Timeline for Windows system partition has 450 GB free but cannot be shrunk
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 1 at 21:25 | comment | added | grawity_u1686 | (And, literally everything on the filesystem is "addressed by specific sector number" – it's the resize tool's main job to update all those pointers whenever it has to relocate anything. So yes, if the resize tool is too old and doesn't update some new pointer, it can indeed break something, but usually it'd do a version check first and bail out upon seeing a too new filesystem – but even if you don't quite trust Linux ntfsprogs, I think it's reasonable to trust Windows' own DISKPART to be able to correctly relocate everything, including the MFT or other "immovable at runtime" things.) | |
| Apr 1 at 21:23 | comment | added | grawity_u1686 | In this case, online resize doesn't work because Windows apparently doesn't support relocating the MFT while it's in use (because it has to happen concurrently with other software running on the system and making use of the MFT), while an offline resize doesn't have that restriction – it can move the MFT and update pointers accordingly. | |
| Apr 1 at 21:18 | comment | added | grawity_u1686 | I think it's very surface-level and misses most of the nuance. When something is "addressed directly by sector number" it does Matt matter whether that sector number needs to be updated on disk or in OS memory or both; an online resize has to go through the OS first (which has to support online resize and updates the disk accordingly) while offline resize works the opposite way (updating the disk first, and the OS doesn't need to know, it'll just read the new sector address the next time it boots). NTFS is not alone in this; e.g. Ext4 on Linux supports online grow but requires offline shrink. | |
| Apr 1 at 19:45 | comment | added | cipricus | What do you think about this comment that says the above is wrong? superuser.com/questions/1569615/… | |
| Apr 1 at 19:14 | comment | added | cipricus | I see thin question was closed as a duplicate, but the answers under that other question don't work. I haven't tried your solution yet, but I have tried those, which involve actions from within the active Window session. I think you are right saying that the needed changes have to be done on unmounted partition. | |
| Apr 1 at 10:27 | comment | added | grawity_u1686 | @cipricus: Then it's probably in "pending activation" mode, i.e. encrypted but with the key unprotected on the same disk so that it appears as if BitLocker is still off (Windows sometimes does this because it makes future activation instant). Should be possible to unlock it via manage-bde from the recovery environment without any key, too. | |
| Apr 1 at 10:25 | comment | added | cipricus |
@u1686_grawity - oddly, manage-bde -protectors C: -get gives No key protectors found.
|
|
| Mar 28 at 13:52 | vote | accept | cipricus | ||
| Mar 28 at 13:43 | comment | added | grawity_u1686 |
Reboot into your normal system, run manage-bde -protectors C: -get, then write it down. (There's also an option to save/print it from BitLocker GUI.)
|
|
| Mar 28 at 13:42 | comment | added | cipricus | Trying with Linux live session I cannot resize either because it's locked (I guess): it appears as "bitlocker" type partition. The laptop was bough t as such - second hand - I haven't locked the drive myself and I don't have a recovery key. Or is it stored somewhere on the recovery partition maybe? | |
| Mar 28 at 13:16 | comment | added | JW0914 |
@cipricus The same should be able to be done from WinRE, simply dismount the OS partition via diskpart
|
|
| Mar 28 at 13:07 | comment | added | cipricus | Thanks, I'll try it with a linux usb and gparted first | |
| Mar 28 at 12:58 | history | answered | grawity_u1686 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |