Radified Community Forums

Radified Community Forums
http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl Rad Community Technical Discussion Boards (Computer Hardware + PC Software) >> Norton Ghost 2003, Ghost v8.x + Ghost Solution Suite (GSS) Discussion Board >> Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003 http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1290692291 Message started by xcurious on Nov 25^th, 2010 at 7:38am

Title: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by xcurious on Nov 25^th, 2010 at 7:38am

Hi, first post.

Been using Ghost for a very long time without problems.

A month ago something confusing happened:

In my extended partition in Win XP I have 3 logical partitions, D, E and F. All of a sudden I could only see my D partition from Ghost when in Windows, not E and F anymore.

This happens when trying to make an image from Windows:
E and F are not shown in the left pane, only C and D.

When trying to restore an image and choose E or F i get a message like 'This drive is not recognised, use another drive or reboot.'

Naturally my first move was to move an image made to E of C from BEFORE this started to happen and restore it after copying it to D. Restore went well as always, but afterwards I could still as explained not make a new image to E now either.

My conclusion is that the problem must be outside of what a Restore of a known-to-be-good image of C can fix.

Some other observations: Windows disk-manager shows all well, gdisk32 shows partitions 1 to 6: C, EFI, Extended, D, E ,F none of which are hidden.

If booting to DOS-Ghost all is well, and I can use E and F as I used them before in Windows-Ghost.

I have uninstalled Ghost and reinstalled it, but no joy.

This is very irritating, can any of the Wise Guys help me out?

TIA

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Brian on Nov 25^th, 2010 at 3:29pm

@ xcurious

I can't help you with Ghost 2003 but we've seen this with Ghost 15. People can't see their C: drive from the Ghost 15 GUI. The C: drive can be seen everywhere else. It can be due to overlapping partitions. Can you post a partinfo? If you don't have it, you can download PartInfo from

http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/downloads-free-software.htm

Run partinfg.exe, File, Export to Text File.

I realize you can see your C: drive.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by NightOwl on Nov 25^th, 2010 at 3:52pm

@ xcurious

While waiting for you to answer Brian--couple other questions:

Quote:

Windows disk-manager shows all well, gdisk32 shows partitions 1 to 6: C, EFI, Extended, D, E ,F none of which are hidden.

What's *EFI*? Probably something I *should* know--but, I'm drawing a blank right now!

Quote:

I have uninstalled Ghost and reinstalled it, but no joy

Probably would have been my first suggestion--but, you have already covered that base!

Quote:

can any of the Wise Guys help me out?

Willing to try!

I was unaware of Brian's comment about Ghost 15--I don't use that version myself--but, there was a similar instance regarding Ghost 2003--several years ago. But, similar to Ghost 15, it was the *whole* drive that was causing a problem--not a *logical* drive inside an extended partition. We finally found a *fix*, and it may help in your situation too. Won't know 'til we try.

First--another couple questions:

1. Are you using the standard Microsoft way of booting--or are you using some third party boot manager?

2. Are you aware of any program(s) that you have installed and are using that might store data in the boot region of your HDD--such as anti-piracy verification of program licensing, or boot managers, or ......?

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by xcurious on Nov 25^th, 2010 at 5:35pm

Thanks to both of you for showing your interest. :)

@Brian;

Here is a partinfo, hope it helps:

Run date: 11/26/2010 0:20

====================================================================
         MBR Partition Information (HD0 - 0xE7FBE7FB)
         (CHS: 1023/254/63) (WCHS: 19457/255/63)
+====+====+=============+====+=============+===========+===========+
| 0: | 80 | 0 1 1 | 7 | 1022 254 63 |       63 | 32772537 |
| 1: | 0 | 1022 254 63 | ef | 1022 254 63 | 32772600 |    80325 |
| 2: | 0 | 1022 254 63 | f | 1022 254 63 | 32852925 | 279723780 |
+====+====+=============+====+=============+===========+===========+
                     Volume Information
+----+----+-------------+----+-------------+-----------+-----------+
| 0: | 0 | 1022 0 63 | 5 | 1022 253 4 |       62 | 102398248 |
| 1: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |       0 |       0 |
| 2: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |       0 |       0 |
| 3: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |       0 |       0 |
+----+----+-------------+----+-------------+-----------+-----------+
| 0: | 0 | 1021 1 1 | 7 | 226 254 63 |       1 | 102398247 |
| 1: | 0 | 1022 0 1 | 5 | 1022 89 6 | 102398310 | 102398310 |
| 2: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |       0 |       0 |
| 3: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |       0 |       0 |
+----+----+-------------+----+-------------+-----------+-----------+
| 0: | 0 | 227 1 1 | 7 | 456 254 63 |       63 | 102398247 |
| 1: | 0 | 1022 0 1 | 5 | 1022 89 6 | 204796620 | 74927160 |
| 2: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |       0 |       0 |
| 3: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |       0 |       0 |
+----+----+-------------+----+-------------+-----------+-----------+
| 0: | 0 | 457 1 1 | 7 | 0 254 63 |       63 | 74927097 |
| 1: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |       0 |       0 |
| 2: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |       0 |       0 |
| 3: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |       0 |       0 |
+----+----+-------------+----+-------------+-----------+-----------+
         MBR Partition Information (HD0) Continued:
+====+====+=============+====+=============+===========+===========+
| 3: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |       0 |       0 |
+====+====+=============+====+=============+===========+===========+
                        BOOT SECTOR INFORMATION
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
File System ID: 0x7 LBA: 63 Total Sectors: 32772537 ID: 0x1
                        Jump: EB 52 90
                  OEM Name: NTFS
               Bytes Per Sec: 512
               Sec Per Clust: 8
               Res Sectors: 0
                     Zero 1: 0x0
                     Zero 2: 0x0
                        NA 1: 0x0
                     Media: 0xF8
                     Zero 3: 0x0
               Sec Per Track: 63
                     Heads: 255
               Hidden Secs: 63
                        NA 2: 0x0
                        NA 3: 0x800080
               Total Sectors: 0x01F411B8
                     MFT LCN: 0x0C0000
               MFT Mirr LCN: 0x010
               Clust Per FRS: 0xF6
            Clust Per IBlock: 0x1
                  Volume SN:
                  Checksum: 0x0
                  Boot Flag: 0xAA55
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
File System ID: 0x7 LBA: 32852988 Total Sectors: 102398247
                        Jump: EB 52 90
                  OEM Name: NTFS
               Bytes Per Sec: 512
               Sec Per Clust: 8
               Res Sectors: 0
                     Zero 1: 0x0
                     Zero 2: 0x0
                        NA 1: 0x0
                     Media: 0xF8
                     Zero 3: 0x0
               Sec Per Track: 63
                     Heads: 255
               Hidden Secs: 63
                        NA 2: 0x0
                        NA 3: 0x800080
               Total Sectors: 0x061A7926
                     MFT LCN: 0x0C0000
               MFT Mirr LCN: 0x061A792
               Clust Per FRS: 0xF6
            Clust Per IBlock: 0x1
                  Volume SN:
                  Checksum: 0x0
                  Boot Flag: 0xAA55
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
File System ID: 0x7 LBA: 135251298 Total Sectors: 102398247
                        Jump: EB 52 90
                  OEM Name: NTFS
               Bytes Per Sec: 512
               Sec Per Clust: 8
               Res Sectors: 0
                     Zero 1: 0x0
                     Zero 2: 0x0
                        NA 1: 0x0
                     Media: 0xF8
                     Zero 3: 0x0
               Sec Per Track: 63
                     Heads: 255
               Hidden Secs: 63
                        NA 2: 0x0
                        NA 3: 0x800080
               Total Sectors: 0x061A7926
                     MFT LCN: 0x0C0000
               MFT Mirr LCN: 0x061A792
               Clust Per FRS: 0xF6
            Clust Per IBlock: 0x1
                  Volume SN:
                  Checksum: 0x0
                  Boot Flag: 0xAA55
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
File System ID: 0x7 LBA: 237649608 Total Sectors: 74927097
                        Jump: EB 52 90
                  OEM Name: NTFS
               Bytes Per Sec: 512
               Sec Per Clust: 8
               Res Sectors: 0
                     Zero 1: 0x0
                     Zero 2: 0x0
                        NA 1: 0x0
                     Media: 0xF8

The max characters in my post is reached, continue with new post. :)

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by xcurious on Nov 25^th, 2010 at 6:04pm

@NightOwl:

EFI Partition is unknown to me, too. This is an EEEPC from Asus(1000h)
and the EFI part has been there all the time. Here is a screenshot from gdisk32:

Microsoft Windows XP [Versjon 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corporation

C:gdisk32 1 /status
Disk Partitions Cylinders Heads Sectors Mbytes Model
1       6       19457    255    63 152627.8

Partition Status Type    Volume Label Mbytes System Usage
C: 1       A PRIMARY                16002.2 NTFS/HPFS 10%
   2          PRIMARY                   39.2 UNKNOWN    1%
   3          EXTENDED             136583.9          89%
D: 4          LOGICAL                49999.1 NTFS/HPFS 33%
E: 5          LOGICAL                49999.1 NTFS/HPFS 33%
F: 6          LOGICAL                36585.5 NTFS/HPFS 24%

Your 2 questions:

1. Standard MS booting into XPSP3.
2. Not aware of anything like that.

But to your second question:
This happened approx. 1 month ago, and it does not help to restore to a good Ghost Image
before that either. So my guess is that something has changed 'something' on my C the last month that is not restored by Ghost.

What comes to mind is two other Imaging Software which I installed, Paragon free 2010 and another (Macrium reflect free). To find an alternative to Ghost. They are uninstalled and I'm using an image from before their install/uninstall by now. Can these have changed something on e.g. my C that is not covered by restore from Ghost-image?? (MBR?)

I will wait for your reply...

