Caută ajutor

Avoid support scams. We will never ask you to call or text a phone number or share personal information. Please report suspicious activity using the “Report Abuse” option.

Află mai multe

Acest fir de discuție a fost arhivat. Adresează o întrebare nouă dacă ai nevoie de ajutor.

Firefox corrupts windows file system

  • 7 răspunsuri
  • 3 au această problemă
  • 5 vizualizări
  • Ultimul răspuns de Asperamanca

more options

Since upgrading to Firefox 32.0, my Acronis Backup stops with the error message "Backup of file or folder c:\Users\Robert\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\<Firefox.Profile>\Cache" failed. File or folder does not exists."

The problem no longer occurs after running chkdsk which implies a file system corruption, but it re-occurs when opening and closing Firefox.

Note that I use hibernation (i.e. I open and close the browser, hibernate, wake up and then note the file system corruption)

Since upgrading to Firefox 32.0, my Acronis Backup stops with the error message "Backup of file or folder c:\Users\Robert\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\<Firefox.Profile>\Cache" failed. File or folder does not exists." The problem no longer occurs after running chkdsk which implies a file system corruption, but it re-occurs when opening and closing Firefox. Note that I use hibernation (i.e. I open and close the browser, hibernate, wake up and then note the file system corruption)

Toate răspunsurile (7)

more options

Firefox 32 uses a new cache called cache2 and no longer the previously used cache named Cache.

  • browser.cache.use_new_backend_temp = true

So that software needs an update or you need to adjust this manually.

Modificat în de cor-el

more options

The application does not need to be configured in such a way, it simply backups a tree of folders. Since the folder "Cache" is no longer visible in Explorer, how should the backup application know anything about the folder (and wonder why it can't read it), unless there's some kind of corrupt entry in the file system?

Could it be that when switching over to the new cache system, some leftovers from the old system were not properly removed?

more options

I think it might be related to Windows in general. My mom's Windows 7 laptop claims that several folders don't backup because "the system could not find the file specified" when I know for a fact that she deleted the folders. For some strange reason, some computers "remember" deleted folders and try to include them in a backup.

more options

The big coincidence here is that I didn't happen for the last 5 years, but it happens every day now, starting with the upgrade to Firefox 32 AND the affected folder is in the Firefox profile folder.

If it were my software (and I'm a software engineer with15 years experience), this would be a smell I would have to follow up on.

more options

Did you check the setting in Acronis Backup to make sure that the Cache folder isn't included as a special exception? I'm not sure why you would want to backup the disk cache as this is a rather large folder (up to about 250 or 384 MB). You would normally exclude the disk cache instead on including it.

more options

Yes, I have checked that the folder is not explicitly specified. Also, after running chkdsk, the backup runs successfully, even if the folder does not exist.

I have run some more tests, and am now very confident that this is indeed a bug.

Reproduction: 1) Start & Close Firefox 2) Run Backup --> Error 3) Create an empty folder named "Cache" 4) Run Backup --> OK 5) Start & Close Firefox --> Folder "Cache" is renamed to "Cache.Trash<Number>" 6) Run Backup -> Error

repeat as desired

I have found a temporary fix: When I remove the delete permission on my manually created "Cache" folder, Firefox does create a "Cache.Trash<Number>" folder, but cannot delete the Cache folder. The backup will run in this case.

more options

If I don't hear any proof to the contrary, I will enter this as a bug. I'd rather have someone do it who knows exactly which fields to fill out in which way, but since this is clearly related to the new cache system, it should be reported while the code changes are still fresh in the developer's minds. (Boy do I hate to fix bugs based on changes I made months earlier)