A 5GB partition that should NOT exist ??

[spamhog]

On my trusted, battle-scarred laptop I have had a lot of partitions for several years:

C: Primary, 3GB, Windows 98 + apps
D: Primary, 50MB, DOS (bootable with some tricks, FAT16)
E: Logical, 500MB, temporary files
F: Logical, 400MB, Windows swap (FAT16)
G: Logical, 1500MB, hot work files + application data
H: Logical, 5000MB, cold work files, software installers, etc.
Linux Swap, Logical, 300MB
Linux Root, Logical, 3950MB (includes clean copy of all C: files!!)
NetBSD "slice", Primary, 1600MB.

First, strange, symptom: from the very start, years ago, Windows refused to assign letters to partitions in this sequence, although they are laid out like this on the hard disk. I fixed it with Vadim Burtyanski's "Letter Assigner", a program that reassigns letters ad lib on boot. It worked well for years.

Today, Windows started having hallucinations: A run of Defragmenter ended in a bluescreen, and a message reported "Fatal Error: Missing Segment".

I rebooted and Windows. HERE THE FUN BEGAN!

1) A nearly 5GB "unformatted" D: partition appeared in "My Computer". Give or take 10MB (4869MB in the H: properties, 4879MB in the formatting dialog for the phantom D Windows seems to have "rediscovered" the H: partition and to have assigned it both H: and D:. H: works fine read/write, D: is reported "unformatted".

2) The second drive (former D got bumped to I:, and all other drives were assigned preposterous drive letters untill called to task by means of Letter Assigner (had to do it to keep many links and setups from breaking). Yet, Letter Assigner could not ressign D: to anything else, claiming it could not get "correct information".

3) D: drive would not open on clicking. A dialog offered to format it. Format dialog claimed the partition size was 4879MB

4) Other (NetBSD and Linux) partitions still alive and well.

5) Sum of partition sizes from all the various claimants now adds to ~24GB, but this is a 19+GB drive.All other partitions (for all operating systems) seemed fine, with no problems reported by scandisk / fsck, and are of the right size.

6) I dumped the Opera browser cache (which used to sit on E:, and still runs OK on the newly renamed E:, but when I cleared the garbage folder, all those 3000 files were listed as in D: (at NO POINT were they ever in any partition named D:, even momentarily). Now I can't see those 3000 files, but every time I clear out the garbage, I am asked to confirm their deletion, which completes in an impossible 3 seconds, and generates another dialog saying that D: is not formatted.


I tried several things, to no avail:

a- restoring the partition table from one I backed up weeks ago, when all ran smooth

b- undoing and redoing the letter reassignment

c- striking out the Linux and NetBSD partitions from the partition table

d- striking out and re-assigning the large "cold" partition on H:

Nothing seems to get rid of the phantom D: partition. I have backups of everything, incl. the OS, so I could move it all over to another PC, reformat the whole disk etc., but I'd like to try to fix it in a less dramatic way. After all, EVERYTHING THAT MATTERS SEEMS TO WORK!


QUESTIONS

I. How do I get info on the partition AS IT IS ON THE DRIVE rather than AS IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE FROM THE PARTITION TABLE? Is there some tool I can use?

II. This is the 1st time I get damage from a defragmentation - something I always feared would happen, but never did before in untold years of computing. Is this kind of damage typical or a failed defrag?

(and also, the older problem, for which I do have a fix:
III. Why on earth does Windows decide to deviate from naming partitions in the order they sit on the disk?}

I hope someone will find this problem as fascinating as I do.


Filippo / spamhog
Computer Victim (as in "fashion victim&quot - Milan, North Poldavia -

http://filippo.ru.ru

40% WinME, 40% Linux (Debian, Libranet, Vector, Lycoris), 20% Win98, trace amounts of Win2k, xBSD, QNX

 

[teknikal]

I'm not sure exactly what happened, but my guess is that the two primary partitions is part of the problem. You can do it, but it throws the order of logical partitions off when Windows reads the MBR at bootup. Unless you have a dual-boot 3rd-party utility to manage both primaries, it's not the best choice to have them on the same drive.

To be honest, I would strongly encourage you in the future to get another physical drive to share this mess! That way each drive can have its primary and you can simply switch the order in the BIOS at will...

tek

 

[spamhog]

Dear Tek, thanks for your reply!

>> two primary partitions is part of the problem.
>> You can do it, but it throws the order of logical partitions off when Windows reads the MBR at bootup.

I have all the four primaries the architecture allows. One (the 3rd) is an extended partition with logicals inside. This setup worked fine for almost 3 years. My desktop has exactly the same, and showns no problems.

Either Windows is supposed to get it right or it isn't. As it did work for years, then it does, and the problem is elsewhere.

>> Unless you have a dual-boot 3rd-party utility to manage both primaries,
>> it's not the best choice to have them on the same drive.
There is a MS NT bootloader. Other than that (and in any case for a Win9X system) there are ONLY 3rd party bootloaders/boot selectors: Lilo, Grub, GAG, plus the ones that come with Ranish Partition Manager, NetBSD, Partition Magic (AFAIK), and heaven knows how many others.

I use GAG, which is a very nice bootselector, particularly easy to install, backup and reinstall, and if you want you can install it in Basque or some other rare tongue.

All my bootable partitions have their own dedicated bootloaders, onboard in their respective boot records. If one fails, the other are unaffected. If the boot selector or the partition table in the MBR fail, I can restore the whole MBR from backup using Linux. If it's the boot selector that fails, I can just grab the GAG floppy and reinstall only the bootselector in a minute or two.

Plus, there's no "bootloader" problem to start with: I can boot all the OSs without fail, and other than Windows 98 none gets confused by the partition. I have even restored the partition table from a backup I had (using Linux, of course...). I have copies of the partition table before and after the strange event, and I'll diff them to see if they're identical. I bet they are!

>> I would strongly encourage you in the future to get
>> another physical drive to share this mess!
On a laptop? And where should I stick it? Should I get one of those slow and expensive PCMCIA units?

My impression is that the mess is the Windows operating system, not the partitions.

>> That way each drive can have its primary
>> and you can simply switch the order in the BIOS at will...
Thank you for your advice Tek, but... what are you talking about?
What if I want to keep the 4 OSs I have? Should I get four physical HDs on my laptop?

With ANY bootloader/bootselector you can select a lot of OSs on boot just by a few keypresses, without having to get into the BIOS setup interface every time. This has been common practice for at least half a dozen years.

Give it a try, it's a load of fun, and it can even be useful! E.g. without simple multibooting, I would NOT have been able to take a snapshot of the whole of my Win98 system and deep freeze it on a Linux partition for the day the s*** will really hit the fan. No need to use Ghost & other commercial remedies to Windows' own ills!

If I did not multiboot and a number of extra partitions I would be worried now. And I would not even envision using a Windows system with all the data, OS and apps on one partition only. That would be looking for trouble for no (NONE) return whatsoever.

I will restate the key questions: I suspect that Windows sees the phantom partition based on SOME INFO OTHER THAN THE PARTITION TABLE, which is UNAFFECTED as it was RESTORED FROM BACKUP. How this happens is a mystery to me.

Does anyone know how to dig out info on how the partition "IS" as opposed to how the partition IS SUPPOSED TO BE in the partition table?

If this is not the issue, then WHY does Windows suddenly get confused?

Any crumbs of knowledge and wisdom will be appreciated!


Filippo / spamhog
Computer Victim (as in "fashion victim&quot - Milan, North Poldavia -

http://filippo.ru.ru

40% WinME, 40% Linux (Debian, Libranet, Vector, Lycoris), 20% Win98, trace amounts of Win2k, xBSD, QNX

 

[TekTippy4U]

Use a Windows 98 startup floppy(or OEM CD) and Boot into DOS (Command Prompt Only) and run Fdisk /status and have a look.....post results here..be careful if you're going to try and remove the Phantom, as Fdisk probably won't see the non-dos partitions correctly.
Outline the Primary / Secondary IDE Master / Slave Layout better...it seems now that you have 4 physical disks, when your first post doesn't seem that way.

TT4U

Notification:
These are just my thoughts....and should be carefully measured against other opinions.
Backup All Important Data/Docs

 

[TekTippy4U]

The simple answer is to delete the Windows\Applog folder since defrag started trippin' on acid. (or just remove it's contents). If you want, check the defrag settings and see if "rearrange my programs so they start faster" box is ticked in the settings / or advanced area. (i'll bet it was)

you said
I have all the four primaries the architecture allows. One (the 3rd) is an extended partition with logicals inside

why your first post shows three primaries, six logicals and no extended. And do you have 4 Primary ACTIVE partitions (you meant?) and the bootloader/selector gives a choice of which, at boot up, is going to be activated?

also to get into it a bit more....The Partition table usually resides in the CHS 001, as you know, but the physical layout doesn't match the actual data store. The BIOS, in conjunction with the many partition manipulators employ algorithms which change the disk into a completely different structure than the Physical layout...(i'd have to look it up to explain much better, and you seem to have a much better grip on it than I do)...but my point here is to say [1] the data doesn't reside on the disk , in the physical location you think it may.
Now..98 has Scandisk, and i'm sure you're aware of the way a FAT32 , or any FAT, structure allocates it's tables and stores it's files. The tracks get marked with a beginning and an end at format time, but a file may be broken into pieces scattered all over the disk (fragmentation)....ie the beginning and end of the file hardly ever reside in ONE piece, all together in one physical location. When it does, it's Defragmented... (the FAT table has pointers to the whereabouts of the beginning of each file, and the first cluster contains/ends in a pointer to the location of the beginning of the second cluster and so on..) Did you run a thorough Scandisk yet and check the Advanced Settings for "Free" lost fragments, and "Delete" Cross-linked ....where these settings are what I use, BUT in your situation it might be better to "Make Copies" Cross-linked. It would be hard to determine what info is pertinent if you set "Convert to files" in lost fragments area. (plus you'll end up with a bunch of File.0001, File.0002, etc on your C: drive)
If you have some other Disk Utilities you've been using all along, then use them....but give 98 a scan for errors.....and try Safe Mode for a Defrag. If errors exist, such as your message in defrag (missing segment), then a thorough Scandisk (similar) needs to be done first, before defrag will work. Untick "Automatically Fix" errors box, so you can see what errors it finds.
Delete or empty the Applog folder and check the Scandisk Settings within Windows...then Boot to a Command prompt and run MS-DOS Scandisk first (settings are in C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\Scandisk.ini, you'll see Scandisk.exe there too, the DOS version), then boot up into windows and run the Win32 version of ScanDisk.(Scandskw.exe)

Maybe you want to try a Fdisk /MBR from a command promt to try and fix the 98 Master Boot Record

TT4U

Notification:
These are just my thoughts....and should be carefully measured against other opinions.
Backup All Important Data/Docs

 

[teknikal]

spamhog,
It seems you have an answer to everything except your problem. What a shame.



Not sure what forum you're from, but here we like to have a conversation - not an essay. Breaking a response into sections and replying is considered offensive to some, and can illustrate a lack of articulation and proficiency on your part. I'm just surprised that after that charade, TekTippy was still willing to help.

 

[TekTippy4U]

teknikal;
can't you tell? I'm calling him out!
the other info is meant to just straighten out my own previous post response/confusion. Kinda work it out in my head while writing...ya know?



spamhog;
An attitude, we can do without around here!


TT4U

Notification:
These are just my thoughts....and should be carefully measured against other opinions.
Backup All Important Data/Docs

 

[wolluf]

Teknikal - from Spamhog's first post it was very obvious he has a lot of experience with partitioning. His reply to you could be considered educational (for you) - I'm sure he appreciates attempts to help - but is probably very frustrated that he hasn't resolved this yet.

Spamhog - I don't have a solution for you, unfortunately. Nearest I've seen to this was when Ghost created a 'virtual' partition when there were already 4 primaries on the disk (for it to use when rebooting in dos mode - I wasn't aware it would do this until I rebooted). It put all the other partitions 'out of joint' until fixed (think Partition Magic fixed it) - but this sounds quite different. Don't know if its any use - but the boot manager I use (

http://www.boot-us.com)

displays partition info on its Windows screen - including when there's something not quite right. Might be worth installing it to see what it reports. If it does show something unusual, the author is usually (in my experience) happy to give advice about what might be causing it.

 

[teknikal]

wolluf:
With all due respect, I never asked for a lesson in "partitioning". This guy is the one asking for help, not me. If my suggestion was not to his liking, how hard is it to show some courtesy with a reply still asking for more help, or at the very least ignoring my post altogether? "Educational to me"? Ha, more like "demeaning" with the assumption I was out of my league.

This is one of my biggest pet peeves as many in IT support share -
[blue]user asking for help, but then criticizes your advice and spends more time trying to "showcase" their knowledge.[/blue]



If you read my first post in its entirety without breaking it up into sections (which takes each line out of context), you'll see I never said that multiple primaries couldn't work. Spampig however decided to devote half of his response on the notion that I did. Very odd.

Oh, and here's a key piece of information Spampork left out originally but so kindly gave us in his 2nd post:
[blue][tab]"I can boot all the OSs without fail, and other than
[tab]Windows 98 none gets confused by the partition."[/blue]
[tab][tab](please try to ignore spambacon's poor grammar).

It's understandable why I assumed it was the MBR affecting all partitions. Had I known it was only Windows seeing the "phantom partition", my answer would have likely been different.

Nevertheless, it is not my problem. This blunder might actually teach the coach not to cram so much into one small 20GB drive! What a waste of time to try to balance 4 OS's in one system and have it end up in shambles!!

Final 2¢,
tek