Professional Web Applications Themes

DiskWarrior 3.0 flaky, anyone else? (OS X) - Mac Applications & Software

Wondering if anyone else is having problems with DW ver' 3.0 when rebuilding the directory of a OS X partition. Booting from the OS X partition of my internal drive - - - Using DiskWarrior I rebuilt the directory of my external OS X drive okay, however when I attempted to reboot (my internal drive) - the internal drive "froze" during reboot (steady blank blue screen) - could not force-quit because no keyboard response at all, had to press reset button in back of my Pismo powerbook to regain control of the powerbook. This is the first time I have ...

  1. #1

    Default DiskWarrior 3.0 flaky, anyone else? (OS X)

    Wondering if anyone else is having problems with DW ver' 3.0 when
    rebuilding the directory of a OS X partition.

    Booting from the OS X partition of my internal drive - - -

    Using DiskWarrior I rebuilt the directory of my external OS X drive
    okay, however when I attempted to reboot (my internal drive) - the
    internal drive "froze" during reboot (steady blank blue screen) - could
    not force-quit because no keyboard response at all, had to press reset
    button in back of my Pismo powerbook to regain control of the
    powerbook.

    This is the first time I have had a freeze of OS X in months of hard
    operation, and it occured right after I installed DiskWarrior 3.0 into
    my internal drive's OS X partition.

    I restored my internal drive's OS X partition from a backup, just in
    case OS X was damaged.

    Not wishing to blame DiskWarrior right away, this time I tried
    something different.

    I booted from my external drive's OS X partition, and rebuilt the
    directory of my internal drive's OS X partition.

    It rebuilt okay, with one very minor fault of a wrong icon, which it
    fixed.

    When I tried to save the report about the wrong icon, the DW
    application suddenly quit.

    Okay, that's it, I am going to revert to using the older version 2.1.1
    of DiskWarrior, which never displayed these problems. It is four times
    slower than the new version of DW, but it is rock-solid reliable.

    FWIW, the version of OS X on my internal drive is 10.2.6, and the
    version on my external drive is 10.2.5

    Has anyone else had problems with DW 3.0 or am I the only one?

    Mark-
    Mark Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: DiskWarrior 3.0 flaky, anyone else? (OS X)

    In article
    <comcast.giganews.com>, Tom
    Stiller <net> wrote:
     
    >
    > I can't speak for anyone else, but I have never had a problem with DW
    > 3.0. I have run it while started from the internal drive, two different
    > partitions on the external (FireWire) drive, and the CD -- never a
    > problem.[/ref]

    Well, I hate to give up on the 3.0 version of DW, because it is four
    times faster than the older 2.1.1 version.

    It only causes me problems with the disk that DW operates _from_, never
    causing problems with the disk that it is actually working on.

    I think I will try using DW from its CD, like some folks do, instead of
    moving DW to my hard drive.

    Odd how some people have trouble with some applications, when no one
    else does, guess it has something to do with the specific
    hardware/software configurations that differents folks run.

    I seem to recall that a long time ago you mentioned that you did not
    exactly trust the utility SpeedDisk for some reason, yet I myself used
    SpeedDisk over the years and it never caused me any problems whatever.

    Go figure, does not make sense at all.

    Mark-
    Mark Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: DiskWarrior 3.0 flaky, anyone else? (OS X)

    In article <010820030630390311%invalid>,
    Mark Conrad <invalid> wrote:
     
    > >
    > > I can't speak for anyone else, but I have never had a problem with DW
    > > 3.0. I have run it while started from the internal drive, two different
    > > partitions on the external (FireWire) drive, and the CD -- never a
    > > problem.[/ref]
    >
    > Well, I hate to give up on the 3.0 version of DW, because it is four
    > times faster than the older 2.1.1 version.
    >
    > It only causes me problems with the disk that DW operates _from_, never
    > causing problems with the disk that it is actually working on.[/ref]

    Maybe your experiments with saving and restoring disk partitions is not
    as successful as you think.
     

    You must have me confused with someone else. I have never used, nor
    reported on, a program named "SpeedDisk". 

    --
    Tom Stiller

    PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3
    7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
    Tom Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: DiskWarrior 3.0 flaky, anyone else? (OS X)

    In article <310720032349555582%invalid>,
    Mark Conrad <invalid> wrote:
     

    I find the SMART disk checker flakey. I had a crash while trying to turn
    it on (reported to Alsoft a few weeks ago and haven't heard boo from
    them). The problems are associated with the menu that lets one pick a
    disk and only seem to show up if I have my firewire disk connected.