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Brian on Nov 25^th, 2010 at 6:16pm

@ xcurious

I have an Asus 1000HE. From memory that efi partition is called Boot Booster and it shaves a few seconds off the booting time. I deleted it as it made booting from USB flash drives difficult.

There is an error in your Volumes. I'll leave it to others to explain (I don't fully understand) but it looks like your first Volume is "split".

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by DL258 on Nov 26^th, 2010 at 6:01am

Freakishly coincidental! About 20 minutes ago I installed Ghost 2003 and noticed this very same problem. I thought-- Hey, I will check the Radified Forum but this being such a weird problem I will probably not find any related discussion there after searching for who knows how long. Imagine my surprise when I see the very same issue discussed at the top of the Ghost 2003 forum!

My situation: I have an older PC I seldom use but it has its place in a back corner of the office for a few tasks. It is Win XP SP2 with only 256mb RAM. Has two 20mb Maxtor drives-- 2nd one is for backup. The working drive is divided into partitions almost the same as what xcurious describes (although no efi partition). I have been using Ghost 10 on this PC for a very long time without this *missing partition* issue. Recently I decided I wanted to use my Ghost 10 license on another PC so uninstalled it and installed one of my Ghost 2003's on this machine.

This PC is never online any more and in fact has not been online for almost one year so I don't think this would be in any way virus-related or Windows update-related or LiveUpdate-related. Other than the Ghost 10, I've never installed a different backup program. About 10 years ago I did use Vcom Partiton Commander (a program from that era) to create these partitions and later cloned from one drive to to the other with it a few times-- I was trying to equalize life expectancy of the drives by alternating their *working* and *backup* tasks.

I've used Ghost 2003 on other PC's with multiple partitions and have never seen this problem before. I don't have a clue what is causing this but thought I would describe my machine in case that might add any insight. I have Partinfo so I could run that if it would help.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by NightOwl on Nov 26^th, 2010 at 8:27am

@ Brian

Quote:

There is an error in your Volumes. I'll leave it to others to explain (I don't fully understand) but it looks like your first Volume is "split".

I'm afraid I'm in that same boat of *not understanding* all the info in *PartInfo*--but, what are you looking at that leads you to the statement:

Quote:

it looks like your first Volume is "split"

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by NightOwl on Nov 26^th, 2010 at 8:31am

@ DL258

Quote:

I have Partinfo so I could run that if it would help.

It might help to see if there is any commonality causing the similar problem the two of you are having--so I'd say *Yes*, post the info!

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by NightOwl on Nov 26^th, 2010 at 9:37am

@ xcurious

So, I can't comment on the *PartInfo* information--as that is not my *expertise*.

But, from a functional perspective, for whatever reason, Ghost is not happy in its Windows interface about *mounting* (showing) one or more partitions. As part of Ghost's Windows based interface, it *marks* each drive and gives each partition a *unique identifier* in Windows so that when you set up a Ghost procedure and Ghost then closes out Windows and re-boots to DOS, those unique identifiers are used by DOS Ghost to chose the correct drive and partition to perform the procedure.

As I mentioned earlier, when this problem occurred previously, it was the whole drive that was being effected--and what worked was to zero out Ghost's drive marking so as to force Ghost to re-mark the drive(s) and re-establish the unique identifier(s) for all the drives and partitions.

Normally, if something is not already using it, Ghost 2003 uses absolute sector #62 for marking a HDD.

Here's a Windows based *sector editor* (Roadkil's Sector Editor) that would allow you to look at that sector 62--or any other sector for that matter--see here for discussion:

Invalid Partition Offset Error during Integrit

And here's another discussion about using a DOS based *disk editor* (PTS Disk Editor):

Erase DiskID on external USB drive

You can use these tools to just *look* if you wish--you don't have to actually edit or modify anything!

But, if you plan on making changes, I would always recommend you have a *whole drive* backup Ghost image that you have checked the Integrity on before any sector editing!

For the Roadkil Sector Editor, you don't have to *install* anything--you just run it under Windows. After loading it, select *Physical Drive 0*, and that should open the program at absolute sector #0. Go to the *Tools* menu item, and select the *Goto Sector* item, and type in *62*.

You should see at least the recognizable text *Norton Ghost 2003* embedded in other code if Ghost 2003 has *marked* the HDD and has not been prevented from using the *default* location for some reason.

To force Ghost to re-detect and re-mark the HDD, you can zero out that sector: using Roadkil, select the *Edit* menu item, and then *Zero Data*--it will zero just that one sector. Now, select the menu item *File*, and then the item *Save Sector*. Now, sector #62 is zeroed out and the next time you run the Windows Ghost 2003 interface, Ghost should require you to *mark* the drives.

Do the partitions show up correctly now in the Windows Ghost interface?

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Brian on Nov 26^th, 2010 at 1:43pm

@ NightOwl

NightOwl wrote on Nov 26^th, 2010 at 8:27am:

what are you looking at that leads you to the statement:

xcurious has 3 logical volumes yet partinfo shows 4. The first two volumes in partinfo are really the first volume with jumbled numbers. The hidden sector value should be 63 in each volume but the first entry has 62 and the second entry has 1.
The first entry has 102398248 sectors
The second entry has 102398247 sectors
It is really the same partition appearing twice.

I hope Dan will comment.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by xcurious on Nov 26^th, 2010 at 2:39pm

Hi guys;

Nothing much done here yet.

But I have been running Ghost Interactivly and booted into Ghost-DOS that way.

Each and every command I issue there start with a Warning:
'You have overlapping partitions on Disk 1' or something like that,
even if I am working with my memory card as Disk 2 at that time.

I'll await doing anything radical.

BTW: Who is Dan?

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by DL258 on Nov 26^th, 2010 at 5:35pm

                        PARTINFG, Version 1.00
         Copyright (c) 2010 TeraByte, Inc. All Rights Reseverd

                     Run Date: 11/26/2010 3:17 PM

===============================================================================
               MBR Partition Information (HD0 - 0x06E206E1)
                  (CHS: 1022/254/63) (WCHS: 2491/255/63)
+====+====+=============+====+=============+=============+=============+
| 0: | 80 | 0 1 1 | b | 950 254 63 |       63 | 15277752 |
| 1: | 0 | 951 0 1 | f | 1022 254 63 | 15277815 | 24740100 |
+====+====+=============+====+=============+=============+=============+
                           Volume Information
+----+----+-------------+----+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 0: | 0 | 951 1 1 | b | 1023 254 63 |       63 |    3164742 |
| 1: | 0 | 1022 0 1 | 5 | 1022 254 63 |    3164805 | 21575295 |
| 2: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
| 3: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
+----+----+-------------+----+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 0: | 0 | 1023 1 1 | b | 1023 254 63 |       63 |    7197057 |
| 1: | 0 | 1022 0 1 | 5 | 1022 254 63 | 10361925 | 14378175 |
| 2: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
| 3: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
+----+----+-------------+----+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 0: | 0 | 1023 1 1 | b | 1023 254 63 |       63 |    5124672 |
| 1: | 0 | 1022 0 1 | 5 | 1022 254 63 | 15486660 |    9253440 |
| 2: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
| 3: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
+----+----+-------------+----+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 0: | 0 | 1023 1 1 | b | 1023 254 63 |       63 |    3068352 |
| 1: | 0 | 1022 0 1 | 5 | 1022 254 63 | 18555075 |    6185025 |
| 2: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
| 3: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
+----+----+-------------+----+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 0: | 0 | 1023 1 1 | b | 1023 254 63 |       63 |    6184962 |
| 1: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
| 2: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
| 3: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
+----+----+-------------+----+-------------+-------------+-------------+
               MBR Partition Information (HD0) Continued:
+====+====+=============+====+=============+=============+=============+
| 2: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
| 3: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
+====+====+=============+====+=============+=============+=============+
===============================================================================

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by DL258 on Nov 26^th, 2010 at 5:39pm

===============================================================================
                        BOOT SECTOR INFORMATION
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   File System ID: 0xB LBA: 63 Total Sectors: 15277752 ID: 0x1
                              Jump: EB 58 90 (EB 58 90)
                           OEM Name: MSWIN4.1 (MSWIN4.1)
                     Bytes Per Sec: 512 (512)
                     Sec Per Clust: 8 (8)
                        Res Sectors: 34 (34)
                           Num FATs: 2 (2)
                     Root Dir Ents: 0 (0)
                           Sectors: 0 (0)
                              Media: 0xF8 (0xF8)
                        Secs Per FAT: 0 (0)
                     Sec Per Track: 63 (63)
                              Heads: 255 (255)
                        Hidden Secs: 63 (63)
                        Huge Sectors: 15277752 (15277752)
                  Huge Secs Per FAT: 14891 (14891)
                              Flags: 0x0 (0x0)
                           Version: 0 (0)
                     Root Dir Clust: 8243 (8243)
                        FS Info Sec: 1 (1)
                        FS Bkup Sec: 6 (6)
                           Reserved: 0 0 0 0 0 0
                           Drive Num: 0x80 (0x80)
                                 Res: 0x1 (0x0)
                           Boot Sig: 0x29 (0x29)
                              Vol ID: 0xB8A0CDD5 (0xB8A0CDD5)
                        Volume Label: O NAME    ( O NAME )
                           FS Type: FAT32 (FAT32 )
                           Boot Flag: 0xAA55 (0xAA55)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      File System ID: 0xB LBA: 15277878 Total Sectors: 3164742
                              Jump: EB 58 90 (EB 58 90)
                           OEM Name: MSWIN4.1 (MSWIN4.1)
                     Bytes Per Sec: 512 (512)
                     Sec Per Clust: 8 (8)
                        Res Sectors: 38 (38)
                           Num FATs: 2 (2)
                     Root Dir Ents: 0 (0)
                           Sectors: 0 (0)
                              Media: 0xF8 (0xF8)
                        Secs Per FAT: 0 (0)
                     Sec Per Track: 63 (63)
                              Heads: 255 (255)
                        Hidden Secs: 63 (63)
                        Huge Sectors: 3164742 (3164742)
                  Huge Secs Per FAT: 3085 (3085)
                              Flags: 0x0 (0x0)
                           Version: 0 (0)
                     Root Dir Clust: 248 (248)
                        FS Info Sec: 1 (1)
                        FS Bkup Sec: 6 (6)
                           Reserved: 0 0 0 0 0 0
                           Drive Num: 0x80 (0x80)
                                 Res: 0x0 (0x0)
                           Boot Sig: 0x29 (0x29)
                              Vol ID: 0x444957C8 (0x444957C8)
                        Volume Label: UTIL ME (UTIL ME )
                           FS Type: FAT32 (FAT32 )
                           Boot Flag: 0xAA55 (0xAA55)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      File System ID: 0xB LBA: 18442683 Total Sectors: 7197057
                              Jump: EB 3C 90 (EB 3C 90)
                           OEM Name: MSWIN4.1 (MSWIN4.1)
                     Bytes Per Sec: 512 (512)
                     Sec Per Clust: 8 (8)
                        Res Sectors: 32 (32)
                           Num FATs: 2 (2)
                     Root Dir Ents: 0 (0)
                           Sectors: 0 (0)
                              Media: 0xF8 (0xF8)
                        Secs Per FAT: 0 (0)
                     Sec Per Track: 63 (63)
                              Heads: 255 (255)
                        Hidden Secs: 63 (63)
                        Huge Sectors: 7197057 (7197057)
                  Huge Secs Per FAT: 7015 (7015)
                              Flags: 0x0 (0x0)
                           Version: 0 (0)
                     Root Dir Clust: 2296 (2296)
                        FS Info Sec: 1 (1)
                        FS Bkup Sec: 6 (6)
                           Reserved: 0 0 0 0 0 0
                           Drive Num: 0x80 (0x80)
                                 Res: 0x0 (0x0)
                           Boot Sig: 0x29 (0x29)
                              Vol ID: 0x3DBACAAF (0x3DBACAAF)
                        Volume Label: APPS       (APPS    )
                           FS Type: FAT32 (FAT32 )
                           Boot Flag: 0xAA55 (0xAA55)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by DL258 on Nov 26^th, 2010 at 5:40pm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      File System ID: 0xB LBA: 25639803 Total Sectors: 5124672
                              Jump: EB 3C 90 (EB 3C 90)
                           OEM Name: MSWIN4.1 (MSWIN4.1)
                     Bytes Per Sec: 512 (512)
                     Sec Per Clust: 8 (8)
                        Res Sectors: 32 (32)
                           Num FATs: 2 (2)
                     Root Dir Ents: 0 (0)
                           Sectors: 0 (0)
                              Media: 0xF8 (0xF8)
                        Secs Per FAT: 0 (0)
                     Sec Per Track: 63 (63)
                              Heads: 255 (255)
                        Hidden Secs: 63 (63)
                        Huge Sectors: 5124672 (5124672)
                  Huge Secs Per FAT: 4995 (4995)
                              Flags: 0x0 (0x0)
                           Version: 0 (0)
                     Root Dir Clust: 2801 (2801)
                        FS Info Sec: 1 (1)
                        FS Bkup Sec: 6 (6)
                           Reserved: 0 0 0 0 0 0
                           Drive Num: 0x80 (0x80)
                                 Res: 0x0 (0x0)
                           Boot Sig: 0x29 (0x29)
                              Vol ID: 0xB93067E1 (0xB93067E1)
                        Volume Label: DATA 1    (DATA 1    )
                           FS Type: FAT32 (FAT32 )
                           Boot Flag: 0xAA55 (0xAA55)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      File System ID: 0xB LBA: 30764538 Total Sectors: 3068352
                              Jump: EB 3C 90 (EB 3C 90)
                           OEM Name: MSWIN4.1 (MSWIN4.1)
                     Bytes Per Sec: 512 (512)
                     Sec Per Clust: 8 (8)
                        Res Sectors: 32 (32)
                           Num FATs: 2 (2)
                     Root Dir Ents: 0 (0)
                           Sectors: 0 (0)
                              Media: 0xF8 (0xF8)
                        Secs Per FAT: 0 (0)
                     Sec Per Track: 63 (63)
                              Heads: 255 (255)
                        Hidden Secs: 63 (63)
                        Huge Sectors: 3068352 (3068352)
                  Huge Secs Per FAT: 2991 (2991)
                              Flags: 0x0 (0x0)
                           Version: 0 (0)
                     Root Dir Clust: 3302 (3302)
                        FS Info Sec: 1 (1)
                        FS Bkup Sec: 6 (6)
                           Reserved: 0 0 0 0 0 0
                           Drive Num: 0x80 (0x80)
                                 Res: 0x0 (0x0)
                           Boot Sig: 0x29 (0x29)
                              Vol ID: 0x34A61A05 (0x34A61A05)
                        Volume Label: XAPPS    (XAPPS    )
                           FS Type: FAT32 (FAT32 )
                           Boot Flag: 0xAA55 (0xAA55)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      File System ID: 0xB LBA: 33832953 Total Sectors: 6184962
                              Jump: EB 58 90 (EB 58 90)
                           OEM Name: OEMNAME (OEMNAME )
                     Bytes Per Sec: 512 (512)
                     Sec Per Clust: 8 (8)
                        Res Sectors: 32 (32)
                           Num FATs: 2 (2)
                     Root Dir Ents: 0 (0)
                           Sectors: 0 (0)
                              Media: 0xF8 (0xF8)
                        Secs Per FAT: 0 (0)
                     Sec Per Track: 63 (63)
                              Heads: 255 (255)
                        Hidden Secs: 63 (63)
                        Huge Sectors: 6184962 (6184962)
                  Huge Secs Per FAT: 6029 (6029)
                              Flags: 0x0 (0x0)
                           Version: 0 (0)
                     Root Dir Clust: 2 (2)
                        FS Info Sec: 1 (1)
                        FS Bkup Sec: 6 (6)
                           Reserved: 0 0 0 0 0 0
                           Drive Num: 0x80 (0x80)
                                 Res: 0x0 (0x0)
                           Boot Sig: 0x29 (0x29)
                              Vol ID: 0xA740A75 (0xA740A75)
                        Volume Label: BIN       (BIN       )
                           FS Type: FAT32 (FAT32 )
                           Boot Flag: 0xAA55 (0xAA55)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
===============================================================================

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by DL258 on Nov 26^th, 2010 at 6:18pm

Here is a drive on an IBM Thinkpad with WinXP Pro on which Ghost 2003 does appear to not have a problem-- I say *appears to* because this drive has only 4 partitions in total instead of the 6 on my *problem* PC. However it is in fact displaying all 4 whereas my other PC is displaying only 3 of 6.

PARTINFG, Version 1.00
         Copyright (c) 2010 TeraByte, Inc. All Rights Reseverd

                     Run Date: 11/26/2010 3:56 PM

===============================================================================
               MBR Partition Information (HD1 - 0xD3ACD3AC)
                  (CHS: 1022/239/63) (WCHS: 3876/240/63)
+====+====+=============+====+=============+=============+=============+
| 0: | 80 | 0 1 1 | c | 1022 239 63 |       63 | 35017857 |
| 1: | 0 | 1022 0 1 | f | 1022 239 63 | 35017920 | 23572080 |
+====+====+=============+====+=============+=============+=============+
                           Volume Information
+----+----+-------------+----+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 0: | 0 | 268 1 1 | b | 402 239 63 |       63 |    2041137 |
| 1: | 0 | 403 0 1 | 5 | 675 239 63 |    2041200 |    4127760 |
| 2: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
| 3: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
+----+----+-------------+----+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 0: | 0 | 403 1 1 | b | 675 239 63 |       63 |    4127697 |
| 1: | 0 | 676 0 1 | 5 | 802 239 63 |    6168960 | 17403120 |
| 2: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
| 3: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
+----+----+-------------+----+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 0: | 0 | 676 1 1 | b | 802 239 63 |       63 | 17403057 |
| 1: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
| 2: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
| 3: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
+----+----+-------------+----+-------------+-------------+-------------+
               MBR Partition Information (HD1) Continued:
+====+====+=============+====+=============+=============+=============+
| 2: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
| 3: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
+====+====+=============+====+=============+=============+=============+
===============================================================================

Continued in next post....

