In the scenarios you describe, you aren't any worse off for running
Disk Warrior.
On Jan 31, 2005, at 3:34 PM, Dan Shoop wrote:
At 4:50 PM -0600 1/28/05, Bryan Dulock wrote:
The way Disk Warrior operates is to rebuild the directory structure
from what's already there.
That is, by definition, an invasive operation.
Agreed, it is an invasive operation. So what. One could argue that
installing software might be an invasive operation.
If your "observations" are finding problems, either the DW code is
flawed or you had an already corrupted system.
Recommending that ppl who are having filesystem errors run DW to fix
them implies they likely have corrupted filesystems. As such the
"repair" filesystem may have corrupt, missing or improperly linked
files.
It depends on the corruption. A corrupted directory structure can be
repaired. In the case you describe, you're not worse off running DW.
But if your idea is to guarantee a fixed system, I would agree that
erasing and reinstalling from backup/scratch is the proper solution.
What about the way DW operates implies it can easily lose or corrupt
files?
A files linkage is broken. This file can be lost despite a "repair".
Disk Warrior reports this information when it has completed repairs.
Two files have the same linkages. One, or both files can problematic
after "repair".
Ditto above.
A file's linkages are damaged. DW recovers what nodes it finds,
resulting in a corrupt file.
Bottom line, Disk Warrior reports on the changes it makes compared to
the original file system. If it makes changes, you should know what
was changed in the report and be able to guage if a reinstall is
necessary.
But I can agree that if file corruption has occurred, DW won't address
this and a format/reinstall is better.