    I also found that when I turned on automatic SMART checking; I chose
    something innocous like 1/day or 1/week and found my computer was
    frequently freezing for many seconds at a time. ProcessWatcher showed
    some oddly named (all punctuation) process intermittantly taking up
    "240%" of the CPU. Not sure what that means, but turning off SMART
    checking made it go away.

    Also, I have a Magneto-Optical disk that I tried cleaning up in DW.
    DiskWarrior showed it as two separate disks (identically named), which
    is odd and disturbing. DW could build a new directory on one of them,
    but then claimed comparison was hopeless because the old directory was
    so messed up (fine) but then it refused to allow me to replace the
    defective directory (that button was grayed out) -- pretty frustrating,
    since the new directory looked just fine. I tried this a few times and
    sometimes DW crashed.

    Fortunately I had a copy of the data so I could just ignore the MO.

    So yes, overall I find the new DW significantly less robust than the old
    one. I hope they're working on a bug fix release.

    -- Russell
    Russell Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: DiskWarrior 3.0 flaky, anyone else? (OS X)

    In article <010820030630390311%invalid>, Mark Conrad
    <invalid> wrote:
     

    Wow! - the posts about DW 3.0 are rolling in.<g>

    So far, DW 3.0 has not messed up the partition it is actually working
    on, in my case. (knock on wood)

    Maybe it is because I don't use any Asian fonts. ;-)

    Well, it did not work any better for me when I booted from the DW 3.0
    CD. The DW app' chugged along for awhile, got to the step where it was
    creating a replacement directory, ran okay for about 5 minutes, then
    all by itself rebooted my computer, without an error message of any
    sort.

    Immediately after the DW-imposed reboot, I used old DW version 2.1.1 on
    the same OS X partition I was trying to rebuild the directory on, and
    this time the directory was rebuilt okay without any faults or
    warnings.

    Simple enough conclusion. DW 2.1.1 works, DW 3.0 doesn't work.

    Mark-
    Mark Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: DiskWarrior 3.0 flaky, anyone else? (OS X)

    In article
    <comcast.giganews.com>, Tom
    Stiller <net> wrote:
     
    >
    > You must have me confused with someone else. I have never used, nor
    > reported on, a program named "SpeedDisk".[/ref]

    Sorry about that, my memory is nothing to brag about.

     

    Well, FWIW, the older version 2.1.1 of DiskWarrior gives my restored
    OS-X partitions a clean bill of health.

    It is only the newer version 3.0 that causes freezes, un-wanted
    reboots, and dropout of the DW program with no error message displayed
    onscreen.

    BTW, all those nasty things happen also with a freshly installed OS X,
    where my backup scheme is never used.

    Mark-
    Mark Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: DiskWarrior 3.0 flaky, anyone else? (OS X)

    In article <bge7vl$222c$u.washington.edu>, Russell E. Owen
    <invalid> wrote:
     

    Same here.

    I have no complaints whatever about the speed of the new version.

    Apparently Alsoft is cutting corners on testing their app's nowadays.

    Mark-
    Mark Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: DiskWarrior 3.0 flaky, anyone else? (OS X)

    In article <invalid>, David C. <com>
    wrote:
     

    Same here, I do not install those kinds of utilities either, just
    install the basic DW app' itself by dragging it into my Utility folder
    as Alsoft recommends.

    Apparently the newest DW is still a work in progress. Think I will let
    six months go by and then try it again.

    Mark-
    Mark Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: DiskWarrior 3.0 flaky, anyone else? (OS X)

    In article <010820031924040283%invalid>, Mark Conrad
    <invalid> wrote:
     
    > >
    > > You must have me confused with someone else. I have never used, nor
    > > reported on, a program named "SpeedDisk".[/ref]
    >
    > Sorry about that, my memory is nothing to brag about.
    >

    >
    > Well, FWIW, the older version 2.1.1 of DiskWarrior gives my restored
    > OS-X partitions a clean bill of health.
    >
    > It is only the newer version 3.0 that causes freezes, un-wanted
    > reboots, and dropout of the DW program with no error message displayed
    > onscreen.
    >
    > BTW, all those nasty things happen also with a freshly installed OS X,
    > where my backup scheme is never used.[/ref]

    I suspect a hardware problem, actually.

