Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Does shrinking a partition lop off content at top of partition?
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Rod Speed
Jan 6, 2012, 1:57:51 AM1/6/12
to
AndyHancock wrote
> I was talking to tech support about cloning all 4 partitions in my
> Toshiba Satellite A660 laptop to a smaller auxiliary HDD (not creating
> an image, but a clone -- recoverable image may be in the plans in the
> future). If the laptop HDD suffers a hardware failure, I can drop the
> clone into the laptop, be up and running (and source down a new HDD).
> Alternatively, the newer (faster) HDD can displace the current HDD.
> From asking in forums, partition 1 is for booting, partition 2 is the
> C-drive, and partitions 3 & 4 are for various recovery operations and
> content. According to experienced posters, Acronis True Image and
> Norton Ghost will both adjust partition 2 in the cloning process so
> that all partititions fit in the target HDD, without requiring the
> partitions to be resized in the source HDD. I find it reassuring that
> I don't have to mess with the partitions on the source HDD until I've
> confirmed the integrity & full functionality of all partitions in the target HDD.
> However, one Toshiba forum poster said that shrinking partition 2
> causes partitions 3 & 4 to start at lower locations, and he found that
> the recovery functionality was lost. I didn't ask for further details
> but there are two functions he could be referring to: (1) the
> creationg of recovery discs using a dedicated Toshiba app and (2)
> restoring to factory state (Toshiba's are designed to do this by
> pressing 0 during power up). I want to retain both functions (1) and
> (2) in the clone.
> As an alternative to on-the-fly resizing, Tech support suggested
> shrinking partition 2 on the source HDD before cloning, reassuring me
> that it is safe and common practice. In fact, Windows 7 includes
> functionality for adjusting partitions.
I cant see that doing that will help if the recovery code is so crude that
it assume the physical location of the recovery partitions on the drives.
> I am new to disk management and don't have a detailed picture of how
> partition shrinkage works. I imagine my C-drive partition to have
> content scattered throughout the partition, even though I use a
> miniscule portion of the capacity. Even after a defrag, you can't
> assume that all the content is compressed to the bottom of the
> partition, and when you boot up, who knows at where in the partition
> the OS is utilizing disk space from.
>
> My main question is: How is it that you can shrink a C-drive partition
> without fear of amputating content in the space that becomes unused space?
Basically what is doing the shrinking moves what is in the part of the
partition that will no longer be part of the partition after the shrink,
in a process similar to how a defrag works, moving files that matter.
> P.S. In a related note (related to the context of the above question,
> that is), is there a way to test the 2 recovery functions of the
> cloned partitions 3 & 4?
Yes, you can make the clone, then install the clone in place of the
original drive, and try the recovery operations and see if they work.
If they dont, you have lost nothing, you can just put the original drive back in the laptop again.
> For (1), I can burn recovery discs again, but it seems a waste
You might be able to use RW media and reuse that.
Most likely if the clone to a different size drive stops the creation
of the recovery disks it will likely just refuse to create them so you
wont have wasted any blanks.
> (and I'd have to figure out how to compare them with my existing recovery discs).
Its very unlikely that it will appear to create viable recover disks but in practice
the contents wont be right. Normally it will just refuse to create the recovery disks.
> For (2), I'd have to perform a disc- less recovery, which I don't really want to do.
Its harmless to try that with the new clone of the original drive.
> I like having my current system state (though I suppose if it's
> just the clone HDD that reverts to factory state, no big deal).
Particularly with the newly cloned drive, you can just put the original drive back in again.
> I'm wondering if there is a simpler, faster indicator of correct functionality.
Fraid not.
> I was talking to tech support about cloning all 4 partitions in my
> Toshiba Satellite A660 laptop to a smaller auxiliary HDD (not creating
> an image, but a clone -- recoverable image may be in the plans in the
> future). If the laptop HDD suffers a hardware failure, I can drop the
> clone into the laptop, be up and running (and source down a new HDD).
> Alternatively, the newer (faster) HDD can displace the current HDD.
> From asking in forums, partition 1 is for booting, partition 2 is the
> C-drive, and partitions 3 & 4 are for various recovery operations and
> content. According to experienced posters, Acronis True Image and
> Norton Ghost will both adjust partition 2 in the cloning process so
> that all partititions fit in the target HDD, without requiring the
> partitions to be resized in the source HDD. I find it reassuring that
> I don't have to mess with the partitions on the source HDD until I've
> confirmed the integrity & full functionality of all partitions in the target HDD.
> However, one Toshiba forum poster said that shrinking partition 2
> causes partitions 3 & 4 to start at lower locations, and he found that
> the recovery functionality was lost. I didn't ask for further details
> but there are two functions he could be referring to: (1) the
> creationg of recovery discs using a dedicated Toshiba app and (2)
> restoring to factory state (Toshiba's are designed to do this by
> pressing 0 during power up). I want to retain both functions (1) and
> (2) in the clone.
> As an alternative to on-the-fly resizing, Tech support suggested
> shrinking partition 2 on the source HDD before cloning, reassuring me
> that it is safe and common practice. In fact, Windows 7 includes
> functionality for adjusting partitions.
I cant see that doing that will help if the recovery code is so crude that
it assume the physical location of the recovery partitions on the drives.
> I am new to disk management and don't have a detailed picture of how
> partition shrinkage works. I imagine my C-drive partition to have
> content scattered throughout the partition, even though I use a
> miniscule portion of the capacity. Even after a defrag, you can't
> assume that all the content is compressed to the bottom of the
> partition, and when you boot up, who knows at where in the partition
> the OS is utilizing disk space from.
>
> My main question is: How is it that you can shrink a C-drive partition
> without fear of amputating content in the space that becomes unused space?
Basically what is doing the shrinking moves what is in the part of the
partition that will no longer be part of the partition after the shrink,
in a process similar to how a defrag works, moving files that matter.
> P.S. In a related note (related to the context of the above question,
> that is), is there a way to test the 2 recovery functions of the
> cloned partitions 3 & 4?
Yes, you can make the clone, then install the clone in place of the
original drive, and try the recovery operations and see if they work.
If they dont, you have lost nothing, you can just put the original drive back in the laptop again.
> For (1), I can burn recovery discs again, but it seems a waste
You might be able to use RW media and reuse that.
Most likely if the clone to a different size drive stops the creation
of the recovery disks it will likely just refuse to create them so you
wont have wasted any blanks.
> (and I'd have to figure out how to compare them with my existing recovery discs).
Its very unlikely that it will appear to create viable recover disks but in practice
the contents wont be right. Normally it will just refuse to create the recovery disks.
> For (2), I'd have to perform a disc- less recovery, which I don't really want to do.
Its harmless to try that with the new clone of the original drive.
> I like having my current system state (though I suppose if it's
> just the clone HDD that reverts to factory state, no big deal).
Particularly with the newly cloned drive, you can just put the original drive back in again.
> I'm wondering if there is a simpler, faster indicator of correct functionality.
Fraid not.
Arno
Jan 6, 2012, 4:46:44 AM1/6/12
to
> I am new to disk management and don't have a detailed picture of how
> partition shrinkage works.
In that case I strongly suggest you do not attempt it. It can go
> partition shrinkage works.
wrong.
> I imagine my C-drive partition to have
> content scattered throughout the partition, even though I use a
> miniscule portion of the capacity. Even after a defrag, you can't
> assume that all the content is compressed to the bottom of the
> partition, and when you boot up, who knows at where in the partition
> the OS is utilizing disk space from.
> My main question is: How is it that you can shrink a C-drive partition
> without fear of amputating content in the space that becomes unused
> space?
the partition, all data is retained. If you just shring the partition,
the effect you describe takes place.
> P.S. In a related note (related to the context of the above question,
> that is), is there a way to test the 2 recovery functions of the
> but it seems a waste (and I'd have to figure out how to compare them
> with my existing recovery discs). For (2), I'd have to perform a disc-
> less recovery, which I don't really want to do. I like having my
> current system state (though I suppose if it's just the clone HDD that
> reverts to factory state, no big deal). I'm wondering if there is a
> simpler, faster indicator of correct functionality.
I would recommend getting a disk that you just can to a 1:1
clone to. A bit more expensive, but a lot less change of
desaster, i.e. loss of the current disk. In any case before
attempting dangerous operations like a filesystem and/or
paertition resize, a full backup is non-optional.
Oh, and stay away from Parition Magic. It has a nasty habit
of crashing in the middle of the process and messing up
the disk beyond recovery in the process.
Arno
--
Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: ar...@wagner.name
GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
----
Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans
GMAN
Jan 6, 2012, 11:39:53 AM1/6/12
to
In article <078d0503-909a-4956...@dp8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, AndyHancock <andymh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I was talking to tech support about cloning all 4 partitions in my
>Toshiba Satellite A660 laptop to a smaller auxiliary HDD (not creating
>an image, but a clone -- recoverable image may be in the plans in the
>future). If the laptop HDD suffers a hardware failure, I can drop the
>clone into the laptop, be up and running (and source down a new HDD).
>Alternatively, the newer (faster) HDD can displace the current HDD.
>
>From asking in forums, partition 1 is for booting, partition 2 is the
>C-drive, and partitions 3 & 4 are for various recovery operations and
>content. According to experienced posters, Acronis True Image and
>Norton Ghost will both adjust partition 2 in the cloning process so
>that all partititions fit in the target HDD, without requiring the
>partitions to be resized in the source HDD. I find it reassuring that
>I don't have to mess with the partitions on the source HDD until I've
>confirmed the integrity & full functionality of all partitions in the
>target HDD.
>
>However, one Toshiba forum poster said that shrinking partition 2
>causes partitions 3 & 4 to start at lower locations, and he found that
>the recovery functionality was lost. I didn't ask for further details
>but there are two functions he could be referring to: (1) the
>creationg of recovery discs using a dedicated Toshiba app and (2)
>restoring to factory state (Toshiba's are designed to do this by
>pressing 0 during power up). I want to retain both functions (1) and
>(2) in the clone.
>
The second you booted that laptop out of the box new, you should have
>I was talking to tech support about cloning all 4 partitions in my
>Toshiba Satellite A660 laptop to a smaller auxiliary HDD (not creating
>an image, but a clone -- recoverable image may be in the plans in the
>future). If the laptop HDD suffers a hardware failure, I can drop the
>clone into the laptop, be up and running (and source down a new HDD).
>Alternatively, the newer (faster) HDD can displace the current HDD.
>
>From asking in forums, partition 1 is for booting, partition 2 is the
>C-drive, and partitions 3 & 4 are for various recovery operations and
>content. According to experienced posters, Acronis True Image and
>Norton Ghost will both adjust partition 2 in the cloning process so
>that all partititions fit in the target HDD, without requiring the
>partitions to be resized in the source HDD. I find it reassuring that
>I don't have to mess with the partitions on the source HDD until I've
>confirmed the integrity & full functionality of all partitions in the
>target HDD.
>
>However, one Toshiba forum poster said that shrinking partition 2
>causes partitions 3 & 4 to start at lower locations, and he found that
>the recovery functionality was lost. I didn't ask for further details
>but there are two functions he could be referring to: (1) the
>creationg of recovery discs using a dedicated Toshiba app and (2)
>restoring to factory state (Toshiba's are designed to do this by
>pressing 0 during power up). I want to retain both functions (1) and
>(2) in the clone.
>
proceeded to create those recovery DVD's using the built in app.
john james
Jan 6, 2012, 4:02:12 PM1/6/12
to
>> I imagine my C-drive partition to have
>> content scattered throughout the partition, even though I use a
>> miniscule portion of the capacity. Even after a defrag, you can't
>> assume that all the content is compressed to the bottom of the
>> partition, and when you boot up, who knows at where in the partition
>> the OS is utilizing disk space from.
>
>> My main question is: How is it that you can shrink a C-drive
>> partition without fear of amputating content in the space that
>> becomes unused space?
>
> Depends on the approach. If you shrink the filesystem first and then
> the partition, all data is retained. If you just shring the partition,
> the effect you describe takes place.
>> P.S. In a related note (related to the context of the above question,
>> that is), is there a way to test the 2 recovery functions of the
>> cloned partitions 3 & 4? For (1), I can burn recovery discs again,
>> but it seems a waste (and I'd have to figure out how to compare them
>> with my existing recovery discs). For (2), I'd have to perform a
>> disc- less recovery, which I don't really want to do. I like having
>> my current system state (though I suppose if it's just the clone HDD
>> that reverts to factory state, no big deal). I'm wondering if there
>> is a simpler, faster indicator of correct functionality.
> I would recommend getting a disk that you just can to a 1:1
> clone to. A bit more expensive,
> but a lot less change of desaster, i.e. loss of the current disk.
> In any case before attempting dangerous operations like a
> filesystem and/or paertition resize, a full backup is non-optional.
Rod Speed
Jan 6, 2012, 4:14:02 PM1/6/12
to
GMAN wrote
No need to do it that urgently when it will be replaced under warranty
if it fails very early before its been used for anything much.
The reason its desirable to ensure that they can be created anytime is because
it isnt hard to mislay the recovery disks after they have been created.
if it fails very early before its been used for anything much.
The reason its desirable to ensure that they can be created anytime is because
it isnt hard to mislay the recovery disks after they have been created.
GMAN
Jan 6, 2012, 4:35:34 PM1/6/12
to
to a software issue. Like if someone went and manually deleted a critical
windows DLL , the pc manufacturer would just tell the customer to resintall
from their recover disks or partition.
Maybe its different there in Australia, but here in the US software issues are
not covered under warranty.
>
>The reason its desirable to ensure that they can be created anytime is because
>it isnt hard to mislay the recovery disks after they have been created.
>
>
the software wont create anymore. I always copy the disks after i have made
the recovery set and keep them at a relatives house.
Rod Speed
Jan 6, 2012, 10:46:15 PM1/6/12
to
> Like if someone went and manually deleted a critical
> windows DLL , the pc manufacturer would just tell the
> customer to resintall from their recover disks or partition.
> Maybe its different there in Australia, but here in the
> US software issues are not covered under warranty.
>> The reason its desirable to ensure that they can be created anytime is because
>> it isnt hard to mislay the recovery disks after they have been created.
> Agreed, but most pc makers ony allow the creation of
> 1 set of disks and then the software wont create anymore.
> I always copy the disks after i have made the
> recovery set and keep them at a relatives house.
that your house burns down or is washed away by a flood etc.
If I need to use them after an event like that, the laptop is normally history too.
AndyHancock
Jan 7, 2012, 1:07:05 AM1/7/12
to
On Jan 6, 10:46 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> GMAN wrote:
>> <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> GMAN wrote
backing up, which started when I tried to find a solution to HDD
cloning.
>> Like if someone went and manually deleted a critical
>> windows DLL , the pc manufacturer would just tell the
>> customer to resintall from their recover disks or partition.
>
> And since that doesnt affect the recovery partition, you dont need
> the recovery disks.
I didn't tell the full story. The auxiliary cloned HDD is a higher
performance drive, so I will swap it with my internal HDD. The latter
will become the auxiliary target for weekly cloning. So the recovery
partitions will no longer be in my internal HDD. That doesn't
ncessarily preclude using them for their intended purpose, since the
auxiliary drive will be connected to the laptop via eSATA -- the
machine can boot from eSATA.
It would be much nicer, though, if the recovery partitions were in my
(new higher performance) internal HDD. This might free enough space
in the auxiliary drive for images (the auxiliary drive was originally
the internal HDD, and is the larger HDD).
>> Maybe its different there in Australia, but here in the
>> US software issues are not covered under warranty.
>
> Thats just plain wrong if the software is faulty as supplied.
I'm in Canada, and I'm not sure what the rule is.
>>> The reason its desirable to ensure that they can be created anytime is because
>>> it isnt hard to mislay the recovery disks after they have been created.
>> Agreed, but most pc makers ony allow the creation of
>> 1 set of disks and then the software wont create anymore.
>
> He says that that isnt true with that Toshiba.
I'm not actually sure, but I will find out by going through the
cloning and testing process. Worse that can happen is that it I can't
reburn recovery discs. That solves the problem right there.
>> I always copy the disks after i have made the
>> recovery set and keep them at a relatives house.
>
> I dont bother, because they are buyable in the unlikely event
> that your house burns down or is washed away by a flood etc.
>
> If I need to use them after an event like that, the laptop is
> normally history too.
That's always a possibility too, but for now, I'll proceed as if they
will do some good.
> GMAN wrote:
>> <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> GMAN wrote
>>>> The second you booted that laptop out of the box new, you should
>>>> have proceeded to create those recovery DVD's using the built in
>>>> app.
>
>>> No need to do it that urgently when it will be replaced under
>>> warranty
>>> if it fails very early before its been used for anything much.
>> Most the time, the warranty doesnt cover when someone messes up their
>> pc due to a software issue.
>
> You dont need the recovery disks for that, thats what the diskless recovery is for.
I made the Toshiba recovery discs as soon as I started to learn about
>>>> have proceeded to create those recovery DVD's using the built in
>>>> app.
>
>>> No need to do it that urgently when it will be replaced under
>>> warranty
>>> if it fails very early before its been used for anything much.
>> Most the time, the warranty doesnt cover when someone messes up their
>> pc due to a software issue.
>
> You dont need the recovery disks for that, thats what the diskless recovery is for.
backing up, which started when I tried to find a solution to HDD
cloning.
>> Like if someone went and manually deleted a critical
>> windows DLL , the pc manufacturer would just tell the
>> customer to resintall from their recover disks or partition.
>
> And since that doesnt affect the recovery partition, you dont need
> the recovery disks.
performance drive, so I will swap it with my internal HDD. The latter
will become the auxiliary target for weekly cloning. So the recovery
partitions will no longer be in my internal HDD. That doesn't
ncessarily preclude using them for their intended purpose, since the
auxiliary drive will be connected to the laptop via eSATA -- the
machine can boot from eSATA.
It would be much nicer, though, if the recovery partitions were in my
(new higher performance) internal HDD. This might free enough space
in the auxiliary drive for images (the auxiliary drive was originally
the internal HDD, and is the larger HDD).
>> Maybe its different there in Australia, but here in the
>> US software issues are not covered under warranty.
>
> Thats just plain wrong if the software is faulty as supplied.
>>> The reason its desirable to ensure that they can be created anytime is because
>>> it isnt hard to mislay the recovery disks after they have been created.
>> Agreed, but most pc makers ony allow the creation of
>> 1 set of disks and then the software wont create anymore.
>
> He says that that isnt true with that Toshiba.
cloning and testing process. Worse that can happen is that it I can't
reburn recovery discs. That solves the problem right there.
>> I always copy the disks after i have made the
>> recovery set and keep them at a relatives house.
>
> I dont bother, because they are buyable in the unlikely event
> that your house burns down or is washed away by a flood etc.
>
> If I need to use them after an event like that, the laptop is
> normally history too.
will do some good.
AndyHancock
Jan 7, 2012, 12:55:56 AM1/7/12
to
On Jan 6, 4:46 am, Arno <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
is the thing that is compressing the partition on the fly.
> I would recommend getting a disk that you just can to a 1:1
> clone to. A bit more expensive, but a lot less change of
> desaster, i.e. loss of the current disk. In any case before
> attempting dangerous operations like a filesystem and/or
> paertition resize, a full backup is non-optional.
The target HDD is a bit smaller than the source HDD (500 vs 640 GB),
but both are way, way more than I ever expect to need. The next step
up is in the order of 750 GB, and way more expensive due to the
current shortage of HDDs (heck even the 500GB was 3x normal price).
I intend to test the clone before relying on it. Both Norton Ghost
and Acronis True Image are capable of targeting a smaller partition
during cloning, according to forum responses.
> Oh, and stay away from Parition Magic. It has a nasty habit
> of crashing in the middle of the process and messing up
> the disk beyond recovery in the process.
Point taken. Thanks.
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage AndyHancock <andymhanc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> My main question is: How is it that you can shrink a C-drive partition
>> without fear of amputating content in the space that becomes unused
>> space?
>
> Depends on the approach. If you shrink the filesystem first and then
> the partition, all data is retained. If you just shring the partition,
> the effect you describe takes place.
I'm beginning to realize that it depends on the cloning app, since it
>> My main question is: How is it that you can shrink a C-drive partition
>> without fear of amputating content in the space that becomes unused
>> space?
>
> Depends on the approach. If you shrink the filesystem first and then
> the partition, all data is retained. If you just shring the partition,
> the effect you describe takes place.
is the thing that is compressing the partition on the fly.
> I would recommend getting a disk that you just can to a 1:1
> clone to. A bit more expensive, but a lot less change of
> desaster, i.e. loss of the current disk. In any case before
> attempting dangerous operations like a filesystem and/or
> paertition resize, a full backup is non-optional.
but both are way, way more than I ever expect to need. The next step
up is in the order of 750 GB, and way more expensive due to the
current shortage of HDDs (heck even the 500GB was 3x normal price).
I intend to test the clone before relying on it. Both Norton Ghost
and Acronis True Image are capable of targeting a smaller partition
during cloning, according to forum responses.
> Oh, and stay away from Parition Magic. It has a nasty habit
> of crashing in the middle of the process and messing up
> the disk beyond recovery in the process.
Arno
Jan 7, 2012, 9:15:32 AM1/7/12
to
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage AndyHancock <andymh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 4:46 am, Arno <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage AndyHancock <andymhanc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> My main question is: How is it that you can shrink a C-drive partition
>>> without fear of amputating content in the space that becomes unused
>>> space?
>>
>> Depends on the approach. If you shrink the filesystem first and then
>> the partition, all data is retained. If you just shring the partition,
>> the effect you describe takes place.
> I'm beginning to realize that it depends on the cloning app, since it
> is the thing that is compressing the partition on the fly.
>> I would recommend getting a disk that you just can to a 1:1
>> clone to. A bit more expensive, but a lot less change of
>> desaster, i.e. loss of the current disk. In any case before
>> attempting dangerous operations like a filesystem and/or
>> paertition resize, a full backup is non-optional.
> The target HDD is a bit smaller than the source HDD (500 vs 640 GB),
> but both are way, way more than I ever expect to need. The next step
> up is in the order of 750 GB, and way more expensive due to the
> current shortage of HDDs (heck even the 500GB was 3x normal price).
> I intend to test the clone before relying on it. Both Norton Ghost
> and Acronis True Image are capable of targeting a smaller partition
> during cloning, according to forum responses.
You can also clone 1:1 partition by partition and
>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage AndyHancock <andymhanc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> My main question is: How is it that you can shrink a C-drive partition
>>> without fear of amputating content in the space that becomes unused
>>> space?
>>
>> Depends on the approach. If you shrink the filesystem first and then
>> the partition, all data is retained. If you just shring the partition,
>> the effect you describe takes place.
> I'm beginning to realize that it depends on the cloning app, since it
> is the thing that is compressing the partition on the fly.
>> I would recommend getting a disk that you just can to a 1:1
>> clone to. A bit more expensive, but a lot less change of
>> desaster, i.e. loss of the current disk. In any case before
>> attempting dangerous operations like a filesystem and/or
>> paertition resize, a full backup is non-optional.
> The target HDD is a bit smaller than the source HDD (500 vs 640 GB),
> but both are way, way more than I ever expect to need. The next step
> up is in the order of 750 GB, and way more expensive due to the
> current shortage of HDDs (heck even the 500GB was 3x normal price).
> I intend to test the clone before relying on it. Both Norton Ghost
> and Acronis True Image are capable of targeting a smaller partition
> during cloning, according to forum responses.
shrink them individually before cloning the next one.
>> Oh, and stay away from Parition Magic. It has a nasty habit
>> of crashing in the middle of the process and messing up
>> the disk beyond recovery in the process.
> Point taken. Thanks.
(Lenove T510i and Samsung n140) shrinking the pre-install
with gparted on Linux. It does not clone though AFAIK.
(Could be mistaken.)
Arno
Jan 7, 2012, 9:19:04 AM1/7/12
to
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage AndyHancock <andymh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 10:46 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>>> Maybe its different there in Australia, but here in the
>>> US software issues are not covered under warranty.
>>
>> Thats just plain wrong if the software is faulty as supplied.
> I'm in Canada, and I'm not sure what the rule is.
back for a refound. Even if it sets your house on fire, unless
you can prove intent (basically impossible), you get nothing.
Software vendors make very sure that you have no rights, as they
do know their products typically are defective by any sane
engineering criteria.
Krypsis
Jan 7, 2012, 9:40:27 AM1/7/12
to
On 7/01/2012 8:35 AM, GMAN wrote:
> In article<9mp6gs...@mid.individual.net>, "Rod Speed"<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> GMAN wrote
>>> AndyHancock<andymh...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>>> I was talking to tech support about cloning all 4 partitions in my
>>>> Toshiba Satellite A660 laptop to a smaller auxiliary HDD (not
>>>> creating an image, but a clone -- recoverable image may be in the
>>>> plans in the future). If the laptop HDD suffers a hardware failure,
>>>> I can drop the clone into the laptop, be up and running (and source
>>>> down a new HDD). Alternatively, the newer (faster) HDD can displace
>>>> the current HDD.
>>
>>>> From asking in forums, partition 1 is for booting, partition 2 is the
>>>> C-drive, and partitions 3& 4 are for various recovery operations and
> In article<9mp6gs...@mid.individual.net>, "Rod Speed"<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> GMAN wrote
>>> AndyHancock<andymh...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>>> I was talking to tech support about cloning all 4 partitions in my
>>>> Toshiba Satellite A660 laptop to a smaller auxiliary HDD (not
>>>> creating an image, but a clone -- recoverable image may be in the
>>>> plans in the future). If the laptop HDD suffers a hardware failure,
>>>> I can drop the clone into the laptop, be up and running (and source
>>>> down a new HDD). Alternatively, the newer (faster) HDD can displace
>>>> the current HDD.
>>
>>>> From asking in forums, partition 1 is for booting, partition 2 is the
>>>> content. According to experienced posters, Acronis True Image and
>>>> Norton Ghost will both adjust partition 2 in the cloning process so
>>>> that all partititions fit in the target HDD, without requiring the
>>>> partitions to be resized in the source HDD. I find it reassuring
>>>> that I don't have to mess with the partitions on the source HDD
>>>> until I've confirmed the integrity& full functionality of all
>>>> Norton Ghost will both adjust partition 2 in the cloning process so
>>>> that all partititions fit in the target HDD, without requiring the
>>>> partitions to be resized in the source HDD. I find it reassuring
>>>> that I don't have to mess with the partitions on the source HDD
>>>> partitions in the target HDD.
>>
>>>> However, one Toshiba forum poster said that shrinking partition 2
>>>> causes partitions 3& 4 to start at lower locations, and he found
>>
>>>> However, one Toshiba forum poster said that shrinking partition 2
>>>> that the recovery functionality was lost. I didn't ask for further
>>>> details but there are two functions he could be referring to: (1) the
>>>> creationg of recovery discs using a dedicated Toshiba app and (2)
>>>> restoring to factory state (Toshiba's are designed to do this by
>>>> pressing 0 during power up). I want to retain both functions (1) and
>>>> (2) in the clone.
>>
>>> The second you booted that laptop out of the box new, you should
>>> have proceeded to create those recovery DVD's using the built in app.
>>
>> No need to do it that urgently when it will be replaced under warranty
>> if it fails very early before its been used for anything much.
>
>
> Most the time, the warranty doesnt cover when someone messes up their pc due
> to a software issue. Like if someone went and manually deleted a critical
> windows DLL , the pc manufacturer would just tell the customer to resintall
> from their recover disks or partition.
>
> Maybe its different there in Australia, but here in the US software issues are
> not covered under warranty.
>
>>
>> The reason its desirable to ensure that they can be created anytime is because
>> it isnt hard to mislay the recovery disks after they have been created.
>>
>>
> Agreed, but most pc makers ony allow the creation of 1 set of disks and then
> the software wont create anymore. I always copy the disks after i have made
> the recovery set and keep them at a relatives house.
>
Rod doesn't seem very methodical with his media. I'm glad people like
>>>> details but there are two functions he could be referring to: (1) the
>>>> creationg of recovery discs using a dedicated Toshiba app and (2)
>>>> restoring to factory state (Toshiba's are designed to do this by
>>>> pressing 0 during power up). I want to retain both functions (1) and
>>>> (2) in the clone.
>>
>>> The second you booted that laptop out of the box new, you should
>>> have proceeded to create those recovery DVD's using the built in app.
>>
>> No need to do it that urgently when it will be replaced under warranty
>> if it fails very early before its been used for anything much.
>
>
> Most the time, the warranty doesnt cover when someone messes up their pc due
> to a software issue. Like if someone went and manually deleted a critical
> windows DLL , the pc manufacturer would just tell the customer to resintall
> from their recover disks or partition.
>
> Maybe its different there in Australia, but here in the US software issues are
> not covered under warranty.
>
>>
>> The reason its desirable to ensure that they can be created anytime is because
>> it isnt hard to mislay the recovery disks after they have been created.
>>
>>
> Agreed, but most pc makers ony allow the creation of 1 set of disks and then
> the software wont create anymore. I always copy the disks after i have made
> the recovery set and keep them at a relatives house.
>
him don't work in the IT department at my office.
I recently created some restore disks for a friend and their system
allowed for three sets to be made. Some computers don't seem to have a
limit at all. Regardless, I create one set and clone those. Then I
archive them and their ISO images. This saves an immense amount of grief
later. It's not as if it is difficult to do.
--
Krypsis
GMAN
Jan 7, 2012, 10:44:51 AM1/7/12
to
from and run the recovery from.
>> Like if someone went and manually deleted a critical
>> windows DLL , the pc manufacturer would just tell the
>> customer to resintall from their recover disks or partition.
>
>And since that doesnt affect the recovery partition, you dont need the recovery
> disks.
wait till something happens?
>
>> Maybe its different there in Australia, but here in the
>> US software issues are not covered under warranty.
>
>Thats just plain wrong if the software is faulty as supplied.
>
if you or I went and deleted the system folder, stuff like that is not
covered.
>>> The reason its desirable to ensure that they can be created anytime is
> because
>>> it isnt hard to mislay the recovery disks after they have been created.
>
>> Agreed, but most pc makers ony allow the creation of
>> 1 set of disks and then the software wont create anymore.
>
>He says that that isnt true with that Toshiba.
>
>> I always copy the disks after i have made the
>> recovery set and keep them at a relatives house.
>
>I dont bother, because they are buyable in the unlikely event
>that your house burns down or is washed away by a flood etc.
>
disks still available. I for one dont want to be withput a PC for 2 weeks
while waiting for them to be shipped. Plus why not be smart and make then
yourself?
john james
Jan 7, 2012, 2:28:38 PM1/7/12
to
Arno wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage AndyHancock
> <andymh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 6, 10:46 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>>>> Maybe its different there in Australia, but here in the
>>>> US software issues are not covered under warranty.
>>>
>>> Thats just plain wrong if the software is faulty as supplied.
>
>> I'm in Canada, and I'm not sure what the rule is.
> In all the world the rule is that at the very most you can give it back for a refound.
Wrong, as always.
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage AndyHancock
> <andymh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 6, 10:46 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>>>> Maybe its different there in Australia, but here in the
>>>> US software issues are not covered under warranty.
>>>
>>> Thats just plain wrong if the software is faulty as supplied.
>
>> I'm in Canada, and I'm not sure what the rule is.
> In all the world the rule is that at the very most you can give it back for a refound.
> Even if it sets your house on fire,
> unless you can prove intent (basically impossible),
> you get nothing.
Wrong, as always.
> Software vendors make very sure that you have no rights,
> as they do know their products typically are defective by any sane engineering criteria.
Rod Speed
Jan 7, 2012, 2:54:24 PM1/7/12
to
Krypsis wrote
> GMAN wrote
You have absolutely NO idea what I do with my media.
> I'm glad people like him don't work in the IT department at my office.
I run it, child.
> I recently created some restore disks for a friend and their system
> allowed for three sets to be made. Some computers don't seem to have a limit at all. Regardless, I create one set and
> clone those.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you do things by
rote without considering what makes sense in a particular situation.
> Then I archive them and their ISO images.
And then scoot around the room on your bare arse to keep the floor clean, you're so anal.
> This saves an immense amount of grief later.
Not if the system never needs them. And very few ever do. Let alone all those extra copys and images.
> It's not as if it is difficult to do.
Plenty of wastes of time arent difficult to do.
> GMAN wrote
> I'm glad people like him don't work in the IT department at my office.
> I recently created some restore disks for a friend and their system
> allowed for three sets to be made. Some computers don't seem to have a limit at all. Regardless, I create one set and
> clone those.
rote without considering what makes sense in a particular situation.
> Then I archive them and their ISO images.
> This saves an immense amount of grief later.
> It's not as if it is difficult to do.
Rod Speed
Jan 7, 2012, 3:09:57 PM1/7/12
to
GMAN wrote
If you're that much of a technklutz, it makes a hell of a lot more
sense to clone the entire physical drive to an external drive.
Thats much quicker to do and much quicker to use than
either recovery system and recovers what you have done
config wise before you perpertrated that abortion.
You need full backups anyway, it makes no sense to be wasting
all that time making dozens of copys of the restore media which
you will never use because you use the backups instead and dont
lose what you have done since it was factory fresh either.
>>> Like if someone went and manually deleted a critical
>>> windows DLL , the pc manufacturer would just tell the
>>> customer to resintall from their recover disks or partition.
>> And since that doesnt affect the recovery partition, you dont need the recovery disks.
> Its always SMART to create them immediately when you first setup the PC.
Wrong.
> Why wait till something happens?
It makes a lot more sense to have a full backup of the drive instead.
>>> Maybe its different there in Australia, but here in the
>>> US software issues are not covered under warranty.
>> Thats just plain wrong if the software is faulty as supplied.
> Sure, if it gets shipped messed up, then they would of course warrant it.
And if it never works properly, its still covered by the warranty too.
> But if you or I went and deleted the system folder, stuff like that is not covered.
Thats nothing like your original claim.
>>>> The reason its desirable to ensure that they can be created
>>>> anytime is because it isnt hard to mislay the recovery disks
>>>> after they have been created.
>>> Agreed, but most pc makers ony allow the creation of
>>> 1 set of disks and then the software wont create anymore.
>> He says that that isnt true with that Toshiba.
>>> I always copy the disks after i have made the
>>> recovery set and keep them at a relatives house.
>> I dont bother, because they are buyable in the unlikely event
>> that your house burns down or is washed away by a flood etc.
> I guess if you want to risk years down the line
> that HP or DELL will have the disks still available.
There is no risk, I have more than one full image of the drive.
Its only in the extremely unlikely event that a state wide catastrophe
wipes out the system, and all the full images, and all other backups,
and it turns out to be possible to washout the original system and
reuse it again, but not the original drive, that I would ever need the
recovery media, and that aint gunna happen.
> I for one dont want to be withput a PC for 2 weeks while waiting for them to be shipped.
I never ever have just one PC and if the whole house burns
down etc I would have to buy replacements anyway.
> Plus why not be smart and make then yourself?
Because I have full images of the drive as part of the backup process
that allows me to restore a lot more than just the original factory config.
The only time the original factory config is any use to me is if I am
planning to discard that machine and want to restore it to the original
config for whoever I choose to give it to. And that is available from
the full images anyway.
You're both only considering a small part of the real problem.
Which is why no one is actually silly enough to employ you to do this sort of thing.
sense to clone the entire physical drive to an external drive.
Thats much quicker to do and much quicker to use than
either recovery system and recovers what you have done
config wise before you perpertrated that abortion.
You need full backups anyway, it makes no sense to be wasting
all that time making dozens of copys of the restore media which
you will never use because you use the backups instead and dont
lose what you have done since it was factory fresh either.
>>> Like if someone went and manually deleted a critical
>>> windows DLL , the pc manufacturer would just tell the
>>> customer to resintall from their recover disks or partition.
>> And since that doesnt affect the recovery partition, you dont need the recovery disks.
> Its always SMART to create them immediately when you first setup the PC.
> Why wait till something happens?
>>> Maybe its different there in Australia, but here in the
>>> US software issues are not covered under warranty.
>> Thats just plain wrong if the software is faulty as supplied.
> Sure, if it gets shipped messed up, then they would of course warrant it.
> But if you or I went and deleted the system folder, stuff like that is not covered.
>>>> The reason its desirable to ensure that they can be created
>>>> anytime is because it isnt hard to mislay the recovery disks
>>>> after they have been created.
>>> Agreed, but most pc makers ony allow the creation of
>>> 1 set of disks and then the software wont create anymore.
>> He says that that isnt true with that Toshiba.
>>> I always copy the disks after i have made the
>>> recovery set and keep them at a relatives house.
>> I dont bother, because they are buyable in the unlikely event
>> that your house burns down or is washed away by a flood etc.
> I guess if you want to risk years down the line
> that HP or DELL will have the disks still available.
Its only in the extremely unlikely event that a state wide catastrophe
wipes out the system, and all the full images, and all other backups,
and it turns out to be possible to washout the original system and
reuse it again, but not the original drive, that I would ever need the
recovery media, and that aint gunna happen.
> I for one dont want to be withput a PC for 2 weeks while waiting for them to be shipped.
down etc I would have to buy replacements anyway.
> Plus why not be smart and make then yourself?
that allows me to restore a lot more than just the original factory config.
The only time the original factory config is any use to me is if I am
planning to discard that machine and want to restore it to the original
config for whoever I choose to give it to. And that is available from
the full images anyway.
You're both only considering a small part of the real problem.
Which is why no one is actually silly enough to employ you to do this sort of thing.
Rod Speed
Jan 7, 2012, 3:33:19 PM1/7/12
to
AndyHancock wrote
It does give you more options if you manage to stuff things up
and say cant use the diskless recovery because you have moved
the partition that does that and the system is too crude to allow it
to work after its been moved.
>>> Like if someone went and manually deleted a critical
>>> windows DLL , the pc manufacturer would just tell the
>>> customer to resintall from their recover disks or partition.
>> And since that doesnt affect the recovery partition, you dont need the recovery disks.
> I didn't tell the full story. The auxiliary cloned HDD is a higher
> performance drive, so I will swap it with my internal HDD.
OK.
> The latter will become the auxiliary target for weekly cloning.
> So the recovery partitions will no longer be in my internal HDD.
> That doesn't ncessarily preclude using them for their intended
> purpose, since the auxiliary drive will be connected to the
> laptop via eSATA -- the machine can boot from eSATA.
> It would be much nicer, though, if the recovery partitions were
> in my (new higher performance) internal HDD. This might free
> enough space in the auxiliary drive for images (the auxiliary
> drive was originally the internal HDD, and is the larger HDD).
Thats a more risky config tho, easier to stuff that up.
>>> Maybe its different there in Australia, but here in the
>>> US software issues are not covered under warranty.
>> Thats just plain wrong if the software is faulty as supplied.
> I'm in Canada, and I'm not sure what the rule is.
Its the same, if it was supplied defective, or goes bad due to
something the manufacturer stuffed up that sees it develop
a fault due to that, its still covered by warranty.
Arno is just plain wrong on that.
>>>> The reason its desirable to ensure that they can be created
>>>> anytime is because it isnt hard to mislay the recovery disks
>>>> after they have been created.
>>> Agreed, but most pc makers ony allow the creation of
>>> 1 set of disks and then the software wont create anymore.
>> He says that that isnt true with that Toshiba.
> I'm not actually sure,
The systems that only allow one set of recovery disks to be burnt usually say that.
> but I will find out by going through the cloning and testing process.
> Worse that can happen is that it I can't reburn recovery discs.
Yes, but you can certainly copy those to cover the situation where you lose one set.
Obviously it makes no sense to keep all the copys in one place.
> That solves the problem right there.
>>> I always copy the disks after i have made the
>>> recovery set and keep them at a relatives house.
>> I dont bother, because they are buyable in the unlikely event
>> that your house burns down or is washed away by a flood etc.
>> If I need to use them after an event like that, the laptop is normally history too.
> That's always a possibility too, but for now, I'll proceed as if they will do some good.
Yeah, they might be needed if you stuff up the reconfig of the original drive.
I normally just clone the entire physical drive, but then I have lots of
2TB drives which are currently the best $/GB and have lots because
I am too lazy to clean up the drives that I use for overflow of the PVR,
what has replaced the VCRs etc.
And I havent had just one computer for quite literally decades either.
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> GMAN wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> GMAN wrote
>> GMAN wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> GMAN wrote
>>>>> The second you booted that laptop out of the box new, you should
>>>>> have proceeded to create those recovery DVD's using the built in app.
>>>> No need to do it that urgently when it will be replaced under warranty
>>>> if it fails very early before its been used for anything much.
>>> Most the time, the warranty doesnt cover when someone messes up
>>> their pc due to a software issue.
>> You dont need the recovery disks for that, thats what the diskless
>> recovery is for.
> I made the Toshiba recovery discs as soon as I started to learn about
> backing up, which started when I tried to find a solution to HDD cloning.
Yeah, thats a good idea when you arent sure you have the basics right yet.
>>>>> have proceeded to create those recovery DVD's using the built in app.
>>>> No need to do it that urgently when it will be replaced under warranty
>>>> if it fails very early before its been used for anything much.
>>> Most the time, the warranty doesnt cover when someone messes up
>>> their pc due to a software issue.
>> You dont need the recovery disks for that, thats what the diskless
>> recovery is for.
> I made the Toshiba recovery discs as soon as I started to learn about
> backing up, which started when I tried to find a solution to HDD cloning.
It does give you more options if you manage to stuff things up
and say cant use the diskless recovery because you have moved
the partition that does that and the system is too crude to allow it
to work after its been moved.
>>> Like if someone went and manually deleted a critical
>>> windows DLL , the pc manufacturer would just tell the
>>> customer to resintall from their recover disks or partition.
>> And since that doesnt affect the recovery partition, you dont need the recovery disks.
> I didn't tell the full story. The auxiliary cloned HDD is a higher
> performance drive, so I will swap it with my internal HDD.
> The latter will become the auxiliary target for weekly cloning.
> So the recovery partitions will no longer be in my internal HDD.
> That doesn't ncessarily preclude using them for their intended
> purpose, since the auxiliary drive will be connected to the
> laptop via eSATA -- the machine can boot from eSATA.
> It would be much nicer, though, if the recovery partitions were
> in my (new higher performance) internal HDD. This might free
> enough space in the auxiliary drive for images (the auxiliary
> drive was originally the internal HDD, and is the larger HDD).
>>> Maybe its different there in Australia, but here in the
>>> US software issues are not covered under warranty.
>> Thats just plain wrong if the software is faulty as supplied.
> I'm in Canada, and I'm not sure what the rule is.
something the manufacturer stuffed up that sees it develop
a fault due to that, its still covered by warranty.
Arno is just plain wrong on that.
>>>> The reason its desirable to ensure that they can be created
>>>> anytime is because it isnt hard to mislay the recovery disks
>>>> after they have been created.
>>> Agreed, but most pc makers ony allow the creation of
>>> 1 set of disks and then the software wont create anymore.
>> He says that that isnt true with that Toshiba.
> I'm not actually sure,
> but I will find out by going through the cloning and testing process.
> Worse that can happen is that it I can't reburn recovery discs.
Obviously it makes no sense to keep all the copys in one place.
> That solves the problem right there.
>>> I always copy the disks after i have made the
>>> recovery set and keep them at a relatives house.
>> I dont bother, because they are buyable in the unlikely event
>> that your house burns down or is washed away by a flood etc.
>> If I need to use them after an event like that, the laptop is normally history too.
> That's always a possibility too, but for now, I'll proceed as if they will do some good.
I normally just clone the entire physical drive, but then I have lots of
2TB drives which are currently the best $/GB and have lots because
I am too lazy to clean up the drives that I use for overflow of the PVR,
what has replaced the VCRs etc.
And I havent had just one computer for quite literally decades either.
AndyHancock
Jan 7, 2012, 4:12:08 PM1/7/12
to
On Jan 7, 9:15 am, Arno <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage AndyHancock <andymhanc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The target HDD is a bit smaller than the source HDD (500 vs 640
>> GB), but both are way, way more than I ever expect to need. The
>> next step up is in the order of 750 GB, and way more expensive due
>> to the current shortage of HDDs (heck even the 500GB was 3x normal
>> price). I intend to test the clone before relying on it. Both
>> Norton Ghost and Acronis True Image are capable of targeting a
>> smaller partition during cloning, according to forum responses.
>
> You can also clone 1:1 partition by partition and shrink them
> individually before cloning the next one.
Hmm, never thought of that. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage AndyHancock <andymhanc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The target HDD is a bit smaller than the source HDD (500 vs 640
>> GB), but both are way, way more than I ever expect to need. The
>> next step up is in the order of 750 GB, and way more expensive due
>> to the current shortage of HDDs (heck even the 500GB was 3x normal
>> price). I intend to test the clone before relying on it. Both
>> Norton Ghost and Acronis True Image are capable of targeting a
>> smaller partition during cloning, according to forum responses.
>
> You can also clone 1:1 partition by partition and shrink them
> individually before cloning the next one.
of the source HDD is the C-drive partition, which is 559.5 GB (larger
than the target HDD capacity of 500 GB).
> As to app, I made good experiences on two Win 7 installations
> (Lenove T510i and Samsung n140) shrinking the pre-install with
> gparted on Linux. It does not clone though AFAIK. (Could be
> mistaken.)
with Linux to Windows?
AndyHancock
Jan 7, 2012, 4:31:45 PM1/7/12
to
On Jan 7, 3:33 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> The systems that only allow one set of recovery disks to be burnt
> usually say that.
>
> The systems that only allow one set of recovery disks to be burnt
> usually say that.
>
>AndyHancock wrote:
>> but I will find out by going through the cloning and testing
>> process. Worse that can happen is that it I can't reburn recovery
>> discs.
>
> Yes, but you can certainly copy those to cover the situation where
> you lose one set.
>
> Obviously it makes no sense to keep all the copys in one place.
If I can ensure that recovery partitions (3 & 4) work in the cloned
>> but I will find out by going through the cloning and testing
>> process. Worse that can happen is that it I can't reburn recovery
>> discs.
>
> Yes, but you can certainly copy those to cover the situation where
> you lose one set.
>
> Obviously it makes no sense to keep all the copys in one place.
HDD (once the cloned HDD becomes my main HDD), I prefer that as a
safety net for being able to recreate recovery discs. I have too many
discs already.
>>>> I always copy the disks after i have made the recovery set and
>>>> keep them at a relatives house.
>>> I dont bother, because they are buyable in the unlikely event that
>>> your house burns down or is washed away by a flood etc. If I need
>>> to use them after an event like that, the laptop is normally
>>> history too.
>> That's always a possibility too, but for now, I'll proceed as if
>> they will do some good.
>
> Yeah, they might be needed if you stuff up the reconfig of the
> original drive.
>
> I normally just clone the entire physical drive, but then I have
> lots of 2TB drives which are currently the best $/GB and have lots
> because I am too lazy to clean up the drives that I use for overflow
> of the PVR, what has replaced the VCRs etc.
>
> And I havent had just one computer for quite literally decades
> either.
higher performance clone as the internal HDD. Thereafter, I will use
the lower performance HDD as the target of weekly clones. I might to
still do data backups (though I might get overwhelmed by the amount of
backing up). In any case, I lose at most a week's stuff, and I always
have factory recovery if I really want to start from a clean slate.
Thanks for your perspective on my crafty scheme.
AndyHancock
Jan 7, 2012, 4:19:13 PM1/7/12
to
>> In article<9mp6gsFg7...@mid.individual.net>, "Rod
drive and use it as my main drive, I prefer that measure of redundancy
over managing more sets of optical media. Just for convenience.
However, I might look into the cloning of recovery discs (might not
actually clone them) to learn more about file systems. It wasn't
clear to me that recovery discs have things like file systems and ISO
images -- then again, I'm more of a user of discs for simple GUI based
data backup or transfer, never having to delve into things like file
systems used.
>> Speed"<rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The reason its desirable to ensure that they can be created
>>> anytime is because it isnt hard to mislay the recovery disks after
>>> they have been created.
>>
>> Agreed, but most pc makers ony allow the creation of 1 set of disks
>> and then the software wont create anymore. I always copy the disks
>> after i have made the recovery set and keep them at a relatives
>> house.
>
> <...snip...>
>>> The reason its desirable to ensure that they can be created
>>> anytime is because it isnt hard to mislay the recovery disks after
>>> they have been created.
>>
>> Agreed, but most pc makers ony allow the creation of 1 set of disks
>> and then the software wont create anymore. I always copy the disks
>> after i have made the recovery set and keep them at a relatives
>> house.
>
>
> I recently created some restore disks for a friend and their system
> allowed for three sets to be made. Some computers don't seem to have
> a limit at all. Regardless, I create one set and clone those. Then I
> archive them and their ISO images. This saves an immense amount of
> grief later. It's not as if it is difficult to do.
If I can replicate the recovery partitions to the smaller, faster
> I recently created some restore disks for a friend and their system
> allowed for three sets to be made. Some computers don't seem to have
> a limit at all. Regardless, I create one set and clone those. Then I
> archive them and their ISO images. This saves an immense amount of
> grief later. It's not as if it is difficult to do.
drive and use it as my main drive, I prefer that measure of redundancy
over managing more sets of optical media. Just for convenience.
However, I might look into the cloning of recovery discs (might not
actually clone them) to learn more about file systems. It wasn't
clear to me that recovery discs have things like file systems and ISO
images -- then again, I'm more of a user of discs for simple GUI based
data backup or transfer, never having to delve into things like file
systems used.
Arno
Jan 7, 2012, 5:50:58 PM1/7/12
to
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage AndyHancock <andymh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 9:15 am, Arno <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage AndyHancock <andymhanc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The target HDD is a bit smaller than the source HDD (500 vs 640
>>> GB), but both are way, way more than I ever expect to need. The
>>> next step up is in the order of 750 GB, and way more expensive due
>>> to the current shortage of HDDs (heck even the 500GB was 3x normal
>>> price). I intend to test the clone before relying on it. Both
>>> Norton Ghost and Acronis True Image are capable of targeting a
>>> smaller partition during cloning, according to forum responses.
>>
>> You can also clone 1:1 partition by partition and shrink them
>> individually before cloning the next one.
> Hmm, never thought of that. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority
> of the source HDD is the C-drive partition, which is 559.5 GB (larger
> than the target HDD capacity of 500 GB).
Ok.
>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage AndyHancock <andymhanc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The target HDD is a bit smaller than the source HDD (500 vs 640
>>> GB), but both are way, way more than I ever expect to need. The
>>> next step up is in the order of 750 GB, and way more expensive due
>>> to the current shortage of HDDs (heck even the 500GB was 3x normal
>>> price). I intend to test the clone before relying on it. Both
>>> Norton Ghost and Acronis True Image are capable of targeting a
>>> smaller partition during cloning, according to forum responses.
>>
>> You can also clone 1:1 partition by partition and shrink them
>> individually before cloning the next one.
> Hmm, never thought of that. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority
> of the source HDD is the C-drive partition, which is 559.5 GB (larger
> than the target HDD capacity of 500 GB).
>> As to app, I made good experiences on two Win 7 installations
>> (Lenove T510i and Samsung n140) shrinking the pre-install with
>> gparted on Linux. It does not clone though AFAIK. (Could be
>> mistaken.)
> In general, how much can one extrapolate from partitioning experience
> with Linux to Windows?
by now shrinking NTFS also works with gparted. I am not sure about
booting, as I put in grub (lagacy) anyways. While Grub does boot
Win7, administrating it from Windows is at least complicated,
last I checked. For cloning 1:1, dd or dd_rescue works fine, of
course.
Arno
Jan 7, 2012, 5:51:56 PM1/7/12
to
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage john james <j...@jj.com> wrote:
> Arno wrote:
>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage AndyHancock
>> <andymh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 6, 10:46 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> Maybe its different there in Australia, but here in the
>>>>> US software issues are not covered under warranty.
>>>>
>>>> Thats just plain wrong if the software is faulty as supplied.
>>
>>> I'm in Canada, and I'm not sure what the rule is.
>> In all the world the rule is that at the very most you can give it back for a refound.
> Wrong, as always.
Ah, mister clueless at it again. Pathetic, as always.
> Arno wrote:
>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage AndyHancock
>> <andymh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 6, 10:46 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> Maybe its different there in Australia, but here in the
>>>>> US software issues are not covered under warranty.
>>>>
>>>> Thats just plain wrong if the software is faulty as supplied.
>>
>>> I'm in Canada, and I'm not sure what the rule is.
>> In all the world the rule is that at the very most you can give it back for a refound.
> Wrong, as always.
Arno
>> Even if it sets your house on fire,
> Wrong, as always.
>> unless you can prove intent (basically impossible),
> Wrong, as always.
>> you get nothing.
> Wrong, as always.
>> Software vendors make very sure that you have no rights,
> They cant dod that in any jurisdiction with even half a clue.
>> as they do know their products typically are defective by any sane engineering criteria.
> Even sillier.
Arno
Jan 7, 2012, 5:56:06 PM1/7/12
to
not unterstand the subject matter and hence cannot distinguish
good from bad information. At the same time he desparately wants
to give good information and hence is trying to be a bit ahead of
others. That is the reason why he sometimes gives good information
even when most what he says is just plain wrong.
It is rather painful to watch.
> I recently created some restore disks for a friend and their system
> allowed for three sets to be made. Some computers don't seem to have a
> limit at all. Regardless, I create one set and clone those. Then I
> archive them and their ISO images. This saves an immense amount of grief
> later. It's not as if it is difficult to do.
blank disk. Other than that, this is certainly a sound approach.
Arno
AndyHancock
Jan 8, 2012, 7:27:41 PM1/8/12
to
On Jan 7, 5:50 pm, Arno <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage AndyHancock <andymhanc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In general, how much can one extrapolate from partitioning experience
> > with Linux to Windows?
>
> Mostly. For the partitions themselves, fully, for the filesystems
> by now shrinking NTFS also works with gparted. I am not sure about
> booting, as I put in grub (lagacy) anyways. While Grub does boot
> Win7, administrating it from Windows is at least complicated,
> last I checked. For cloning 1:1, dd or dd_rescue works fine, of
> course.
I think I'll stay out of that sandbox until I get at least a little
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage AndyHancock <andymhanc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In general, how much can one extrapolate from partitioning experience
> > with Linux to Windows?
>
> Mostly. For the partitions themselves, fully, for the filesystems
> by now shrinking NTFS also works with gparted. I am not sure about
> booting, as I put in grub (lagacy) anyways. While Grub does boot
> Win7, administrating it from Windows is at least complicated,
> last I checked. For cloning 1:1, dd or dd_rescue works fine, of
> course.
bit more smarter on this imaging/cloning/partitioning/file-system
thing. Currently surfing to get smart on the partitioning bit.
Thanks.
0 new messages