Jump to content

CHKDSK refuses to check NTFS volume under Windows NT 4.0


ppgrainbow

Recommended Posts

The thing - at the time - was for the NTFS version 3.0 (Windows 2000),

The idea was to still be able to use a previously/originally formatted to 1.2 NTFS volume after the Windows 2000 arbitrarily changed it to NTFS 3.0.

I personally wouldn't even think of running NT 4.0's chkdsk on a volume that was originally formatted as 3.0 or 3.1 (and populated by the install of a later, Windows 2000 or XP, let alone Vista or later), maybe nothing bad will happen, but I wouldn't take the risk.  

jaclaz

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Yes, I wouldn't do that either, it's too risky for my taste.

But in my case this procedure was needed to fix a dumb mistake one of our technicians made.

We had a computer with Win NT 4.0 that wasn't booting, and he suspected it could be a problem with the hard disk. He took the HDD from the old PC, and used an IDE-to-USB adapter to check it in a new computer running Windows 10. As soon as the disk was connected, BAM! the NTFS version was upgraded. He simply browsed the volume with Explorer, but didn't write anything to it.

It turned out that the real problem with the old computer was a faulty cable. We replaced the cable, but now it still wouldn't boot because of the changed NTFS version (the old PC only had NT4 SP3 installed, so we got a Blue Screen of Death at startup)

We finally managed to fix the drive by installing NT4 in another (very old) machine, and plugging it in that box to be able to run DiskProbe and change those damned bytes related to the NTFS version

When the failing machine booted again at last, we ran chkdsk just to be sure and it only found a few metadata errors, that were quickly corrected.

There was no data loss, and the PC runs fine, thankfully.

Regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see :), but JFYI (hopefully not needed as there won't be a "next time") you can change those bytes with *any* disk editor even on a later windows, as long as you unmount the volume/operate at the physicaldrive level, it's not like you need Diskprobe and a NT 4.00 to change them, you only have to be careful that the stupid windows running would not revert them.

Personally I would have used DOS or *any* live Linux or even grub4dos for that little edit.

jaclaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried. I swear I tried. I searched for that fix for almost two hours, but came up empty handed :(

By the way, I also tried filling up those forms with my email details in Microsoft's page. I submitted my request but they don't even reply, they simply ignore you! :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Leolo said:

I tried. I swear I tried. I searched for that fix for almost two hours, but came up empty handed :(

By the way, I also tried filling up those forms with my email details in Microsoft's page. I submitted my request but they don't even reply, they simply ignore you! :(

maybe in spam/junk folder?

BTW here are the links:

KB Article Number(s): 872952
Language: English
Platform: i386
Location: (https://hotfixv4.trafficmanager.net/Windows%20NT%20Workstation%204.0/sp7/Fix131681/1381/free/199776_ENU_i386_zip.exe)

-----------------------------------------------------------
KB Article Number(s): 872952
Language: English
Platform: i386
Location: (https://hotfixv4.trafficmanager.net/Windows%20NT%20Server%204.0/sp7/Fix131681/1381/free/199777_ENU_i386_zip.exe)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, since the original didn't boot, even if you had the hotfix you would have needed anyway a (temporary) NT 4.00 install, which is the part that was IMHO "overkill" to only change two bytes on a disk.

BTW, I believe (I may be wrong of course) that the hotfix makes the system CHKDSK compatible with the later NTFS version, it does't backport the version, so you needed anyway SP4 (and obviously a bootable system) in order to apply it.

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many thanks for the links! (By the way, I've double checked the spam folder, there's nothing there from Microsoft. I think there's either a problem with my mail servers, or their mail servers)

This old PC is important for the customer because it's running an old Citect 5.01 SCADA program, connected via Profibus to a machine in a bottle factory.

It would cost tens of thousands of euros to replace the entire machine that produces the bottles, and the SCADA part is absolutely critical for its operation.

Do you know if the hotfix can be installed without upgrading NT4 to SP4 ?

I'm very nervous about upgrading the Operating System in this PC, because I'm not sure about possible compatibility problems with Citect 5.01

My main reason to apply the hotfix would be to avoid these kind of problems if they accidentally happen again in the future

Edited by Leolo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if it is a production machine you should have (besides a "quick change" disk clone[1]) also a whole machine clone, meaning an identical (or however similar enough) PC with a clone of the original disk running.

Besides allowing experimenting like installing the SP4 and the patch, such a setup would allow other experiments[2] and allow no downtime whatsoever (either switching the disk or the whole machine may take 10-15 minutes at most.

At least in my experience, production comes before anything else, so whenever possible you don't actually repair the machine that is involved in production (shutting it down for the whole time the repair might need), you quickly replace the faulty module/subsystem with a spare and then you later have the time to repair the "original" (that becomes the "ready spare" for next time it is needed).

This approach has a cost, as you will be pay and keep stored spare components that possibly would never be needed, but it keeps the downtime of a plant to the bare minimum.

jaclaz

 

[1] which is the bare-bare minimum I recommend you to have

[2] since the machine and its software are surely extremely "static", besides "vintage", I don't see these many reasons to run it on NTFS at all, FAT16 might well be more than good enough.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...