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by DL258 on Nov 26^th, 2010 at 6:20pm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      File System ID: 0xB LBA: 37059183 Total Sectors: 4127697
                              Jump: EB 58 90 (EB 58 90)
                           OEM Name: OEMNAME (OEMNAME )
                     Bytes Per Sec: 512 (512)
                     Sec Per Clust: 8 (8)
                        Res Sectors: 32 (32)
                           Num FATs: 2 (2)
                     Root Dir Ents: 0 (0)
                           Sectors: 0 (0)
                              Media: 0xF8 (0xF8)
                        Secs Per FAT: 0 (0)
                     Sec Per Track: 63 (63)
                              Heads: 240 (240)
                        Hidden Secs: 37059183 (37059183)
                        Huge Sectors: 4127696 (4127696)
                  Huge Secs Per FAT: 4024 (4024)
                              Flags: 0x0 (0x0)
                           Version: 0 (0)
                     Root Dir Clust: 2 (2)
                        FS Info Sec: 1 (1)
                        FS Bkup Sec: 6 (6)
                           Reserved: 0 0 0 0 0 0
                           Drive Num: 0x80 (0x80)
                                 Res: 0x0 (0x0)
                           Boot Sig: 0x29 (0x29)
                              Vol ID: 0xB996B998 (0xB996B998)
                        Volume Label: DATA       (DATA    )
                           FS Type: FAT32 (FAT32 )
                           Boot Flag: 0xAA55 (0xAA55)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      File System ID: 0xB LBA: 41186943 Total Sectors: 17403057
                              Jump: EB 58 90 (EB 58 90)
                           OEM Name: OEMNAME (OEMNAME )
                     Bytes Per Sec: 512 (512)
                     Sec Per Clust: 16 (16)
                        Res Sectors: 36 (36)
                           Num FATs: 2 (2)
                     Root Dir Ents: 0 (0)
                           Sectors: 0 (0)
                              Media: 0xF8 (0xF8)
                        Secs Per FAT: 0 (0)
                     Sec Per Track: 63 (63)
                              Heads: 240 (240)
                        Hidden Secs: 41186943 (41186943)
                        Huge Sectors: 17403048 (17403048)
                  Huge Secs Per FAT: 8490 (8490)
                              Flags: 0x0 (0x0)
                           Version: 0 (0)
                     Root Dir Clust: 2 (2)
                        FS Info Sec: 1 (1)
                        FS Bkup Sec: 6 (6)
                           Reserved: 0 0 0 0 0 0
                           Drive Num: 0x80 (0x80)
                                 Res: 0x1 (0x0)
                           Boot Sig: 0x29 (0x29)
                              Vol ID: 0xA4B0A4B5 (0xA4B0A4B5)
                        Volume Label: BIN       (BIN       )
                           FS Type: FAT32 (FAT32 )
                           Boot Flag: 0xAA55 (0xAA55)

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Brian on Nov 26^th, 2010 at 9:46pm

@ DL258

Which partition is missing from the Windows Ghost 2003 GUI? Are all partitions seen in Windows Explorer?

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by NightOwl on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 12:05am

@ xcurious

Quote:

BTW: Who is Dan?

That would be our member Dan Goodell--he knows quite a bit about all things having to do with partition tables and and the information reported by PartInfo, etc....

Quote:

But I have been running Ghost Interactivly and booted into Ghost-DOS that way.

Each and every command I issue there start with a Warning:
'You have overlapping partitions on Disk 1' or something like that,

Much better to have the *exact* error message, but, I guess we have the idea!

Based on Brian's observation and this new error report, I would say my recommendation in my reply #9 is not the likely problem that you are having!

Looks like it's a corrupt partition table and probably needs to be fixed to avoid potential unexpected/unintended consequences when running various programs going forward.

In terms of proceeding in a practical manner--what options do you have? Meaning--do you have a spare HDD, do you have a whole drive image file, do you have a partitioning tool to use?

I would remove my current OS HDD for safe-keeping in case I needed it. I would put in my spare HDD on the same connector as the original removed OS HDD. I would then use PartitionMagic to partition the spare HDD to match the one I just removed--actual partition sizes would not have to be *identical*--big enough to hold the original data without crowding. And, then I would use my *whole HDD* image to restore one partition at a time to the newly partitioned spare HDD into the same partition location as it had been on the original OS HDD.

Boot to WinXP after that, and open the Ghost interface and test it out to see if everything works--Ghost should ask to *mark* the *new* spare HDD--and if all has gone well--everything should be working okay again.

Questions? Comments?

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Brian on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 2:52am

In this page Dan Goodell explains how the logical volumes work..

http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/ptedit.htm

Here is the maths for an Extended partition and four logical volumes.

63   A          A= number of sectors in this volume -63
B C B=63+A   C= number of sectors in the next volume

63 D            D= number of sectors in this volume -63
E F E=B+C F= number of sectors in the next volume

63   G         G= number of sectors in this volume -63
H I H=E+F I= number of sectors in the next volume

63 I-63

Another way of looking at it...

63                A
63+A               C

63                C-63
63+A+C            F

63                F-63
63+A+C+F        I

63                I-63

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by DL258 on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 3:50am

Brian wrote on Nov 26^th, 2010 at 9:46pm:

@ DL258

Which partition is missing from the Windows Ghost 2003 GUI? Are all partitions seen in Windows Explorer?

The partitions in BOOT SECTOR INFORMATION tables seen in Post/Reply No. 13 of this thread are the ones that DO appear in Ghost 2003.

Those in the BOOT SECTOR INFORMATION tables seen in Post/Reply No. 14 of this thread are the ones that DO NOT appear in Ghost 2003.

FWIW -- the Volume Labels as shown in these tables are/were somewhat messed up. I had originally created these partitions in the Vcom partition manager I previously mentioned. At some later date I then renamed these labels from within WinXP. The new labels were OK in any Windows display of them but that edit from within the Windows OS did not correctly appear in the Vcom partition manager, nor in BootIt NG. Since running PartInfo and posting the results in this thread, I have edited the volume labels from within in the Vcom partition manager to match what I had previously done in Win XP. I did not really expect this to fix the display issue in Ghost but will just mention it had no effect in that regard.

Here is exactly what appears in the Ghost display while it runs in Windows. (F, G, and H are the missing partitions).

Disk 1 - No Ghost Disk ID
Win_XP (C:)
UTIL (D:)
APPS (E:)

Disk 2 - No Ghost Disk ID
BU_DRIVE (I:)

All partitions are seen in Windows Explorer and in any other program or file/folder/drive display (of any type) I have ever seen on this PC-- except for Ghost 2003 from within Windows OS.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Brian on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 4:26am

@ DL258

So it's the 3rd, 4th and 5th volumes that don't show in Ghost. I started to do the maths on your volumes but gave up. The maths is a mess.

Edit.... Out of interest, do you see any errors in BootIt NG Partition Work? Any "E" partitions in Partition Work?

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by DL258 on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 5:59am

Brian wrote on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 4:26am:

do you see any errors in BootIt NG Partition Work? Any "E" partitions in Partition Work

I have never seen any errors in BootIt on this drive.

Sorry I don't know what you are referring to as far as "E" partitions.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by xcurious on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 7:39am

NightOwl wrote on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 12:05am:

@ xcurious

Questions? Comments?

Hi again.
I have been pretty busy working with this problem, but time is a limiting factor.

I got a bit confused after your first suggestion about editing boot sector.

Now I have done:

1. Ghost restored from when this Asus 1000H was new taken after next to nothing had been done with it. The whole Disk and not only C. (2 years ago).
One exception: The recovery partition following the machine was already removed by me.

2. From gdisk I removed the EFI partiton as I do not use Boot Booster.

3. When restoring this Ghost image I made C approx 16 GB as it has been.

4. The rest of the disk was left unallocated, approx 135 GB.

5. I created a new D as a primary partition from all the free space.

6. I restored my C from a new Ghost-image of C after recovering from the shock
of seeing my original Asus 1000h without mouse, external display and a desktop with
much unfamiliar stuff. :)

7. Now I have this according to gdisk32:

Microsoft Windows XP [Versjon 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corporation

C:>gdisk32 1 /status
Disk Partitions Cylinders Heads Sectors Mbytes Model
1       2       19457    255    63 152627.8

Partition Status Type    Volume Label Mbytes System Usage
C: 1       A PRIMARY                16002.2 NTFS/HPFS 10%
D: 2          PRIMARY             136623.1 NTFS/HPFS 90%

8. Partinfo shows:

Microsoft Windows XP [Versjon 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corporation

PARTINFW 1.11
Copyright (c) 1996-2008 TeraByte, Inc. All rights reserved.

Run date: 11/27/2010 14:06

====================================================================
         MBR Partition Information (HD0 - 0x47EE47ED)
         (CHS: 1023/254/63) (WCHS: 19457/255/63)
+====+====+=============+====+=============+===========+===========+
| 0: | 80 | 0 1 1 | 7 | 1023 254 63 |       63 | 32772537 |
| 1: | 0 | 1023 254 63 | 7 | 1023 254 63 | 32772600 | 279804105 |
| 2: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |       0 |       0 |
| 3: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |       0 |       0 |
+====+====+=============+====+=============+===========+===========+
                        BOOT SECTOR INFORMATION
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
File System ID: 0x7 LBA: 63 Total Sectors: 32772537 ID: 0x1
                        Jump: EB 52 90
                  OEM Name: NTFS
               Bytes Per Sec: 512
               Sec Per Clust: 8
               Res Sectors: 0
                     Zero 1: 0x0
                     Zero 2: 0x0
                        NA 1: 0x0
                     Media: 0xF8
                     Zero 3: 0x0
               Sec Per Track: 63
                     Heads: 255
               Hidden Secs: 63
                        NA 2: 0x0
                        NA 3: 0x800080
               Total Sectors: 0x01F411B8
                     MFT LCN: 0x0C0000
               MFT Mirr LCN: 0x010
               Clust Per FRS: 0xF6
            Clust Per IBlock: 0x1
                  Volume SN:
                  Checksum: 0x0
                  Boot Flag: 0xAA55
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
File System ID: 0x7 LBA: 32772600 Total Sectors: 279804105 ID: 0x2
                        Jump: EB 52 90
                  OEM Name: NTFS
               Bytes Per Sec: 512
               Sec Per Clust: 8
               Res Sectors: 0
                     Zero 1: 0x0
                     Zero 2: 0x0
                        NA 1: 0x0
                     Media: 0xF8
                     Zero 3: 0x0
               Sec Per Track: 63
                     Heads: 255
               Hidden Secs: 32772600
                        NA 2: 0x0
                        NA 3: 0x800080
               Total Sectors: 0x010AD78C8
                     MFT LCN: 0x0C0000
               MFT Mirr LCN: 0x010AD78C
               Clust Per FRS: 0xF6
            Clust Per IBlock: 0x1
                  Volume SN:
                  Checksum: 0x0
                  Boot Flag: 0xAA55
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could I please get comments on this. :)

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Brian on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 1:18pm

Dan must be away.

OK, I'll give my opinion. I think the problem is corruption in the Extended Partition Tables within the Extended Partition. No idea why.

I'd backup the data in the Extended partition (copy/paste) and use BootIt NG to delete the volumes one by one and then delete the Extended partition. After clicking Delete for each volume and the extended partition, also click Clear Boot Sector as this will zero the relevant extended partition tables. Use "Clear Boot Sector" with each Delete. While still in BootIt NG you can create a new Extended partition with volumes.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by NightOwl on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 2:44pm

@ xcurious

Quote:

I got a bit confused after your first suggestion about editing boot sector

Interesting--seeing you use the Ghost GDisk command line partitioning tool--I wouldn't expect the information about the RoadKil Disk Editor utility would be too intimidating!

Regarding your reply #24 above--the PartInfo looks fine--no obvious anomalies. But, it is just two primary partitions and not anything like you originally posted. If that's the direction you want to go--that's fine.

Does Ghost 2003 Windows interface work okay now--all partitions shown? No errors reported when running Ghost interactively?

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by NightOwl on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 3:18pm

@ DL258

Quote:

Here is exactly what appears in the Ghost display while it runs in Windows. (F, G, and H are the missing partitions).

Disk 1 - No Ghost Disk ID
Win_XP (C:)
UTIL (D:)
APPS (E:)

Disk 2 - No Ghost Disk ID
BU_DRIVE (I:)

So, on which drive(s) are each of the above missing partitions supposed to be?

Looking at the volume information from PartInfo--in four of the summaries it says:

Quote:

OEM Name: OEMNAME (OEMNAME )

And in the other summaries it says:

Quote:

OEM Name: MSDOS5.0 (MSDOS5.0)

OEM Name: MSWIN4.1 (MSWIN4.1)

You say here in your reply #6:

Quote:

About 10 years ago I did use Vcom Partiton Commander (a program from that era) to create these partitions and later cloned from one drive to to the other with it a few times-- I was trying to equalize life expectancy of the drives by alternating their *working* and *backup* tasks.

And, then you say in your reply #21:

Quote:

FWIW -- the Volume Labels as shown in these tables are/were somewhat messed up. I had originally created these partitions in the Vcom partition manager I previously mentioned. At some later date I then renamed these labels from within WinXP. The new labels were OK in any Windows display of them but that edit from within the Windows OS did not correctly appear in the Vcom partition manager, nor in BootIt NG. Since running PartInfo and posting the results in this thread, I have edited the volume labels from within in the Vcom partition manager to match what I had previously done in Win XP

Is there something about how Vcom has created partitions that are somehow throwing off Ghost 2003 ability to recognize them? If the partition labels created by WinXP are not compatible with Vcom--maybe there's an issue going the other way as far as Ghost 2003 is concerned!

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Brian on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 3:42pm

@ DL258

DL258 wrote on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 5:59am:

Sorry I don't know what you are referring to as far as "E" partitions

"E" for error. BING shows an "E" if there are overlapping partitions. With primary partitions, BING lets you correct the error by editing the End LBA. With logical volumes, BING lets you delete the volume (but don't Clear the Boot Sector) and then Undelete the volume. The relevant Extended Partition Table is fixed and the volumes no longer overlap.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by NightOwl on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 3:54pm

@ Brian

Quote:

With primary partitions, BING lets you correct the error by editing the End LBA. With logical volumes, BING lets you delete the volume (but don't Clear the Boot Sector) and then Undelete the volume. The relevant Extended Partition Table is fixed and the volumes no longer overlap

How come you didn't recommend *repairing* the partition tables to @ xcurious in your reply #25 ? (Granted, it looks like he's already moved beyond a repair at this point!)

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Brian on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 4:06pm

@ NightOwl

Because I only discovered the Delete/Undelete method for logical volumes in the last few minutes.

I've known how to repair overlapping primary partitions because that's the type people have been reporting with Ghost 15. Actually, the first thread I saw on overlapping partitions was about Win7. The member tried to do some partition manipulation with Partition Magic. PM didn't understand the 2048 sector aligned partitions and made a real mess. Win7 no longer booted. BING was able to fix it.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by DL258 on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 6:22pm

NightOwl wrote on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 3:18pm:

So, on which drive(s) are each of the above missing partitions supposed to be?

The missing partitions F, G, and H are on Disk 1-- coming after C, D and E. (I did not reassign any drive letters.)

Drive 2 is for backup only. It is not divided into multiple partitions.

Incidentally, as I mentioned at first, I just installed Ghost 2003 to this PC and had not yet run a Ghost task in interactive mode. That is why the *No Ghost Disk ID* text appears after the Disk1, Disk2 text. Today while in Windows I clicked through the Ghost 2003 backup process to the point that it asks to ID the drives. Now I have in Ghost 2003 from within WinXP.

Disk 1
Win_XP (C:)
UTIL (D:)
APPS (E:)

Disk 2
BU_DRIVE (I:)

Also if I did not mention before, I did run a full drive backup via the Ghost 2003 boot disk. All partitions are visible in this Ghost interface and the backup worked fine with all partitions backed up. It is only the Windows interactive mode (which I normally use) that does not display all partitions. I can certainly use the boot disk method but a concern is-- as I think someone already mentioned-- something isn't right and that could lead to a problem.

NightOwl wrote on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 3:18pm:

Looking at the volume information from PartInfo--in four of the summaries it says: Quote:OEM Name: OEMNAME (OEMNAME ) And in the other summaries it says: Quote:OEM Name: MSDOS5.0 (MSDOS5.0)OEM Name: MSWIN4.1 (MSWIN4.1)

I have never changed or edited the *OEM Name* of any of these drives/partitions. I don't know how to change the *OEM Name* I was referring to the *Volume Labels* only.

The tables in reply 13 and reply 14 are from the computer with the missing partition problem. The tables in replies 15, 16, and 17 are from an entirely different PC. I posted those replies to show a computer that does not have the missing partition problem even though it has multiple partitions created with the same Vcom program.

NightOwl wrote on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 3:18pm:

Is there something about how Vcom has created partitions that are somehow throwing off Ghost 2003 ability to recognize them?

Well I was hoping that was the case while at the same time realizing that the problem was likely not that simple. That is why yesterday I edited the volume labels in Vcom to match what I had done in WinXP.

NightOwl wrote on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 3:18pm:

If the partition labels created by WinXP are not compatible with Vcom--maybe there's an issue going the other way as far as Ghost 2003 is concerned!

At this point after some experimentation on other PC's I think in general (on any PC) any edit of volume labels from within Windows is unsuccessful as far as partitioning programs is concerned. And it is not as if the edit in Windows appears only in Windows. It does affect the *actual* volume label. In other words, if I use a partitioning program to create a partition and name the volume label *ABCXYZ* in that partitioning program, and then in Windows I edit that label to read *123* in Windows, it will now appear as *123 Z* in the partitioning program. I've even noticed that in BootIt NG. My experience has been that this can/does happen in other partitioning programs as well. I've used about 5 different ones that I can think of over the years. Unfortunately I don't know how to *un-edit* the Windows change-- meaning get Windows to read the exact label from the partitioning program again. So I don't think you can go back to the un-edited label as far as Windows is concerned. You can of course duplicate any spelling to make it look the same but Windows is no longer reading the exact label as specified by the partitioning program.

However, the IBM laptop from replies 15, 16, and 17 has has been set up with Vcom and has had volume labels edited in Windows as well-- perhaps even more so than the other PC and Ghost 2003 still has no problem seeing all partitions on the IBM.

Also-- on this computer with the missing partitions, ALL of the partition volume labels have been edited several times. But Ghost has no problem displaying the first three even though their volume labels have also been edited.

And also-- Ghost 2003 in Windows is reading the Windows-edited version of the volume label. Ghost 2003 from the boot disk is reading the partitioning program-created label. Ghost 2003 never seems to confuse the two. Its just that it is not reading all of the partitions in its Windows mode. Therefore I really don't think this label issue is the problem.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by DL258 on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 6:29pm

Brian wrote on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 3:42pm:

"E" for error. BING shows an "E" if there are overlapping partitions.

Oh that is good to know!

I've not seen it on this PC with the Ghost 2003 missing partition problem though.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Brian on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 12:05am

Here is another coincidence. An example of the C: drive not being seen from Ghost 15. Today.

http://community.norton.com/t5/Other-Norton-Products/Partition-above-extends-beyond-the-end-of-disk/td-p/334019

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by NightOwl on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 12:51am

@ Brian

Quote:

Because I only discovered the Delete/Undelete method for logical volumes in the last few minutes.

Well, there you go--answers that question!

Quote:

I've known how to repair overlapping primary partitions because that's the type people have been reporting with Ghost 15. Actually, the first thread I saw on overlapping partitions was about Win7. The member tried to do some partition manipulation with Partition Magic. PM didn't understand the 2048 sector aligned partitions and made a real mess. Win7 no longer booted. BING was able to fix it.

Well, from previous discussions here, I was aware that PartitionMagic was no longer compatible with current Microsoft Win7 default installations--but your report here pretty much *puts the last nail in the coffin*!

Symantec bought the original Ghost from *Binary Research*, brought it to the masses, and then dropped support for the retail versions that resembled the *Corporate* (read that *quality*) level of support for the program. The current retail Ghost versions (9, 10, 12, 14, 15) are *okay*, but they just don't have the higher level of sophistication that the *original* Corporate level (Ghost Solution Suite (GSS)) of quality!

Then Symantec bought PartitonMagic from PowerQuest--and now has essentially abandon it!

Well, Symantec is no longer supporting, at the retail level, the type of programs that I use on a frequent basis--as much as I'd like not to, Ghost 2003 will have to be gradually put to rest--we can only create *work-arounds* for so long before things start to *break down*!

But, TeraByte's group of Image for Windows, DOS, and Linux + their partitioning and boot manager tool--BootIt Next Generation (BING) continue to be developed--and obviously to ever increasing levels of sophistication and quality:

Quote:

BING was able to fix it

I just ordered their complete suite--steep learning curve ahead--but, always like a challenge ;) (NightOwl rocking back and forth chanting *Change is good! Change is good!........)!

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by NightOwl on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 1:43am

@ DL258

Quote:

The tables in reply 13 and reply 14 are from the computer with the missing partition problem. The tables in replies 15, 16, and 17 are from an entirely different PC. I posted those replies to show a computer that does not have the missing partition problem even though it has multiple partitions created with the same Vcom program.

Okay, my bad! I didn't focus in on the change of machine mentioned:

Quote:

Here is a drive on an IBM Thinkpad with WinXP Pro on which Ghost 2003 does appear to not have a problem

But, you misunderstood the point I was attempting to make--and that's my fault too!

Quote:

I have never changed or edited the *OEM Name* of any of these drives/partitions. I don't know how to change the *OEM Name* I was referring to the *Volume Labels* only.

You don't get to change that! That's embedded by the formatting/partitioning tool! You will find those *names* often listed in the first sector after the Master Boot Tract--and several other locations as well--so it depends on the tool used--and I suspect it was the IBM folks using a product specific tool that inserted those names. I was *grasping at straws* looking for anything to maybe show why Ghost 2003 was *choking*--attempting to pin the blame on Vcom! But, guess not!

Quote:

Incidentally, as I mentioned at first, I just installed Ghost 2003 to this PC and had not yet run a Ghost task in interactive mode. That is why the *No Ghost Disk ID* text appears after the Disk1, Disk2 text. Today while in Windows I clicked through the Ghost 2003 backup process to the point that it asks to ID the drives. Now I have in Ghost 2003 from within WinXP.

Well, I was going to recommend trying what I recommended in my Reply # 9, but, apparently the partitions where not showing up even before Ghost had *marked* the disk--I presume you did not allow Ghost 2003 booted from DOS to *mark* the drives either--before letting the Windows Ghost interface mark the disk:

Quote:

Also if I did not mention before, I did run a full drive backup via the Ghost 2003 boot disk. All partitions are visible in this Ghost interface and the backup worked fine with all partitions backed up.

So, at this point, I would try what I recommended in my Reply # 19:

Quote:

I would remove my current OS HDD for safe-keeping in case I needed it. I would put in my spare HDD on the same connector as the original removed OS HDD. I would then use PartitionMagic to partition the spare HDD to match the one I just removed--actual partition sizes would not have to be *identical*--big enough to hold the original data without crowding. And, then I would use my *whole HDD* image to restore one partition at a time to the newly partitioned spare HDD into the same partition location as it had been on the original OS HDD.

Boot to WinXP after that, and open the Ghost interface and test it out to see if everything works--Ghost should ask to *mark* the *new* spare HDD--and if all has gone well--everything should be working okay again.

Use the partitioning tool of your own choosing. If no spare HDD, simply delete everything from the current HDD, re-partition, and then restore the partitions from your whole drive image file.

Basically, see if *starting over* as far as creating the partition structure allows for correct operation of Ghost 2003.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Brian on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 1:55am

@ NightOwl

NightOwl wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 12:51am:

I just ordered their complete suite-

Good choice. There is lots to play with.

A new version of BING is due in December. Maybe. Anyone who has bought BING in the last year will get a free upgrade. We don't know anything about it except it will support the version 2 images from IFW, IFD and IFL.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by NightOwl on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 2:00am

@ Brian

Quote:

it will support the version 2 images from IFW, IFD and IFL

Anything *wrong* with version 1 image files?

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Brian on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 2:11am

No. Just that it is outdated. Ver 1 IFW, IFD, IFL were replaced over 2 years ago by Ver 2 apps. They are more sophisticated. More features. That's all. The images can be mounted in Windows as a virtual drive. BING has taken a while to catch up although some folks still use BING exclusively for their image/restore needs. BING image/restore is very easy.

I know you are not fond of imaging from Windows (yet) so you have 3 apps that will create images outside of Windows. Images created by one ver 2 app can be used by the other ver 2 apps.

Edit... There is a wealth of info in this site..

http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/howto/index.htm

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Brian on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 2:28am

One aspect that is confusing when using IFD is whether to choose BIOS or BIOS (Direct) for drive access.

For IDE HDs, choose BIOS (Direct) as BIOS is slow with IDE HDs.
For SATA HDs, it doesn't matter which you choose.

If you are imaging to/from a USB external HD, IFL can be a better choice than IFD as sometimes IFD doesn't see the external HD. It is BIOS related. IFL doesn't use the BIOS to access the drives.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by NightOwl on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 2:36am

@ Brian

Quote:

BING has taken a while to catch up although some folks still use BING exclusively for their image/restore needs. BING image/restore is very easy.

Oh, so it's just BING that still uses v1 images--all the other imaging products are using v2 image files. So, Bing can not work with a v2 image file created by Image for Windows--for instance?

Was looking at the BING Info Page :

Quote:

Free minor-level version upgrades

So, if it's going from current v1.87 to 2.x--might have to pay for that upgrade--darn!

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by NightOwl on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 2:54am

Brian wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 2:11am:

Edit... There is a wealth of info in this site..

http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/howto/index.htm

Thanks for that (I think)! As I said--steep learning curve ahead!

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Brian on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 3:07am

@ NightOwl

NightOwl wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 2:36am:

So, Bing can not work with a v2 image file created by Image for Windows--for instance?

No.

NightOwl wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 2:36am:

might have to pay for that upgrade--darn!

No. Anyone who has bought BING in the last year (It might be July 2009 onwards) gets a free upgrade. If you bought BING prior to that date it is 50% off. I have two bundles. I bought the second about a year ago and I'm eligible for a free upgrade and a 50% off. Worth remembering that each app can be used on three home computers.

NightOwl wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 2:54am:

steep learning curve ahead!

It won't take you long.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by NightOwl on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 3:14am

@ Brian

Quote:

Thanks for the tips!

Maybe we should create a new board here at Radified dedicated to all thing TeraByte--any thoughts?

I looked at the *Newsgroup* at the TeraByte site--it's difficult to navigate using their web browser access. Do you you use a newsgroup reader to work with their site? Which one? Or do you just use their websites access?

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Brian on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 3:18am

@ NightOwl

NightOwl wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 3:14am:

Maybe we should create a new board here at Radified dedicated to all thing TeraByte

Good idea. Yes.

NightOwl wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 3:14am:

Do you you use a newsgroup reader to work with their site?

I use Outlook Express.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by NightOwl on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 3:19am

@ Brian

Quote:

It won't take you long.

Probably true--I just like being a *drama king* ;) !

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by NightOwl on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 3:22am

NightOwl wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 3:14am:

Maybe we should create a new board here at Radified dedicated to all thing TeraByte--any thoughts?

Brian wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 3:18am:

Good idea. Yes.

I'll present the suggestion to Rad and see what he says!

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by NightOwl on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 3:26am

Brian wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 3:18am:

I use Outlook Express.

Ah, found their (TeraByte) help page for setting up Outlook Express: Set Up Help for Outlook Express

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by NightOwl on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 3:34am

@ Brian

Quote:

I use Outlook Express.

What to do if you have Win7--no Outlook Express to work with there >:( ! Does regular Outlook do newsgroups also? Or are there other third party newsgroup readers available.

TeraByte doesn't have any other options/recommendations other than Outlook Express that I see so far!

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Brian on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 3:49am

@ NightOwl

NightOwl wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 3:34am:

What to do if you have Win7

I haven't had to think about that yet and I don't think Outlook does newsgroups. Let me know what you find.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Dan Goodell on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 8:58pm

Brian wrote on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 1:18pm:

Dan must be away.

Thanksgiving holiday here in the US, so we took the week and went to spend the holiday in Oregon with my daughter. (Actually, we didn't have to "take" anything, being as how Bush's recession has left us without much in the way of employment obligations, so we were free to go for as long as we wanted.)

DL258 wrote on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 6:22pm:

I did run a full drive backup via the Ghost 2003 boot disk. All partitions are visible in this Ghost interface and the backup worked fine with all partitions backed up. It is only the Windows interactive mode (which I normally use) that does not display all partitions.

I'll get to the PartInfo reports when I have a chance to take a closer look, but given the above symptom, my first suggestion would be to try clearing the [MountedDevices] registry key.

Start regedit, open the [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\MountedDevices] key, highlight and delete everything except "(Default)". Reboot and XP will rebuild all the key values. If any of the old values were the cause of the problem, they won't be there anymore. See if all partitions now show up in "My Computer".

If that doesn't solve it, the next step is to right-click on "My Computer" and choose "Manage" from the pop-up context menu. In the "Computer Management" window, select "Disk Management" in the left pane and study the graphic in the lower-right pane. Are all the partitions represented there, with or without drive letters? Are they annotated as Healthy FAT32 partitions? Or is there a large unallocated space?

DL258 wrote on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 6:22pm:

At this point after some experimentation on other PC's I think in general (on any PC) any edit of volume labels from within Windows is unsuccessful as far as partitioning programs is concerned.

FWIW, I believe the FAT32 file system is the same as FAT16 with regard to volume labels. It actually has two volume labels--one embedded in the boot sector, and one in the root directory (just like a directory entry, except it has a "label" attribute). Partitioning tools seem to be wildly inconsistent in how they attack the label. Some change it in one location, some change it in the other location, but only a few tools seem to change it in both locations.

mounteddeviceskey.jpg (142 KB | 548 )

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Dan Goodell on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 9:14pm

NightOwl wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 3:34am:

What to do if you have Win7--no Outlook Express

I use Xnews. I like it particularly because it's "no install". I put it on a flash drive, and no matter whose computer I'm using, I can launch it from my flash drive. It's only for newsgroups, not regular email.

Thunderbird is an excellent email replacement for Outlook Express, and also happens to do newsgroups. There's even a portable version, which is what I use for all my email these days.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by NightOwl on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 10:35am

@ xcurious

Haven't seen a reply to my Reply # 26 questions!

