Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-08-2004, 10:09 AM
xash xash is offline
Ogministrator
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 4,133
Active FAT and backup copies not matching plus hard disk cloning

I'm trying to clone my hard disk partitions, 'coz I'm switching from a 20GB drive to a new 80GB drive.

I'm using PowerQuest Drive Image ver. 7. It's giving an error saying something to the effect that the active FAT doesn't match the redundant FAT copies. and therefore cannot complete the drive imaging process.

I'm trying to clone my system partition on C:\, which has Windows XP with FAT32.

Is there any utility that can fix this FAT error and create identical copies of all FAT entries ?

Is there any other utility that can clone an image of the active system partition so that I can restore it on a new drive ?
  #2  
Old 02-08-2004, 11:01 AM
Ximenean Ximenean is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,112
What's wrong with making the new partition bootable and XCOPYing everything to it (or XXCOPYing if you're paranoid)?
  #3  
Old 02-08-2004, 11:48 AM
ftg's Avatar
ftg ftg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 18,082
First of all, you have an error on the hard drive. This error must be fixed. While MS OSes come with their own disk fixing tools, better commercial programs are available. Do not do anything with the old disk until this problem is fixed.

Secondly, your new hard drive should have come with software to copy your old disk to the new one. If for some reason you lost it, download the software from the new disk maker's web site.

Thirdly, never use XXCOPY and such to copy whole disks/partitions. They do not make perfect copies. XXCOPY's own web site FAQ clearly points this out and why it is inherent. But since the OP has XP ...
  #4  
Old 02-08-2004, 03:29 PM
Ximenean Ximenean is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,112
It seems you're right that XXCOPY might not work for the OP since it won't copy certain system files when run from within XP/2K/NT, and apparently there are problems with very long path names if you run it in real mode. You could copy just the system files from real mode, but you'd have to know exactly which files. I will point out that the XXCOPY method works fine under Windows 95/98/Me. You have to make the target partition bootable yourself, of course. I done it dozens of times with no problems.
  #5  
Old 02-08-2004, 04:38 PM
ftg's Avatar
ftg ftg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 18,082
Again, do not use XXCOPY for drive/partition copying. It will do an admirable job but it will not do a perfect job. In Win9X family, it will screw up long/short filename associations. In particular, long OS file names with short names in the registry (which are used during bootup) are a major worry.

And again, just read the XXCOPY docs for details of how and why.
  #6  
Old 02-08-2004, 07:07 PM
Ximenean Ximenean is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,112
I've had a good look round www.xxcopy.com and assume you're referring to this bit:
Quote:
In the case of Windows 95/98, the most well documented problem which are associated with the unmatched short name is a few directory and filenames which are stored in their short name alias in a few critical cases in the system registry.
That only applies if you are copying between different file systems. If you are simply cloning a partition, the short file names are correctly preserved.
  #7  
Old 02-08-2004, 08:47 PM
ftg's Avatar
ftg ftg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 18,082
Usram: Umm, you read the info but think it somehow doesn't apply? Of course it does. Copying is copying. Across directories, partitions, drives, same problem.

I went thru this argument a year or so ago here. Some guy "just didn't get it." I finally ended up giving code that showed precisely how the problem does indeed occur.

Don't make me go there.

How you think long and short names are matched up and how they really are matched up are two different things. (And this is getting way off the OP since NT-class OSes have their own special copying problems.)

Again (how many times does this make?), do not use XXCOPY for partition/drive copying.
  #8  
Old 02-09-2004, 12:49 AM
xash xash is offline
Ogministrator
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 4,133
I do not intend to use xcopy, partly for the reasons mentioned and partly because it also messes up the attributes. It also takes way longer than a bit-copy would, especially on such a large volume. Besides I'm not sure how it will handle deep trees.

I was looking for a bit level copying utility. The trial version of Acronis True Image seems to have cloned my disk successfully, and with ease. I am still to test the boot up on the new hard disk. I'll do that tonight. But it did it without the FAT error that PowerQuest Drive Image was giving me.

Strange thing is that chkdsk c: /f under Windows XP and scandisk c: /surface in DOS show no errors on the old (current) hard disk. Scandisk shows the FAT to be correct. So I'm wondering whether PowerQuest Drive Image's statement was correct, and if so how do I check for and correct this using some 3rd party utility.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017