    --
    Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

    When replying by e-mail, use plain text ONLY to make sure I read it.
    Due to spam and viruses, I filter all mail with HTML or attachments.
    Jerry Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: DiskWarrior 3.0 flaky, anyone else? (OS X)

    Mark Conrad <invalid> wrote:
     

    Well, at least in this case it's a know issue that Alsoft has
    acknowledged.

    --
    Mike Rosenberg

    <http://www.macconsult.com>
    <http://bogart-tribute.net>
    Mike Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: DiskWarrior 3.0 flaky, anyone else? (OS X)

    In article <1fz2648.qa7khi775rpmN%invalid>, Mike
    Rosenberg <invalid> wrote:
     
    >
    > Well, at least in this case it's a known issue that Alsoft has
    > acknowledged.[/ref]

    Apparently not all users are having problems with the 3.0 version.

    It seems most prone to happen right after installation of OS X, when
    the files are scattered all over the disk.

    Now the older version of DiskWarrior, version 2.1.1 has never caused me
    any problems when I use it to rebuild the directory of an OS X
    partition, outside of being s-l-o-o-w.

    Problem is, I don't know whether Alsoft "accepts" the use of that older
    version for use on OS X.

    ....still, a HFS+ volume is a HFS+ volume, so it really should not make
    much difference, but I still have an uneasy feeling about using the old
    version of DW on OS X.

    Mark-
    Mark Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: DiskWarrior 3.0 flaky, anyone else? (OS X)

    Mark Conrad <invalid> wrote:
     
    >
    > Apparently not all users are having problems with the 3.0 version.[/ref]

    I didn't have time to expand on my comment this morning. The known
    issue, which seems to have no rhyme or reason as to when it occurs, is
    the freeze while attempting to reboot that you described in the original
    post, but what I neglected to mention is that it can occur even when
    you've booted the Mac from the DW 3.0 CD. I've seen it happen on 3-4
    machines, and not happen on maybe 7-8 others.
     

    They do. It's just that you can't use it on one of the Macs that can't
    boot OS 9.

    --
    Mike Rosenberg

    <http://www.macconsult.com>
    <http://bogart-tribute.net>
    Mike Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: DiskWarrior 3.0 flaky, anyone else? (OS X)

    In article <1fz2pzu.19o3j9g1x1l2ccN%invalid>, Mike
    Rosenberg <invalid> wrote:
     
    >
    > They do. It's just that you can't use it on one of the Macs that can't
    > boot OS 9.[/ref]

    Yipes! - I never even thought of that, good point.

    I consider myself a 'late-adopter' of OS X, and I am still frantically
    trying to round up OS X versions of all the programs and utilities that
    I used with Apple's older OSs.

    About the general subject of creating bug-free software, it appears to
    be extremely difficult to do so.

    I just hope that by the time I upgrade to a newer Mac that Alsoft will
    squash the bugs in DiskWarrior.

    Seems the more I "push" an operating system, the more strange bugs
    appear. In other words, with "simple" use of an OS, very few bugs seem
    to surface, at least for me.

    As an example of what I mean, I fed this compound command to OS-10.2.5
    on my external boot drive. This command restores my 3GB OS-10.2.6 to
    my freshly erased and "wiped" internal drive's 12GB partition:

    dd if=/Volumes/Util-4/OSX-Backup-8-2/Bak of=/dev/rdisk0 bs=524288
    count=1001;dd if=/Volumes/Util-4/OSX-Backup-8-2/Bak2 of=/dev/rdisk0
    bs=524288 oseek=1000 count=1001;dd
    if=/Volumes/Util-4/OSX-Backup-8-2/Bak3 of=/dev/rdisk0 bs=524288
    oseek=2000 count=1001;dd if=/Volumes/Util-4/OSX-Backup-8-2/Bak4
    of=/dev/rdisk0 bs=524288 oseek=3000 count=1001;dd
    if=/Volumes/Util-4/OSX-Backup-8-2/Bak5 of=/dev/rdisk0 bs=524288
    oseek=4000 count=1001;dd if=/Volumes/Util-4/OSX-Backup-8-2/Bak6
    of=/dev/rdisk0 bs=524288 oseek=5000 count=1001;dd
    if=/Volumes/Util-4/OSX-Backup-8-2/Bak7 of=/dev/rdisk0 bs=524288
    oseek=6000 count=1001;dd if=/Volumes/Util-4/OSX-Backup-8-2/Bak8
    of=/dev/rdisk0 bs=524288 oseek=24574 count=5

    The command took 5 minutes to execute, then promptly displayed this
    strange message:

    "The drive you removed was not put away properly, there may be damage
    to the files on that drive."

    Well, in the first place I did not remove any drive.<g>

    Imagine the trouble Apple programmers would have trying to eliminate
    this strange behavior of OS X. Could be caused by anything, the
    hardware, or OS X itself.

    Anyhow, I used DiskWarrior 2.1.1 (the older version) to check the
    internal drive's OS X partition that I restored. DW took its usual
    hour to run, and gave a clean bill of health to the restored OS X
    partition.

    Mark-
    Mark Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: DiskWarrior 3.0 flaky, anyone else? (OS X)

    Mark Conrad <invalid> writes: 

    I hope you were booted from a CD or your external hard drive at the
    time.

    Restoring over a mounted volume (especially the boot volume) using
    this technique is a very bad thing to do. You _WILL_ result in a
    corrupted drive.

    Making a backup of a mounted volume using this technique is equally
    bad, because you won't be backing up any data that's held in the
    system's cache.
     

    No, but you completely overwrote /dev/rdisk0 at a sector level. If
    that volume was mounted at the time, then its contents are now 100%
    out of sync with what the system thinks is in there.
     

    Strange behavior? When you're executing a sequence of commands that
    would result in a corrupt volume on nearly every UNIX platform ever
    mande?
     

    You're lucky.

    -- David
    David Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: DiskWarrior 3.0 flaky, anyone else? (OS X)

    I ran on a DP 1GHz G4 and my old 500 MHz G4 Powerbook with no problems
    using the DW CD as startup.

    As a previous poster mentioned, I also will not install any authomatic
    disk checking software on my hard drive, but will stick to simple CD
    startup.

    Mark Conrad wrote:
     

    George Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: DiskWarrior 3.0 flaky, anyone else? (OS X)

    In article
    <comcast.giganews.com>, Tom
    Stiller <net> wrote:
     
    >
    > Well, actually, you did. :-(
    > When you specified the output device as a raw disk and rewrote its
    > volume table of contents, it went offline (i.e. was "removed"). This is
    > not a strange behavior is OS X but rather an unwitting error on the part
    > of the operator.[/ref]

    Aha! - my policy of charging in like a bull in a china shop might be
    paying off yet again.<g>

    I assume you are refering to the "rdisk0" part of the command, that I
    should have entered "disk0" instead.

    I am thoroughly confused about the proper usage of "rdisk0" vs "disk0"

    When I asked for help on this issue a long time ago, everyone tried to
    explain the difference to me, but it just did not register in my mind.

    I will substitute "disk0" for all the improper "rdisk0" parts of the
    command, and see if that results in more civilized behavior.

    As for really understanding when and why to use "disk0" vs "rdisk0", I
    am convinced that I am way too stupid to comprehend the difference :-(


     

    Yeah, there are a lot of us stupid people out there, making life
    difficult for all the clever people like yourself, but hang in there,
    the stupid ones will eventually get discouraged and disappear.

    FWIW, thanks for the help on this issue. I suspected that I might be
    messing up on that command somehow.

    Blaming my troubles on Apple got the desired response though, which is
    all that really matters to me. ;-)

    Mark-
    Mark Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: DiskWarrior 3.0 flaky, anyone else? (OS X)

    In article <invalid>, David C. <com>
    wrote:
     

    As I mentioned in my post, I booted from my external drive.

     

    I did not mention it in my posts, but the internal drive I was
    rebuilding had all its partitions _unmounted_

     
    >
    > No, but you completely overwrote /dev/rdisk0 at a sector level. If
    > that volume was mounted at the time, then its contents are now 100%
    > out of sync with what the system thinks is in there.[/ref]

    The volume being rebuilt was unmounted, as were all the partitions on
    the internal disk drive.

     

    Far from it, I have used that same sequence of commands for roughly 100
    restore operations so far, and never once did it result in a corrupted
    volume.
     

