On 9/5/25 08:03, John Ames wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 05:08:43 -0400My "new" computer is set up to dusl-boot Win 10 and Linux, sharing an
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
To put it kindly .........
-IX has become better at dealing with soft-shutdown than Win.
Win10 started playing all kinds of games with true shutdown vs. some
kind of "deep suspend" - I'm pretty sure they were trying to improve
"boot time" without actually having to *improve boot time,* but it was
immensely counterproductive since NT has always leaked memory like a
sieve and a full reboot is the only way to clear it up. I think they
walked back some of the shenanigans in later updates, but on early
revisions of 10 it was practically impossible to get it to perform a
clean shutdown without holding in the power button 'til the machine
itself cut out, though invoking shutdown from the command line
sometimes seemed to work.
NTFS data partition. I had to disable all that nonsense in windows to
avoid blocking Linux access to data.
On 2025-09-05, Peter Flass wrote:
On 9/5/25 08:03, John Ames wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 05:08:43 -0400My "new" computer is set up to dusl-boot Win 10 and Linux, sharing an
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
To put it kindly .........
-IX has become better at dealing with soft-shutdown than Win.
Win10 started playing all kinds of games with true shutdown vs. some
kind of "deep suspend" - I'm pretty sure they were trying to improve
"boot time" without actually having to *improve boot time,* but it was
immensely counterproductive since NT has always leaked memory like a
sieve and a full reboot is the only way to clear it up. I think they
walked back some of the shenanigans in later updates, but on early
revisions of 10 it was practically impossible to get it to perform a
clean shutdown without holding in the power button 'til the machine
itself cut out, though invoking shutdown from the command line
sometimes seemed to work.
NTFS data partition. I had to disable all that nonsense in windows to
avoid blocking Linux access to data.
This being MICROS~1, maybe that was intentional on their part, to make dual-booting more difficult?
After all, hasn't NT supported hibernation for ages?
How easy/hard is it do disable this feature and restore proper shutdown?
On the other hand, maybe someone will update Linux NTFS
support to handle this. I *think* the problem is that windoze caches
some filesystem changes and leave everything in an inconsistent state,
On 2025-09-06, Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote:
On the other hand, maybe someone will update Linux NTFS
support to handle this. I *think* the problem is that windoze caches
some filesystem changes and leave everything in an inconsistent state,
So windows does not have an equivalent to "sync;sync;sync" that it could
do before hibernating? The mind boggles ...
So windows does not have an equivalent to "sync;sync;sync" ...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 21:32:20 -0000 (UTC), Lars Poulsen wrote:
So windows does not have an equivalent to "sync;sync;sync" ...
On Linux, you need to do it once.
Or rather, doing it multiple times doesn’t help much.
On 2025-09-10 00:56, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 21:32:20 -0000 (UTC), Lars Poulsen wrote:
So windows does not have an equivalent to "sync;sync;sync" ...
On Linux, you need to do it once.
Or rather, doing it multiple times doesn’t help much.
«When thou shuttest down the system, thou shalt sync three times. No
more, no less. Three shall be the number of the syncing, and the number
of the syncing shall be three. Four times shalt thou not sync, neither
sync twice, except that thou proceedest to sync a third time...»
Tradition! :-D
On 2025-09-10, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-09-10 00:56, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 21:32:20 -0000 (UTC), Lars Poulsen wrote:
So windows does not have an equivalent to "sync;sync;sync" ...
On Linux, you need to do it once.
Or rather, doing it multiple times doesn’t help much.
«When thou shuttest down the system, thou shalt sync three times. No
more, no less. Three shall be the number of the syncing, and the number
of the syncing shall be three. Four times shalt thou not sync, neither
sync twice, except that thou proceedest to sync a third time...»
Tradition! :-D
Sync three times on the console if you want me.
Close all the pipes if the answer is no.
-- Tony Orlando and Dawn 2.0
On 9/10/25 10:23, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 2025-09-10, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:Why do you need to sync three times?
On 2025-09-10 00:56, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 21:32:20 -0000 (UTC), Lars Poulsen wrote:
So windows does not have an equivalent to "sync;sync;sync" ...
On Linux, you need to do it once.
Or rather, doing it multiple times doesn’t help much.
«When thou shuttest down the system, thou shalt sync three times. No
more, no less. Three shall be the number of the syncing, and the number
of the syncing shall be three. Four times shalt thou not sync, neither
sync twice, except that thou proceedest to sync a third time...»
Tradition! :-D
Sync three times on the console if you want me.
Close all the pipes if the answer is no.
-- Tony Orlando and Dawn 2.0
On 2025-09-10 20:11, geodandw wrote:
Why do you need to sync three times?
Initially, it wasn't clear that a single sync would do it. Now, it is accepted that a single sync is enough, plus we have journaled
filesystems.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 13 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 162:45:44 |
| Calls: | 178 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 79,279 |