| View unanswered posts View active topics | It is currently Sun Apr 12, 2020 01:37
|
Tuxera NTFS could not mount (on OS X)Moderator: unsound
| Previous topic Next topic |
| Author | Message |
|---|
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 13:34
Posts: 6
| Tuxera NTFS could not mount (on OS X) I installed ntfs-3g-2010.5.22-macosx apparently successfully. However, whenever I start the computer (a Mac running OS X 10.6.4), I get the following error message:
'Tuxera NTFS could not mount /dev/disk1s1 at /Volumes/Elements because the following problem occurred:
/Library/Filesystems/fusefs.fs/Support/fusefs.kext failed to load -(libkern/kext) link error; check the system kernel logs for errors or try kextutil(8).
the MacFuse file system is not available(71) _nfts_volume_release(): Inode 9 still have 1 references.'
MacFuse appears to be installed. At least it appears on 'System Preferences'.
What is bad is that my external disk is not even visible after installing ntfs-3g.
I would appreciate any help you could give me.
Josep M.
| | Sun Jul 11, 2010 18:27 |
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 09:24
Posts: 530
| Re: Tuxera NTFS could not mount (on OS X) Hi,
If you need to quickly get back your NTFS drives you can just disable NTFS-3G from the NTFS-3G preference pane in System preferences (Apple menu->System preferences->NTFS-3G).
It seems that MacFUSE is broken, or you're trying to use the software with an unsupported configuration such as the newer non-standard fully 64-bit kernel.
If you think that MacFUSE is broken, then try the following procedure:
There is an icon for MacFUSE in System preferences as well (or at least there should be one). Please click it and select 'Remove MacFUSE'. Then reinstall NTFS-3G (which will install MacFUSE with it if you don't deselect MacFUSE when installing). It's possible that this procedure fixes the problem.
Regards,
- Erik
| | Mon Jul 12, 2010 06:36 | Hi. Thanks for the prompt response. It seems that MacFUSE is broken, or you're trying to use the software with an unsupported configuration such as the newer non-standard fully 64-bit kernel. I'm running my iMac in 64-bit mode. I did'nt know this was non-standard, though. Somewhere I have seen that there is a mixed mode so that apps that require 32-bit mode will run 32-bit and the OS as well as apps that can take advantage of the 64-bit processing will run in 64-bit mode. I haven't been able to figure out how to do this. As far as I can see the system gives me a choice between the two modes. It would be a bit unfortunate if you have to have a slower system in order to be able to use NTFS drives. If you think that MacFUSE is broken, then try the following procedure:
There is an icon for MacFUSE in System preferences as well (or at least there should be one). Please click it and select 'Remove MacFUSE'. Then reinstall NTFS-3G (which will install MacFUSE with it if you don't deselect MacFUSE when installing). It's possible that this procedure fixes the problem. Thanks for the tip. One thing I'm not clear about. I installed MacFUSE separately because it was my impression that you needed to do that with the free NTFS-3G version (as opposed to the comercial Tuxera-NTFS version which installed MacFUSE automatically). So if I install ntfs-3g-2010.5.22-macosx.dmg, this takes care of installing MacFUSE for me? Again, thanks a lot for your help. JM
| | Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:16 |
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 09:24
Posts: 530
| Re: Tuxera NTFS could not mount (on OS X) Hi. Thanks for the prompt response. It seems that MacFUSE is broken, or you're trying to use the software with an unsupported configuration such as the newer non-standard fully 64-bit kernel. I'm running my iMac in 64-bit mode. I did'nt know this was non-standard, though. Somewhere I have seen that there is a mixed mode so that apps that require 32-bit mode will run 32-bit and the OS as well as apps that can take advantage of the 64-bit processing will run in 64-bit mode. I haven't been able to figure out how to do this. As far as I can see the system gives me a choice between the two modes. It would be a bit unfortunate if you have to have a slower system in order to be able to use NTFS drives. This is a common misunderstanding. You do not have to do anything with your computer in order to do 64-bit computing and take advantage of the capabilities of your 64-bit processor. The stock kernel is a hybrid 32/64-bit kernel, fully capable of running 64-bit applications and giving them a 64-bit address space. The fully 64-bit kernel (RELEASE_X86_64) is to be used with systems that have more than 32 GiB of memory (the hybrid kernel cannot address more than 32 GiB), like the Xserve rack servers. For other systems it does not offer any signficant advantage (in general 64-bit code will use more resources because of the larger pointers needed, so it could even be slower) except perhaps in very special cases.. We are working on bringing support for the fully 64-bit kernel to our products, but in fact most people shouldn't use it yet (it's mostly for server use at this time). If you think that MacFUSE is broken, then try the following procedure:
There is an icon for MacFUSE in System preferences as well (or at least there should be one). Please click it and select 'Remove MacFUSE'. Then reinstall NTFS-3G (which will install MacFUSE with it if you don't deselect MacFUSE when installing). It's possible that this procedure fixes the problem. Thanks for the tip. One thing I'm not clear about. I installed MacFUSE separately because it was my impression that you needed to do that with the free NTFS-3G version (as opposed to the comercial Tuxera-NTFS version which installed MacFUSE automatically). So if I install ntfs-3g-2010.5.22-macosx.dmg, this takes care of installing MacFUSE for me? Yes, both NTFS-3G and Tuxera NTFS for Mac come bundled with MacFUSE to make installation as easy as possible. Regards, - Erik
| | Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:26 | Hi Erik and thanks a lot for your prompt and informative reply. This is a common misunderstanding. You do not have to do anything with your computer in order to do 64-bit computing and take advantage of the capabilities of your 64-bit processor. The stock kernel is a hybrid 32/64-bit kernel, fully capable of running 64-bit applications and giving them a 64-bit address space. The fully 64-bit kernel (RELEASE_X86_64) is to be used with systems that have more than 32 GiB of memory (the hybrid kernel cannot address more than 32 GiB), like the Xserve rack servers. For other systems it does not offer any signficant advantage (in general 64-bit code will use more resources because of the larger pointers needed, so it could even be slower) except perhaps in very special cases.. OK, as you say the misunderstanding must be pretty common because I've read in many forums and sites (some of them looked like they were run by people who knew what they were talking about) that things run generally faster if you are in the 64-bit mode. I only have 8GB of ram so according to what you say I should be in the default 32-bit mode. But just see this sample of what I was talking about: http://macperformanceguide.com/SnowLeopard-64bit.html If you note, they do claim that 64-bit apps will run faster. I cannot find other links now where they claim that the whole system will in general faster and more efficient. Perhaps they were talking about previous versions of OS X and now things have improved? JM
| | Mon Jul 12, 2010 19:59 |
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 09:24
Posts: 530
| Re: Tuxera NTFS could not mount (on OS X) OK, as you say the misunderstanding must be pretty common because I've read in many forums and sites (some of them looked like they were run by people who knew what they were talking about) that things run generally faster if you are in the 64-bit mode. I only have 8GB of ram so according to what you say I should be in the default 32-bit mode. But just see this sample of what I was talking about:
http://macperformanceguide.com/SnowLeopard-64bit.html
If you note, they do claim that 64-bit apps will run faster. I cannot find other links now where they claim that the whole system will in general faster and more efficient. Perhaps they were talking about previous versions of OS X and now things have improved?
JM The main difference would be between 64-bit and 32-bit user space applications. CPU intensive applications are supposed to spend most of their time in user space so any difference in performance between kernels would be hard to notice. The comparison that you linked to confirms that only for very specialized applications there's any noticeable difference at all.. but if you want to squeeze out that last 1-2% of a video rendering session you may be helped by the 64-bit kernel. There is a reason that Apple don't turn on the fully 64-bit kernel by default, and it's simply that they don't consider it necessary until the machine can support more than 32 GiB of memory. The hybrid kernel is more compatible with legacy software too, and any difference in performance is marginal, so for the vast majority of people it's the right choice at the moment.. but yes we are planning a release that supports the fully 64-bit kernel, though no release date is known yet. Regards, - Erik
| | Mon Jul 12, 2010 20:54 | OK dokey. I'll follow your advice, which sounds pretty sensible. I can always logon in 64-bit mode when I need to do those big rendering jobs.
JM
| | Mon Jul 12, 2010 21:07 | I didn't remember about this but Apple itself contributes to the confusion we were discussing. I went to change the mode back to 32-bits and I see a message that says 'When your computer is restarted, it will run the following version of the Mac OS X kernel:
32-bit (slower, uses less memory, better compatibility)
64-bit (faster, uses more memory, some older kernel extensions will not load)
| | Mon Jul 12, 2010 21:26 |
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 09:24
Posts: 530
| Re: Tuxera NTFS could not mount (on OS X) I didn't remember about this but Apple itself contributes to the confusion we were discussing. I went to change the mode back to 32-bits and I see a message that says 'When your computer is restarted, it will run the following version of the Mac OS X kernel:
32-bit (slower, uses less memory, better compatibility)
64-bit (faster, uses more memory, some older kernel extensions will not load) Is that really a message printed by Apple? As far as I know there's no built in 'switching' feature in Mac OS X. You have to either edit the NVRAM settings, the boot config file, or press '6' and '4' while the computer is booting to get the fully 64-bit kernel if you are not using any third party 'switching' app.
| | Mon Jul 12, 2010 21:30 | Is that really a message printed by Apple? As far as I know there's no built in 'switching' feature in Mac OS X. You have to either edit the NVRAM settings, the boot config file, or press '6' and '4' while the computer is booting to get the fully 64-bit kernel if you are not using any third party 'switching' app. You are totally right. This message is from an app called SixtyFour Switcher. I just wasn't thinking when I said it was from Apple. JM
| | Mon Jul 12, 2010 22:42 | I am running into the exact same problem on a stock hexacore Mac Pro I just bought.
I don't even know how to switch the kernel between 32 and 64-bit modes, so it appears that Apple is now preinstalling kernels in 64-bit mode. What is the fix?
| | Sat Sep 18, 2010 07:08 |
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 09:24
Posts: 530
| Re: Tuxera NTFS could not mount (on OS X) Hi, I am running into the exact same problem on a stock hexacore Mac Pro I just bought.
I don't even know how to switch the kernel between 32 and 64-bit modes, so it appears that Apple is now preinstalling kernels in 64-bit mode. What is the fix? The latest release candidate of Tuxera NTFS for Mac supports the fully 64-bit kernels. You can grab it from here: http://www.tuxera.com/products/tuxera-ntfs-for-mac/ We would love to have your feedback on how the driver works for you under the 64-bit kernel. If you would prefer not to run a 'release candidate', you can switch to the 32/64-bit hybrid kernel with a simple click of a button using an application called K64Enabler: http://timesoftware.free.fr/k64enabler/ I hope this helps. Regards, - Erik
| | Sat Sep 18, 2010 08:27 |
Who is online | Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests |
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Original forum style by Vjacheslav Trushkin. |