    Yup, but then I don't really care about this extreme run of luck that I
    am having. As long as I get the desired results, I will continue
    doing things wrong ;-)

    ....unless of course some Unix expert like Tom Stiller takes pity on me
    and explains the error of my ways to me in a fashion that my feeble
    brain can comprehend - - - a daunting task indeed, considering how
    dense I am, as many here are quick to point out to me.

    Mark-
    Mark Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: DiskWarrior 3.0 flaky, anyone else? (OS X)

    In article <030820031353077397%invalid>,
    Mark Conrad <invalid> wrote:
     
    > >
    > > Well, actually, you did. :-(
    > > When you specified the output device as a raw disk and rewrote its
    > > volume table of contents, it went offline (i.e. was "removed"). This is
    > > not a strange behavior is OS X but rather an unwitting error on the part
    > > of the operator.[/ref]
    >
    > Aha! - my policy of charging in like a bull in a china shop might be
    > paying off yet again.<g>
    >
    > I assume you are refering to the "rdisk0" part of the command, that I
    > should have entered "disk0" instead.[/ref]

    No, I was referring to the fact that since the OS noted that the volume
    had been removed, albeit improperly, it must have bee mounted, possible
    inadvertently. Did you stop the autodiskmount daemon or did you just
    let the volume mount in the background after the first of your chained
    commands? 

    It doesn't matter how you refer to the device, if you change its
    internal table of contents while it's mounted, the filesystem will be
    justifiably upset.
     
    >
    > Yeah, there are a lot of us stupid people out there, making life
    > difficult for all the clever people like yourself, but hang in there,
    > the stupid ones will eventually get discouraged and disappear.
    >
    > FWIW, thanks for the help on this issue. I suspected that I might be
    > messing up on that command somehow.
    >
    > Blaming my troubles on Apple got the desired response though, which is
    > all that really matters to me. ;-)[/ref]

    If the desired response was to confirm (to me) that you are an
    irresponsible bumbler, you have, indeed, achieved your objective.

    --
    Tom Stiller

    PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3
    7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
    Tom Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: DiskWarrior 3.0 flaky, anyone else? (OS X)

    In article
    <comcast.giganews.com>, Tom
    Stiller <net> wrote:
     
    >
    > Well, actually, you did. :-(
    > When you specified the output device as a raw disk and rewrote its
    > volume table of contents, it went offline (i.e. was "removed"). This is
    > not a strange behavior is OS X but rather an unwitting error on the part
    > of the operator.[/ref]

    It was as you said, operator error on my part.

    I changed all occurances of "rdisk0" to "disk0" and the error message
    did not occur.

    Right now I am checking the restored disk with DiskWarrior version
    2.1.1, which should be through in an hour from now with no errors
    reported on the directory.

    Thanks for the help, you really have a knack for cutting through to the
    heart of the matter.

    Mark-
    Mark Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: DiskWarrior 3.0 flaky, anyone else? (OS X)

    In article
    <comcast.giganews.com>, Tom
    Stiller <net> wrote:
     
    >
    > No, I was referring to the fact that since the OS noted that the volume
    > had been removed, albeit improperly, it must have bee mounted, possible
    > inadvertently. Did you stop the autodiskmount daemon or did you just
    > let the volume mount in the background after the first of your chained
    > commands?[/ref]

    Ah, therein lies a long story.

    I was worried that the volume would try to mount itself midway during
    my long command, but I did not know how to allow for that possibility.

    I thought of placing a forced "unmount" command between the individual
    restore operations of the long command.

    I am not all that familiar with the forced-unmount command however, and
    thought I would really mess things up if I used it in the wrong manner.

    Anyhow, your other suggestion of substituting "disk0" for all
    occurances of "rdisk0" seems to have cleared the problem up just fine.

    Wish I knew more about what I was doing, but I guess that comes with
    more experience.

    Mark-
    Mark Guest

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. WindowsPrincipal.IsInRole() is Being Flaky. Help!!
    By David Jessee in forum ASP.NET Security
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 11th, 03:16 AM
  2. #9876 [Com]: OCIPLogon flaky after restart Oracle
    By aferaud at buyingpack dot com in forum PHP Development
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 18th, 10:05 AM
  3. Can Diskwarrior fix this?
    By Edward Floden in forum Mac Applications & Software
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 19th, 05:32 PM
  4. Combo box flaky update
    By John Vinson in forum Microsoft Access
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 28th, 12:31 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139