Virtual Machine and NTFS

John John - MVP wrote:

About 3 years ago I installed XP on a 250 gb FAT-32 partitioned
hard drive and installed Adobe Premier CS3. It had no problems
creating large video files that spanned the 4 gb file-size limit
of FAT32.

Wow! How absolutely unbeleivable! Now you are telling us that
you broke the binary limits of the FAT32 file system!

No. I'm telling you that Adobe CS3 knows how to write to FAT32 volumes
and that it automatically creates output files of 4 gb each as it's
writing to the drive.

Don't be so juvenille about this.

John John - MVP wrote:

Simple. Acronis doesn't have the brains to split it's backup
files into 4 gb chunks. Which is a useful feature the user
might want even if it was being written to an NTFS volume.

Splitting a file in multiple segments of less than 4GB and then
saying that you created files greater than 4GB on FAT32

I've never said I created files greater than 4 gb on FAT32.

I said that for sufficiently smart programs, they know that they should
truncate their output to 4 gb and simply create a chain of output
files. That way they can effectively deal with the 4 gb file-size
limitation of FAT32.

And I still say there are practical and ergonomic reasons why you'd want
to divide large files into smaller chunks (1 gb, 4 gb, etc) regardless
what the file system is capable of.

On 10/19/2010 11:02 AM, Philo Pastry wrote:
John John - MVP wrote:

About 3 years ago I installed XP on a 250 gb FAT-32 partitioned
hard drive and installed Adobe Premier CS3. It had no problems
creating large video files that spanned the 4 gb file-size limit
of FAT32.

Wow! How absolutely unbeleivable! Now you are telling us that
you broke the binary limits of the FAT32 file system!

No. I'm telling you that Adobe CS3 knows how to write to FAT32 volumes
and that it automatically creates output files of 4 gb each as it's
writing to the drive.

Don't be so juvenille about this.

No, this is more of your BS and obfuscation to try to make readers
believe that the 4GB file size limit is a non issue on FAT32 and that
creating multiple segments is your elegant way around the problem!

John

"John John - MVP" wrote in message
...
On 10/18/2010 11:01 PM, Philo Pastry wrote:
John John - MVP wrote:

People working with video editing and multimedia files often run
across this 4GB file limitations. Backup/imaging utilities also
often run into problems caused by this file size limitation,

About 3 years ago I installed XP on a 250 gb FAT-32 partitioned hard
drive and installed Adobe Premier CS3. It had no problems creating
large video files that spanned the 4 gb file-size limit of FAT32.

Wow! How absolutely unbeleivable! Now you are telling us that you
broke the binary limits of the FAT32 file system! The BS never
stops...what next?

Actually, what he said in another later reply (so as to obfuscate the
issue, as usual) was that a feature of Adobe Premier CS3 automatically
saved the large video file as a group of smaller files that were each
under 4GB. This is typical 98 Guy "debating" tactics, to leave out
relevant info till later, to alter his statements, to throw in
irrelevant info to obfuscate.

I've read this argument over and over every time he decides to re-hash
it, and he apparently likes to waste time re-hashing it regularly even
though we've all read it before many times. He likes to argue for the
sake of argument...it's not debating. With his "200 years of computer
experience", he considers himself much more knowledgeable than anyone
here. I believe the correct term for him is "******".
--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+
http://dts-l.net/

On 10/19/2010 10:58 AM, Philo Pastry wrote:
John John - MVP wrote:

I've seen too many examples of NT-server log files that contain
actual and up-to-date data one hour, and because of a power
failure the system comes back up and half the stuff that *was*
in the log file is gone.

You're lying again and the above statement proves beyond the shadow
of a doubt that you have absolutely no experience whatsoever on
NT server systems!

We have an NT-4 SERVER running an IIS website.

A log file of web-server hits is created daily. At the end of each day,
the current log file is closed and the next log file is opened.

I can access these log files on our local LAN, and I can even copy an
image of the current log file from the NT4 server to my machine.

Every time there was a power failure, not only would ALL the data in the
current log file be replaced with nulls after the server was rebooted,
but so too was the data in the 14 previous-days log files. Their file
size was not altered or changed - but all the data they contained was
replaced by nulls.

A fine example of NTFS journalling.

Well this is plainly simple, it is a testament to your incompetence and
ineptitude that you would be running an outdated program on an outdated
operating system that runs an old, different and completely outdated
NTFS version! This problem was corrected on Windows 2000...

John

"mm" wrote in message
...
snip

Are you using XPSP3 Home or Pro Edition as the host OS?

Pro, it appears. That was what was on this DELL before the HD failed
and he gave me the computer and the CD's that came with it.

If you find the old Connectix version 5 does not do all you want, try
the newer free version, Virtual PC 2007:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/e...displaylang=en

I would rather have newer! Thanks.

I read, probably in the wikip entry for this, that it was free for a
while after MS bought it, but it also gavem me the impression it
wasn't anymore. No time now to go reread it. I'm happy to have the
new version.

Thanks.

It's been free since Microsoft bought it, AFAIK.
--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+
http://dts-l.net/

"Philo Pastry" wrote in message
...
John John - MVP wrote:

I've seen too many examples of NT-server log files that contain
actual and up-to-date data one hour, and because of a power
failure the system comes back up and half the stuff that *was*
in the log file is gone.

You're lying again and the above statement proves beyond the shadow
of a doubt that you have absolutely no experience whatsoever on
NT server systems!

We have an NT-4 SERVER running an IIS website.

A log file of web-server hits is created daily. At the end of each
day,
the current log file is closed and the next log file is opened.

I can access these log files on our local LAN, and I can even copy an
image of the current log file from the NT4 server to my machine.

Every time there was a power failure, not only would ALL the data in
the
current log file be replaced with nulls after the server was rebooted,
but so too was the data in the 14 previous-days log files. Their file
size was not altered or changed - but all the data they contained was
replaced by nulls.

A fine example of NTFS journalling.

You're running NT4? Why? Is that the only OS you were able to pirate
at the time?
How did you manage to have a power failure issue on the server in the
first place? No one runs a server without a UPS. A power failure that
lasts longer than the UPS can supply should also not be an issue, since
the system would have done a formal shutdown before that, using simple
software that comes with every UPS.
--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+
http://dts-l.net/

On 10/19/2010 11:38 AM, glee wrote:
"Philo Pastry" wrote in message
...
John John - MVP wrote:

I've seen too many examples of NT-server log files that contain
actual and up-to-date data one hour, and because of a power
failure the system comes back up and half the stuff that *was*
in the log file is gone.

You're lying again and the above statement proves beyond the shadow
of a doubt that you have absolutely no experience whatsoever on
NT server systems!

We have an NT-4 SERVER running an IIS website.

A log file of web-server hits is created daily. At the end of each day,
the current log file is closed and the next log file is opened.

I can access these log files on our local LAN, and I can even copy an
image of the current log file from the NT4 server to my machine.

Every time there was a power failure, not only would ALL the data in the
current log file be replaced with nulls after the server was rebooted,
but so too was the data in the 14 previous-days log files. Their file
size was not altered or changed - but all the data they contained was
replaced by nulls.

A fine example of NTFS journalling.

You're running NT4? Why? Is that the only OS you were able to pirate at
the time?
How did you manage to have a power failure issue on the server in the
first place? No one runs a server without a UPS. A power failure that
lasts longer than the UPS can supply should also not be an issue, since
the system would have done a formal shutdown before that, using simple
software that comes with every UPS.

He only recently acquired and installed NT4, he was posting on the NT4
groups as "NT Guy" not long ago when he first ever saw or used NT4. As
for him not using a UPS after experiencing problems after his first
power failure that is just more of his 200 years of inexperience
showing. He probably mounted his NT4 disk in a later NT machine not
even knowing how this would affect the NT4 NTFS file system...

John

mm wrote in message I'll say this. At first when win98FE crashed, I would
find files that were missing

It's the Hard Drive going bad, Not the Software win 98 FE .... the Hard
Drive crashed,

To save your win 98 FE and stop the files from missing....
You would need to get a new Hard Drive make one 32 GB partition on it with
a FAT32 system
And Xcopy the 98 FE to the new Hard Drive is the only way to stop the lost
of create!

That How you do the repair to the Hard Drive,

"glee" wrote in message
...

You're running NT4? Why? Is that the only OS you were able to pirate at
the time?

D

How did you manage to have a power failure issue on the server in the
first place? No one runs a server without a UPS. A power failure that
lasts longer than the UPS can supply should also not be an issue, since
the system would have done a formal shutdown before that, using simple
software that comes with every UPS.

You're talking to someone who apparently believes that W98 is *more* secure
than NT versions because of its immunity to privilege escalation exploits.