Another major Win10 version 2004 bug

[woody]

If you use Storage Spaces, best not install version 2004. (I can’t repeat this frequently enough: Win10 version 2004 is in the unpaid beta testing pha
[See the full post at: Another major Win10 version 2004 bug]

6 users thanked author for this post.

lmacri, Elly, abbodi86, geekdom, Great Lake Bunyip, Cybertooth

[Cybertooth]

Microsoft writes,

We do not recommend running the chkdsk command on any device affected by this issue.

Pray tell, how would you know ahead of time that your “device” would be affected by this issue? And of course, once you have been affected by the issue and your drive(s) turned RAW, you’re already in deep doo-doo.

CHKDSK has been around for decades, and Windows 10 has been around for almost six years now. Why, at this point, would anything introduced into Windows be messing with such an established and basic function of the operating system? And, possibly more importantly, why would Microsoft let loose such a fundamental bug upon its customers?

 

Keep Running Windows 7 Safely for Years to Come  
Make Windows 10 look and work like Windows 7

• This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Cybertooth.

2 users thanked author for this post.

AlexEiffel, woody

[woody]

I have two questions:

• How widespread?
• Is anybody losing data permanently?

[AlexEiffel]

How widespread is the use of Storage Spaces? Probably not that much at the consumer level where most unpaid beta testers are.

Actually, since I have many Storage Spaces with mirrored ReFS RAIDs started before they would remove the feature from Pro, I always feared something like this would happen as I thought I would remain on a very marginal setup upgrading to new versions of Windows while keeping the mirrored data created but without actually being able to create new ones.

This is one of the big reasons I always run the oldest supported version of Windows 10 and still fear every feature upgrade. I will leave the nightmare to others.

But really, Cybertooth’s comment is spot on; what are they doing to the OS to cause these issues?!?

2 users thanked author for this post.

Cybertooth, woody

[PKCano]

I do not use Storage Sense. AT ALL.
On one of my VMs, during a monthly install, Windows kept filling up the Windows\Temp folder with hundreds of .tmp files.
The VMs are limited to 64GB – it was running out of space.
WINDOWS TURNED ON STORAGE SENSE unasked for.
If I hadn’t caught it, no telling what would have happened.
Fortunately, this is a test machine with no real data on it, so I didn’t lose anything.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, AlexEiffel, fk5353, woody

[anonymous]

I’m guessing it’s not chkdsk itself that is the problem, but some other issue which has caused the system to not recognize the partition properly.  They probably want to make sure you don’t actually hose your data by running chhdsk on it while it’s in this state and perhaps if they fix the issue the drive will go back to the way it was.   Just a guess, however.

1 user thanked author for this post.

woody

[woody]

Precisely. Without further info, it’s just a guess.

[JohnH]

Hi all, I have a serious issue that I need some guidance on. Tomorrow I take delivery of a Gigabyte Aero YB. Cognisant of the issues with Win10 2004, I asked if it could be OEMed with 1909. However, it has arrived with 2004 installed.

The reseller has a 1909 ISO. The question is this: am I better off wiping the 1TB M.2 SSD and doing a full clean install of 1909; or should I take delivery of the 2004 unit and just suck up the potential but apparently highly likely dramas that this approach will incur?

Cheers, John.

[Alex5723]

If your new PC with 2004 works fine there won’t be any drama.
Run it for a week or two.
You can always use/download a copy of 1909.

2 users thanked author for this post.

woody, JohnH

[anonymous]

Agreed, just see what happens.  Unless you take measures to really remove all the partitions, backups (OS and OEM) will be for what the device was shipped with and you could get a mix of both Windows versions.  If you use Windows Updates, it will search Gigabytes data and possibly reinstall it.  Updates of some vintage will be downloaded during the OS install regardless.

I did a Windows ISO of Win 10 Pro on a 2015 Acer laptop last year and when the OS was finished installing, Win Update automatically went online and downloaded a ton of Acer junk from the 2105 OEM install, making a real mess that wasn’t fixed until I manually cleaned the boot drive, installed a EUFI partition, etc.

2004 will eventually be OK or be replaced by 2004 1/2 or something 🙂

 

[steeviebops]

It’s times like that that I’m so relieved to have access to LTSC via the company. 1909’s search bug rubbed me up the wrong way and I decided to reimage with LTSC 2019. While 1809 got off to a disastrous start, it’s rock solid now. I’ll stay there for as long as it takes!

1 user thanked author for this post.

JohnH

[JohnH]

I have a friend who runs a university NMR lab and has three machines running 2004 and def suggests I stick with the OEM load. He’s had no problems so far. Might keep the 1909 ISO as an emergency option, I guess…

[bbearren]

Storage Spaces is another of the many Windows “features” that I neither need nor use.  I have six drives in my desktop (four SSD, two SSHD) with 19 partitions spread across them.  I already have “Storage Spaces”.  I also have a NAS with a 7.27TB RAID 10 array.  Storage Spaces as a feature doesn’t get in my way, and remains in its pre-setup condition.  No update has switched it on.

Quick Access, Libraries and other Special Folders do get in my way, and I have ripped them out root and branch.  2004 brought them back, but I again ripped them out via importing a .reg file I created into my registry and rebooting.  If another major update brings them back, it’s a simple matter to rip them out again.

Create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates, in case you need to start over!

"When you're troubleshooting, start with the simple and proceed to the complex."—M.O. Johns

"Experience is what you get when you're looking for something else."—Sir Thomas Robert Deware

Computer Specs

[anonymous]

bbearen wrote:
2004 brought them back, but I again ripped them out via importing a .reg file I created into my registry and rebooting. If another major update brings them back, it’s a simple matter to rip them out again.

While I’m certainly glad you have a simple way to repeatedly restore your perhaps-not-so-simple solution, doesn’t this recurring need to restore your computer configuration make you just a little bit nostalgic for a simpler time? A time when Windows operating systems were more stable and reliable and dependable… a time when most folks had a real shot at comfortably using their computers for several years or more without really having to worry about major OS upgrades, & the accompanying (changes-for-the-sake-of-)changes, & the accompanying problems, & the unfortunate need to periodically re-verify – and potentially restore – their desired system configurations?

Just a thought, submitted with respect.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, woody, Cybertooth

[PKCano]

I must have read an abundance of times how you never have any problems with Windows, how the only problems you’ve ever had were caused by you yourself.

Here, you say “Storage Spaces is another of the many Windows features that you neither need nor use.”
You block driver updates from Microsoft in Windows Update.
You don’t use Windows backup, you use Terabyte Drive Image to make redundant backups.
You don’t use Windows File System – Quick Access, Libraries, and other Special Folders you have “ripped them out root and branch.” (And you have to keep doing it every time a major update brings them back).
How many of the built in “Apps” do you use? Do they all run in the background (that’s the default)?
Etc….

The reality is, you don’t use Windows like business/enterprise does and you don’t use Windows like the average Home User (consumer) does.
Comparing the use of oranges when everyone else is using apples (no pun intended) doesn’t make a valid argument.

6 users thanked author for this post.

anotherwindowsuser, Rick Corbett, Elly, Kirsty, Cybertooth, woody

[cptomes]

Tell me again how software raids based on os features are better than hardware raids with add in controllers?  intel rst is even more tolerable than storage spaces.

Hey look! Another Feature Update!

You mean I shouldn't click Check for Updates?

Why does it keep saying "Something Happened"?

[bbearren]

cptomes wrote:

intel rst is even more tolerable than storage spaces.

My NAS has a RAID 10 array configured on the motherboard (Cntrl + I at boot) and is handled By Rapid Storage Technology in the OS.

Create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates, in case you need to start over!

"When you're troubleshooting, start with the simple and proceed to the complex."—M.O. Johns

"Experience is what you get when you're looking for something else."—Sir Thomas Robert Deware

Computer Specs

[AlexEiffel]

In theory, for a cheap solution that should work well enough and be easily transferable from one computer to another. Of course, hardware RAID is better, but the scenario for software RAID is different.

Intel RAID doesn’t protect you from bit rot like ReFS does. If the two drives gives a different reading, it doesn’t know if the 1 or the 0 is good.

Intel “RAID” might not be readable in another machine if the machine breaks. When the array gets in a state where it needs to be checked, it can take hours and it slows down the computer. I also had big issues with it and WD Black drives with their 17 seconds specs spin-up time to reduce the risk of failure. Getting Windows out of sleep took many seconds when RAID 1 was enabled while it was almost instantaneous if there was no RAID of if I used a different hard disk from WD than some of the bigger models. Talked to both companies about it but moved away from it before they fixed it, if they did. Maybe things are better now in general with Intel RST, because I stopped using it when ReFS appeared on Windows 8.

Performance wise, a mirrored array with ReFS was supposed to be good enough, especially for data that doesn’t need that much performance anyway. In theory, it should even be good for read operations if you have two copies of the data.

I am not able to convince any casual user to buy a NAS, but I can make them have a second hard disk and set it up as a mirror so they don’t loose their precious pictures when the hard disk breaks and they didn’t do their backups as they should like most people (and hopefully they didn’t get infected).

[Paul T]

AlexEiffel wrote:

Intel RAID doesn’t protect you from bit rot like ReFS does

Bit rot isn’t an issue on modern managed hard disks, you don’t need fancy file systems to protect against it.

cheers, Paul

[EP]

woody, check out Paul Thurrott’s reaction about the Win10 v2004 Storage Spaces problem in his article:

https://www.thurrott.com/windows/windows-10x/236550/now-theres-a-problem-with-storage-spaces

a picture of a “train wreck” is featured there

2 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, woody

[Author]

Posts