• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Ohhh I'm Having a Pain in my OS.....X!

C

cpu4u2007

Junior Member
"Overlapped Extent Allocation" (File 425XXXX)
"Orphaned Indirect Node" (Temp 435XXXX)

The volume bitmap could not be repaired!

I deal with this kinda "Mac-A-Crap" every day on our E-mac's, I-Mac's, I-Book's, and our G3/G4's running OS X (10.2) AKA Jag. The IT guy who says he'd prefer OS X to Windows XP/2000 or Linux just hasn't had the experience of running OS X on a system wide level yet.

Respectfully,
Rod_Dog:roll:
 
Where did you get this error?
Have you tried booting in single-user, and running FSCK?
Have you tried booting from an OSX install disk, and running diskutility repair?

I have OSX( 10.1-10.3 ) on 84 machines. Of the few problems I've had were ALL BUT ONE was a hardware or non-OS software problem, and the other was a stupid admin problem. He gave a user an unlimited account, and they had their machine fscked up beyond repair before the end of the day.

If you keep a user locked down to only what they absolutely need to ge the job done their machine will run without issue for the most part. This is true for any OS.

 
I've helped administrate 2 large installations on college campuses of OS X machines, one running around 7-80 computers and the second one running around 30-40 computers. Mostly PowerG4s, all thru the various versions of the PowerG4 from the earliest models to the dual 1.25ghz.

They were very much easier to maintain then a comparitive number of Windows machines.

However I can attest to the fact that their filing systems are weak due to a few different reasons, and not realy totally Apple's fault either...

3rd party software changes permissions and that causes issues.

The filing system is subject to corruptions thru people power cycling it without turning it off. VERY irritating.

If a computer was acting up, then it was standard practice to boot up with a install cdrom and run a file system repair then a permission repair. That solved 90% of all issues with the OS X boxen.

One thing that people do that is HELL on OS X machines is run OS 9 on them.

OS 9 is usually aviable for "classic" mode. If install OS 9 on the same partition as OS X and then dual boot it, your virtually garrenteed to f**k up your OS X system after a while. It's just a matter of time. Always install OS 9 on a seperate partition if it can be helped!

Another screwed up thing people do is run defragging utilities on OS X, which is a definate no-no. You never do that, and especially never run any repair/optmization/rescue utilities designed for OS 9. That will kill you. Use apple's provided repair utilities in the install disk and 3rd party rescue/repair stuff designed specificly for OS X.

Also never use UFS for OS X, use HFS+.

If your having problems with power-cycling you can enable file system journalling for OS 10.2.2 newer (10.3 it's enabled by default).

You go into a terminal and using sudo you go:
sudo diskutil enableJournal /

if you have more then one volume
diskutil list
will show you all of there names...
diskutil --help

will give you some directions...

Journalling will help protect file incase of proper shutdown... (to a certain extent) but it will cause a slight performance drop. Computers with slower CPU's will be harder hit, but ones with faster cpus the difference is hardly noticable.
 
I've actually found UFS to be good unless you're trying to run OS9 aswell.
All of our apps are native X now, so we remove Classic right away(another thing to keep the user from messing their machine up).
We also have a forced fsck for every reboot.
 
Well, personally I'd stick with HFS+.

It fits more with in the character of the OS X client. There are some differences HFS+ is not case sensitive (but stores cases), UFS is for instance.

HFS+ uses : as a file directory deliminator, UFS uses / like regular unix stuff.
HFS+ uses "alias" for shortcuts, UFS uses symbolic links.

But the main one is that HFS+ supports having multiple forks of metadata about files, and on UFS OS X is forced to emulate that stuff, so if UFS is anything like network shares you end up with lots of hidden files all over the place were you use OS X GUI's to navigate and manipulate files.

Like on SMB shares you end up with these ._filename files that tend to litter things up. Not sure on UFS.

Also even though on some versions of UFS they support journalling, Apple's HFS+ and UFS originally did not.

Apple in 10.2.2 added on journalling thru extentions on the supported 4.4BSD-style VFS plug-in stuff for it's HFS+ filing system. (googled it 😛 )

I don't know if they did for UFS. The journalling should help out quite a bit to ensure filesystem integrity. The VFS stuff works for UFS, but i don't know if they implimented journalling in it, they could of...

UFS's advantage is that it's fully POSIX-compatable, and HFS+ is not. So some server applications need UFS.

So if journalling is supported in UFS then it's a toss up, IMO. I still lean towards HFS+ because it can handle OS X's file metadata properly, but if OS X's UFS doesn't support journalling, then I'd definately use HFS+ unless I realy realy have to run UFS.


Different filing systems supported by OS X:
http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/arch_fs.html

Although I don't realy like HFS+ personally anyways. I have the feeling that it from the era of Fat32-type filing systems. For instance HFS is 16bit.... So that makes me think of fat16, and HFS+ is like Fat16+, which is, of course, fat32. Don't know if it's justified or not, but Apple would do good to migrate to something more modern such as XFS. IMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top