backtop


Print 31 comment(s) - last by SiliconDoc.. on Aug 14 at 7:11 AM

Much ado about nothing?

My first reaction to the stories about an alleged bug in Windows 7 CHKDSK utility that might "derail" the launch of Windows 7 was that it is probably just another mountain being made of a molehill.  After doing a little reading and research, I am beginning to doubt if the bug is even worth calling a molehill.  That's because all the "research" that had supposedly replicated the bug didn't actually replicate the bug and all they did was verify CHKDSK's normal behavior.

Randall C. Kennedy who supposedly replicated the bug admitted that he wasn't actually able to get any of his test systems to crash yet he still called for a halt to the launch of Windows 7 in his InfoWorld blog.  Others like Jason Mick who accepted Kennedy's analysis as gospel concluded that Microsoft was trying to pass the buck and that this "underlying file system issue" would likely delay Windows 7.  But it is clear that Kennedy and others citing him haven't really thought it out nor are they qualified to determine what constitutes a bug.

To get to the bottom of this, we first need to understand what CHKDSK is and what role it plays.  CHKDSK is a Windows disk checking utility that repairs hard drive errors.  Even if the tool has some incompatibilities with a small percentage of hardware, that should hardly derail the launch of the much awaited Windows 7 operating system.  CHKDSK using the /r switch looks for bad hard drive sectors and tries to salvage any good data that it can.  Most people don't even run CHKDSK much less with the /r switch because they simply don't get hard drive errors.  Even when they do have hard drive errors, they probably don't even notice unless it is something severe.  But even if there is a bug in the way the CHKDSK utility, it is not a flaw in the underlying file system.

But as the president of the Microsoft Windows Division Steven Sinosky pointed out, the mere fact that people are replicating the heavy memory consumption behavior of CHKDSK when using the /r switch doesn't prove a thing.  That's because CHKDSK is supposed to use maximum resources to repair a corrupted hard drive as soon as possible and that users shouldn't be doing anything else on the system while they wait for this to complete.  This makes a lot of sense because you certainly wouldn't expect to drive your car while someone is changing out the oil.  The priority here is to complete the repairs as soon as possible and this is precisely what CHKDSK does so it consumes all but 50 megabytes of available memory to finish repairs as soon as possible.  Then when it completes, it releases the memory so that the user gets the system resources back.  Since there was no crash replicated, it was silly for Randall Kennedy and everyone else to call this a bug much less a critical bug that would halt the launch of Windows 7.

Now for the very few people who actually get their Windows 7 machines to crash, there is a very likely possibility that the underlying firmware, drivers, or hardware isn't completely stable.  I know this first hand because one of my computers and a friend's computer that used to run fine on Windows XP refused to run on Windows Vista due to some memory problems.  Because the bad memory was near the end of the addressable memory space and Windows XP never used that much memory, the problem never materialized in XP until we used an OS that consumed more resources.  I had to download MemTest86+ and burn a bootable CD using ISO Recorder 3.1 which I booted to inspect my memory.  In both cases, my friend and I had to get Corsair and Kingston to send us new memory at no cost.  Anyone who owns a computer should be running this test anyways just to validate their own hardware.  MemTest86+ also managed to fail when my friend had a faulty CPU so it indirectly detects some CPU problems as well.

Another lesson I've learned in the past is that it is always a good idea to update motherboard firmware when you want to install a new Operating System.  It is simply a fact of life that older motherboard firmwares may not handle newer CPUs or newer Operating Systems very well.  Even if you're not going to install a new Operating System, it's a good idea to inspect your hardware and update the firmware to make sure your hardware is completely stable so that there is less possibility of silently corrupting data.

So can we conclude that there is no bug in CHKDSK?  We can't say for sure but we should definitely not conclude that there is a bug.  Microsoft has been testing 40 machines over night since yesterday and they haven't replicated the problem yet so it's starting to look like a hardware, firmware, or driver issue in some rare configurations.  We can conclude for certain is that this issue if there even is an issue will not derail Windows 7 launch.




Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By vanka on 8/7/2009 11:39:03 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The key aspect I believe here is the 90 percent memory usage, I think it is a bug, an out of control feature

If a piece of software is working as designed, but not in the way you like; can you call it a bug even though 90% of all other users have no issue with it? Does Microsoft have an obligation to contact you on each and every feature in their software to make sure it is worthy of your approval?

quote:
Ultimately this is likely a design philosophy debate -- should a Chkdsk utility be able to fully stress the system resources to try to fix a secondary drive?

Now you're actually admitting that it is not, in fact, a bug; but rather a design philosophy that you happen to not agree with. I believe that Microsoft's rational makes much more sense than you vague "no software should use more than 40% resources at runtime.

As Microsoft and George pointed out, very few users run Chkdsk; the only time they ever see it is when it appears at boot time and they have very little control over it. The only time a user will run Chkdsk themselves if a system admin/tech support agent tells them to or they are system admin themselves. An even smaller percentage will run it with the /r switch, and yet smaller on a secondary drive.

I don't know about you, but as a system admin myself I want a scan to finish as soon as possible. If I'm running Chkdsk, especially with the /r switch, that means I'm troubleshooting/repairing a PC and am not trying to work on it. There is no reason why it shouldn't use all system resources to finish as quickly as possible; this isn't as if I'm playing solitaire waiting for an installation to complete.

quote:
Ultimately, I agree that Randall Kennedy's analysis is a bit overboard, and my original post followed in suit, and I apologize for that.

A bit overboard? That's like saying the Titanic had a minor accident in the Atlantic. You did absolutely no independent research or verification and blew the whole thing completely out of proportion.

At this point you're like the kid at the city pool who gets caught with his shorts down while in the pool; he tries to be cool, to not act embarrassed or cry - but we know better. It's not a pretty sight, but it sure is funny.

Your attempts to rationalize and defend your earlier comments along with your half-sincere apology just lets everyone know that you either don't know and understand what's going on or refuse to understand or acknowledge what's what's going on.

Jason, you lost your shorts; everyone can see that and they called you on it. Don't try to explain it away or rationalize; you're naked - nothing you say will change that. Just admit it and we'll move on.


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates

Related Articles
















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki