Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Tee · Mar 4, 2004, 11:15 PM

I have the internal drive in my Ti Book split into two partitions.
One has 10.2.8 and the other has 9.2.2.

If I check the OS X disk with DFA while booted into OS9 it reports an invalid BTree Header and a problem with the Mount Check.

However, running fsck on the OSX disk shows no problems...

Which should I believe?

Should I fix the OS X partition under OS9 with DFA?

chris v · Mar 5, 2004, 10:42 AM

It's possible that fsck doesn't see an actual problem, but I don't know if Disk First Aid will screw up an OS X partition or not. As always, I'd reccomend DiskWarrior over either DFA or fsck.

CV

Macola · Mar 5, 2004, 04:49 PM

As CV said, DiskWarrior is definitely the way to go in this situation. However, you can also try booting from your Jaguar CD and running Disk Utility from there. It should give you the same results as fsck.

Tee · Mar 5, 2004, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by Macola:
As CV said, DiskWarrior is definitely the way to go in this situation. However, you can also try booting from your Jaguar CD and running Disk Utility from there. It should give you the same results as fsck.

When I booted from my Apple CD and ran Disk Utility it reported no problems!

The errors only show up with OS9 DFA...

I guess I will just assume that everything is ok.

Is it normal for DFA to show nonexistent errors on OSX boot volumes?

Cadaver · Mar 5, 2004, 06:46 PM

Ick. People still use OS 9??

wunderkind · Mar 5, 2004, 07:33 PM

Don't use OS 9 DFA to repair an OS X partition.

Tee · Mar 5, 2004, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by wunderkind:
Don't use OS 9 DFA to repair an OS X partition.

OK, I won't.

Is there a specific reason for why this is a bad idea?
I thought both systems use HFS+ and that disks created on one platform were usable on the other...

Moonray · Mar 5, 2004, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by Tee:
OK, I won't.

Is there a specific reason for why this is a bad idea?
I thought both systems use HFS+ and that disks created on one platform were usable on the other...

I think Apple has good reasons to have OS 9 utilities not corrupt OS X files, and yes, HFS+ is HFS+. Disk Warrior for OS 9 was also always good to repair Volumes with OS X installed. I won't guarantee anything, but I don't see any reason to share the previous poster's opinion.

-

PubGuy · Mar 5, 2004, 10:27 PM

Don't forget that 10.2.3 turns on journaling by default. OS 9 doesn't know anything about journaling and should not be used to repair the disk. If you absolutely must use an OS9 utility, you will first have to launch Disk Untility in OS X, select each partition, then select "File - Disable Journaling". At this point, you can boot back into OS9 and use DW2.x to test and repair the volume. Once done, you'll have to go back into X and turn the journaling back on.

Tee · Mar 5, 2004, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by PubGuy:
Don't forget that 10.2.3 turns on journaling by default. OS 9 doesn't know anything about journaling and should not be used to repair the disk. If you absolutely must use an OS9 utility, you will first have to launch Disk Untility in OS X, select each partition, then select "File - Disable Journaling". At this point, you can boot back into OS9 and use DW2.x to test and repair the volume. Once done, you'll have to go back into X and turn the journaling back on.

Sorry, I didn't specify that I'm using 10.2.8.

Also, I think your reference to 10.2.3 using journaling was a typo. Jaguar doesn't use journaling by default but I think Panther does.

Moonray · Mar 5, 2004, 11:50 PM

Again: It does not matter from where you repair your HD, if your Mac permits you can boot into OS 9 and change the file system by deleting and creating new files as well as running a disk utility. Both will ignore the journaling of OS X which will get restored the next time you boot into OS X.

I wonder why some people here are so ignorant about this.

Oh and here is the Apple article: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=107249. (The line about checking with the disk utility vendor is there to keep their back free and not because they would expect any problems).

Tee: Apple's First Aid is available in 10.2.8 too and should be in your Utilities folder (in 10.3 it is integrated into "Disk Utility"), maybe you want to check with that one too.

-

CharlesS · Mar 6, 2004, 12:53 AM

Regardless, I wouldn't run OS 9's DFA if it's reporting errors where fsck says there are none. The fsck tool is a more advanced version of DFA, and if there's a discrepancy between the two, I'd tend to trust fsck. When a utility tries to "fix" problems that don't exist, it's not a good thing - I learned that with Norton years ago.

Chuckit · Mar 6, 2004, 04:05 AM

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Regardless, I wouldn't run OS 9's DFA if it's reporting errors where fsck says there are none. The fsck tool is a more advanced version of DFA, and if there's a discrepancy between the two, I'd tend to trust fsck. When a utility tries to "fix" problems that don't exist, it's not a good thing - I learned that with Norton years ago.

I've actually had OS 9 DFA fix errors that fsck couldn't. It surprised me, but it does seem to have some features that haven't made it into fsck.

Of course, so does Norton, but those are all features like Super HD Destroy and HoseDrive 5000....

That said, though, Charles (the other one, not me) is probably right. If fsck thinks everything is peachy keen, there most likely aren't any dire problems.