Did we loose you in all the *off topic* chatter by myself and Brian?

Still wondering if you have everything sorted out to your satisfaction?

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by NightOwl on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 10:36am

@ Dan Goodell

Quote:

I use Xnews.

Thanks for the recommendation--I'll give it a try!

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by xcurious on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 1:52pm

NightOwl wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 10:35am:

Well, before the off topic you mention, my thread was hijacked, too.

But I'm not LOST :) . I am active on many forums to know how things work.

Well, just to add, the reply in post # 25 (not from you) was a bit 'off topic' ,
if you see it as a reply to my post # 24, which can't have been read by the replier...
I didn't even realize at the time that it was directed to me. :(

That's life, (forum life :) ).

Back to you:

Yes, I'm very satisfied with my solution. I made another primary partition, so it sums up to 3.
Still no extended partiotions. No need for it.

Thanks to you trying to help me out. I can see from other threads here that you really
make big efforts to help peoples out. :)

Editet by OP to remove more Off-topic stuff in this thread.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Dan Goodell on Nov 30^th, 2010 at 9:05am

Okay, having had a chance to study the PartInfo reports in this thread, I can see several problems. The problems fall broadly into two areas: corrupted CHS values in partition descriptors, and improperly calculated LBA values in descriptors in the extended partition. Since we have a couple of newcomers, it’s probably worthwhile to include a review of some history and principles.

Back in the 1980’s and 90’s, sectors on a hard disk were identified by their geometrical coordinates—that is, the Cylinder, track (aka, “Head”), and Sector position on the track. In the partition tables, a descriptor defined a partition by its starting and ending C, H, and S coordinates. The C, H, and S fields in the descriptor could accommodate values of 0-1023, 0-254, and 1-63, respectively. Partitions were always divided along cylinder boundaries, except when it was preceded by a partition table, in which case the starting point was offset by one track. Thus, partitions always began on Sector 1 of Head 0 or 1 on a particular Cylinder, and always ended on Sector 63 of Head 254 on some other Cylinder.

The CHS method worked for hard disks up to about 8 GB in size. Larger disks would require cylinder values above 1023. To accommodate larger disks, LBA references were added to the partition descriptors. LBA eschews geometry altogether and counts sectors as one long, continuous string, from the beginning of the hard disk to the last sector on the disk.

Descriptors still retained CHS values for backward compatibility. Thus, in addition to the boot flag and file-system type identifier, the 16-byte descriptor for a partition specifies the partition’s beginning location in CHS terms, ending location in CHS terms, the beginning location in LBA terms, and the number of sectors in the partition. (Note the LBA ending point can be derived from the LBA starting point plus the volume size in sectors.)

Okay, here’s the catch. While a location within the first 8 GB of the disk can be referenced by either its CHS or LBA coordinates, beyond that you must use LBA. In that event, the C register is supposed to be “pegged” at 1023, its maximum value. 1023 is a useful alert that you’re supposed to get the real sector location from the LBA field instead. Unfortunately, some partitioning tools—most notably, linux-based utilities—don’t freeze the value and let the C counter rollover to start counting up from zero again. The PartInfo report in Reply #3 illustrates this anomaly. The last partition, for example, really spans CHS 14793/1/1 to 19456/254/63. However, instead of pegging the Beginning C-counter at 1023, it was allowed to rollover 14 times and count up to 457 for a 15th time (14793 – 14*1024 = 457). Similarly, the Ending C-counter rolled over 19 times and was just beginning its 20th cycle (19456 – 19*1024 = 0). While the BCHS and ECHS values should have been 1023/1/1 and 1023/254/63, they are shown as 457/1/1 and 0/254/63.

So, is this a problem? Well, that depends on who’s trying to interpret the partition descriptor. Linux apparently has no trouble and just looks at the LBA value. For the most part, Windows also seems to get it right (at least, most of the time). But other tools that are not so carefully designed can interpret a C value of other than 1023 as definitive, and could end up reading and writing to Cylinder 457 instead of Cylinder 14793—with drastic consequences!

You’ll notice a lot of corrupted BCHS and ECHS numbers in the Reply #3 PartInfo report and the Reply #15 PartInfo. There are even a few in the Reply #12 PartInfo (all those 1022’s should be 1023). As mentioned above, this isn't necessary a problem until you try to use a tool (like Partition Magic, for example) that looks at the CHS numbers.

(Aside: Reply #15 illustrates an unrelated side issue--Thinkpad, Compaq, and certain HP laptops have long used a maximum H value of 239 instead of the more common 254.)

continued...

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Dan Goodell on Nov 30^th, 2010 at 9:25am

... continuation

Now, on to the “overlapping partitions” in the extended partition. This is a problem found in the Reply #12 PartInfo.

The type-0F descriptor in the primary partition table defines the extended partition. It starts at LBA Sector 15277815 and spans 24740100 sectors. DL258 has subdivided this extended partition into 5 logical volumes. Each of the 5 volumes begins with a secondary partition table and, in this case, each is properly aligned on cylinder boundaries (i.e., starts on xxx/1/1 and ends on yyy/254/63). Each secondary partition table contains one or two descriptors: the first defining one volume’s beginning point and size, and the second pointing to the next secondary partition table (if any) in the chain.

The first descriptor in each secondary table defines a single logical volume. In this example, they are all type-0B (FAT32) volumes. Each volume starting point is referenced relative to the location of the table defining it—i.e., it’s always 63 because it’s always one track (63 sectors) away from its secondary partition table. This is followed by the size, in sectors, of the volume.

The second descriptor (type-05) in any secondary partition table links to the next secondary table in the chain. The first LBA number is the offset to the next table, but note that unlike the volume descriptor, this offset is relative to the start of the extended partition, not from this specific secondary table. Thus, the absolute LBA locations of the secondary tables are at:
15277815
15277815 + 3164805 = 18442620
15277815 + 10361925 = 25639740
15277815 + 15486660 = 30764475
15277815 + 18555075 = 33832890

Refer to the Boot Sector Information for each volume (Replies #13 and #14), and you’ll notice there is a boot sector exactly 63 sectors beyond each of these locations.

The second LBA number in the type-05 descriptor is supposed to be the size of the next block in the chain—i.e., 63 + the size of the next logical volume. This is where the Reply #12 PartInfo goes wrong! Whatever tool was used to manipulate each secondary partition table erroneously calculated this value as the remaining balance of the whole extended partition, not just the next block. Consequently, the numbers are all too large, and make it appear that the next block overlaps the start of the next block after that. There’s your “overlapping partitions”.

Looking at the boot sectors, it appears that the logical volumes themselves are okay. They aren't really overlapping, it's just the tables that say they are. The errors are probably confined to the recalculations done in the secondary partition tables. That means corrections should be as simple as editing these partition tables with ptedit32. If DL258 hasn't otherwise compromised the partition layout represented in Reply #12, we can continue with specifics.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by NightOwl on Nov 30^th, 2010 at 11:56pm

@ xcurious

Quote:

Yes, I'm very satisfied with my solution. I made another primary partition, so it sums up to 3.
Still no extended partiotions. No need for it.

That's good! Didn't exactly solve the original problem--but sounds functional for you!

Quote:

Well, before the off topic you mention, my thread was hijacked, too.

Well, I suppose that could be argued--but DL258's issue is very similar in nature--if you read the information that Dan Goodell has mentioned--you both lost partitions being listed in the Windows Ghost interface--and the *cause* seems to be corrupted partition table information.

You mentioned that you used some alternate imaging tools in the last month, or so--that might have contributed to changed partition table structure--but DL258 has stated that he's done nothing of that kind--used only his Vcom partitioning tool and Ghost 10 and Ghost 2003! The two of you should be comparing notes to see if there's any commonality in anything you have done recently--or in the past!

Quote:

Well, just to add, the reply in post # 25 (not from you) was a bit 'off topic' ,
if you see it as a reply to my post # 24, which can't have been read by the replier...
I didn't even realize at the time that it was directed to me.

I think Brian was actually responding (belatedly) to your replies #3 and #4--I think he had waited, hoping Dan Goodell might respond sooner--no way to know he was on holiday.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by NightOwl on Dec 1^st, 2010 at 12:01am

@ Dan Goodell

Quote:

Unfortunately, some partitioning tools—most notably, linux-based utilities—don’t freeze the value and let the C counter rollover to start counting up from zero again.

So....is it your best guess that this partition table *corruption* comes from a partitioning tool--and usually it's a linux based tool that causes this type of anomaly?

How about that @ xcurious and @ DL258--ring any bells--jog any memory of playing around with a linux based partitioning tool for any reason?

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Dan Goodell on Dec 1^st, 2010 at 5:02am

NightOwl wrote on Dec 1^st, 2010 at 12:01am:

is it your best guess that this partition table *corruption* comes from a partitioning tool--and usually it's a linux based tool that causes this type of anomaly?

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it's "usually" a linux based tool. IME, other tools have created the same rollover effect.

Those with some experience in binary arithmetic will recognize this rollover effect is a natural occurrence. Remember that computers work in binary, so in my previous example from Reply #12, the Cylinder number of 14793 (decimal) is 0011100111001001 in binary. Note that 457 (decimal) is 0111001001 in binary. The Cylinder fields in the partition descriptor are 10-bit numbers, so if you mask out the high-order bits in the decimal number 14793 and take only the low-order 10 bits, you end up putting 457 in the partition descriptor.

If you're not diligent, you end up with that natural rollover. To do it properly, a program should mask out the low-order 10 bits and look at the high-order bits. If there is any non-zero bit left, discard all low-order bits and substitute 1111111111 binary (1023 decimal) for the Cylinder field's 10 bits.

As you can see, inattentive programming yields natural rollover, while freezing the number is the method that requires extra steps. Thus, we should expect there to be more than a few third-party tools that exhibit similar rollover behavior. I frequently see rollover with linux utilities (like GParted, for example), but have also seen it in cases where the user insists they have never touched linux.

