IBM Netfinity
> server is pre-defined with 2GB FAT of
> C-drive and the remaining HDD assigns
> to a logical D-drive formatted as NTFS.
> So, is one single NTFS drive a good
> setup for NT, regardless the server is
> used as file/print or application?
>
> In my understanding, SP3 is not Y2k
> compliant, so out comes SP4.
> I have been informed that SP4 is
> 'reliable' and 'stable'. On the other
> hand, there are reviews reporting that
> SP4 brings along many fixes and
> enhancements to the NT server.
> So, should I take the risk to apply SP4
> on the servers running file/print server,
> MS SQL Server, IBM Universal DB2
> and Pervasive SQL Server v7.0?
>
>
>
> Clarence NG