The more critical error, though, is the miscalculated extended partition descriptors. I don't recall seeing that before. (I examine lots of partition tables, but the majority don't include extended partitions.) All the numbers add up perfectly (or perfectly wrong, as it were), so it's not an unintended bug in the program--some programmer consistently coded the app to perform the wrong calculation. I haven't done a survey to see if there's any correlation here with linux tools or not, so I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions.

I've mentioned this before but not yet in this thread, that I've long held that installing Ghost 2003 and running it from Windows is extremely foolish. Ghost 2003 is a DOS program and is reliable when used from a DOS boot, but running it from Windows is known to cause problems. If I read correctly, both xcurious and DL258 noticed problems after installing Ghost 2003 in Windows, so I wouldn't rule out the possibility it's the Windows front end that's causing these problems. It would take some work, but one way to tell for sure might be if xcurious and/or DL258 reconstructed their partition structure before Ghost 2003 was installed, then installed Ghost 2003 in Windows, and then captured PartInfo reports before and after running Ghost 2003 from Windows for the first time.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by xcurious on Dec 1^st, 2010 at 6:29am

Much info from the two of you, thanks...

I want to start with my new partinfo run today with 3 primary partitions:

PARTINFW 1.11
Copyright (c) 1996-2008 TeraByte, Inc. All rights reserved.

Run date: 12/01/2010 12:25

====================================================================
         MBR Partition Information (HD0 - 0x47EE47ED)
         (CHS: 1023/254/63) (WCHS: 19457/255/63)
+====+====+=============+====+=============+===========+===========+
| 0: | 80 | 0 1 1 | 7 | 1022 254 63 |       63 | 32772537 |
| 1: | 0 | 1023 254 63 | 7 | 1023 254 63 | 32772600 | 153597465 |
| 2: | 0 | 1023 254 63 | 7 | 1023 254 63 | 186370065 | 126206640 |
| 3: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |       0 |       0 |
+====+====+=============+====+=============+===========+===========+
                        BOOT SECTOR INFORMATION
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
File System ID: 0x7 LBA: 63 Total Sectors: 32772537 ID: 0x1
                        Jump: EB 52 90
                  OEM Name: NTFS
               Bytes Per Sec: 512
               Sec Per Clust: 8
               Res Sectors: 0
                     Zero 1: 0x0
                     Zero 2: 0x0
                        NA 1: 0x0
                     Media: 0xF8
                     Zero 3: 0x0
               Sec Per Track: 63
                     Heads: 255
               Hidden Secs: 63
                        NA 2: 0x0
                        NA 3: 0x800080
               Total Sectors: 0x01F411B8
                     MFT LCN: 0x0C0000
               MFT Mirr LCN: 0x010
               Clust Per FRS: 0xF6
            Clust Per IBlock: 0x1
                  Volume SN:
                  Checksum: 0x0
                  Boot Flag: 0xAA55
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
File System ID: 0x7 LBA: 32772600 Total Sectors: 153597465 ID: 0x2
                        Jump: EB 52 90
                  OEM Name: NTFS
               Bytes Per Sec: 512
               Sec Per Clust: 8
               Res Sectors: 0
                     Zero 1: 0x0
                     Zero 2: 0x0
                        NA 1: 0x0
                     Media: 0xF8
                     Zero 3: 0x0
               Sec Per Track: 63
                     Heads: 255
               Hidden Secs: 32772600
                        NA 2: 0x0
                        NA 3: 0x800080
               Total Sectors: 0x0927B618
                     MFT LCN: 0x0C0000
               MFT Mirr LCN: 0x0927B61
               Clust Per FRS: 0xF6
            Clust Per IBlock: 0x1
                  Volume SN:
                  Checksum: 0x0
                  Boot Flag: 0xAA55
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
File System ID: 0x7 LBA: 186370065 Total Sectors: 126206640 ID: 0x3
                        Jump: EB 52 90
                  OEM Name: NTFS
               Bytes Per Sec: 512
               Sec Per Clust: 8
               Res Sectors: 0
                     Zero 1: 0x0
                     Zero 2: 0x0
                        NA 1: 0x0
                     Media: 0xF8
                     Zero 3: 0x0
               Sec Per Track: 63
                     Heads: 255
               Hidden Secs: 186370065
                        NA 2: 0x0
                        NA 3: 0x800080
               Total Sectors: 0x0785C2AF
                     MFT LCN: 0x0C0000
               MFT Mirr LCN: 0x0785C2A
               Clust Per FRS: 0xF6
            Clust Per IBlock: 0x1
                  Volume SN:
                  Checksum: 0x0
                  Boot Flag: 0xAA55
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From what I understand from Dan's first post, the first line must be suspicious:

| 0: | 80 | 0 1 1 | 7 | 1022 254 63 |       63 | 32772537 |

From what I understand the 1022 shold be 1023???

I have never used any partitioning tool on this machine, BUT, when the machine was new
2 years ago, the first I did was to install Ghost 2003 and start it (from Windows :( ).
DISK-image to an SD-card(not bootable ) was the first thing I did on this Asus. I didn't manage to get rid of my EFI partition at that time.

I wanted a fresh image as recovey later, and I wanted to repartition my Disk to get a small C.
So when restoring that DISK-image shortly after I let Gost resize my C to 16002 GB.
Done by DISK from IMAGE in DOS-Ghost, but started from Windows.

After that I made an extended partition with 3 logical partitions from WINDOWS Disk-management
into unallocted space on C. No other partitioning tool.

And all was well for two years. I have only made PARTITION to IMAGE and PARTITION from IMAGE
for my C part to and from D, E and F more than 20 times without a problem.

All this was started from the Windows interface, didn't know better.

But I thought it worked well, but nearly 2 years later I was not capable of seeing
my E and F from Ghost-Windows interface, only D.

An important point here is that I now booted into DOS-Ghost and then I could see
ALL my partitions as in Windows Disk-management, too.

The rest of the story you know. I could have continued using Ghost-Dos
which worked, but wanted to sort out why Ghost in windows all of a sudden could no longer see what it had seen for nearly 2 years.

Any partitioning tools I can swear have never been used here, but the only things that comes to mind is
testing two imaging tools as mentioned earlier in this thread, and even making a boot-cd from one of them to try.

I feel a bit lost , but if Ghost 2003 cant be used from Windows safely but only from DOS, its bad that this
is not a known fact by the users.

MORE..

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by xcurious on Dec 1^st, 2010 at 8:11am

Dan Goodell wrote on Dec 1^st, 2010 at 5:02am:

The more critical error, though, is the miscalculated extended partition descriptors. I don't recall seeing that before.

I've mentioned this before but not yet in this thread, that I've long held that installing Ghost 2003 and running it from Windows is extremely foolish. Ghost 2003 is a DOS program and is reliable when used from a DOS boot, but running it from Windows is known to cause problems. If I read correctly, both xcurious and DL258 noticed problems after installing Ghost 2003 in Windows, so I wouldn't rule out the possibility it's the Windows front end that's causing these problems. It would take some work, but one way to tell for sure might be if xcurious and/or DL258 reconstructed their partition structure before Ghost 2003 was installed, then installed Ghost 2003 in Windows, and then captured PartInfo reports before and after running Ghost 2003 from Windows for the first time.

I suppose that avoiding extended partitions should avoid this, and that removing any existing extended partitions should fix it. CORRECT?

About Ghost 2003 in Windows: I used it for a couple of years without noticing any problems. Only the last month has shown any VISIBLE problens, the missing logical partitions in GHOST from Windows. This from an user perspective.

Installing Ghost 2003 was the first move with this Asus 1000H, using an External DVD, as I say in my former post.

To reconstruct the partition structure to before Ghost 2003 was installed I don't know if possible...

Please let me know if you need more info to track this down.

EDIT to add:

Dan, earlier you wrote:

The PartInfo report in Reply #3 illustrates this anomaly. The last partition, for example, really spans CHS 14793/1/1 to 19456/254/63. However, instead of pegging the Beginning C-counter at 1023, it was allowed to rollover 14 times and count up to 457 for a 15th time (14793 – 14*1024 = 457). Similarly, the Ending C-counter rolled over 19 times and was just beginning its 20th cycle (19456 – 19*1024 = 0). While the BCHS and ECHS values should have been 1023/1/1 and 1023/254/63, they are shown as 457/1/1 and 0/254/63.

The partinfo in my post # 60 shows:

PARTINFW 1.11
Copyright (c) 1996-2008 TeraByte, Inc. All rights reserved.

Run date: 12/01/2010 12:25

====================================================================
         MBR Partition Information (HD0 - 0x47EE47ED)
         (CHS: 1023/254/63) (WCHS: 19457/255/63)
+====+====+=============+====+=============+===========+===========+
| 0: | 80 | 0 1 1 | 7 | 1022 254 63 |       63 | 32772537 |
| 1: | 0 | 1023 254 63 | 7 | 1023 254 63 | 32772600 | 153597465 |
| 2: | 0 | 1023 254 63 | 7 | 1023 254 63 | 186370065 | 126206640 |
| 3: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |       0 |       0 |
+====+====+=============+====+=============+===========+===========+

Shouldn't that have been :

0 1 1 1023 254 63 as I asked in my post #60

But regarding to the quote in the start of this edit, should't we have:

1023 1 1 1023 254 63 for the two next entries.

Or have I misunderstood something, e.g. that 1023 254 63 really is the 'token' for an invalid CHS
value meaning 'look at LBA value instead'.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Dan Goodell on Dec 1^st, 2010 at 9:13pm

xcurious wrote on Dec 1^st, 2010 at 6:29am:

From what I understand from Dan's first post, the first line must be suspicious:

| 0: | 80 |0 11 |7 | 1022 254 63 |63 |32772537 |

From what I understand the 1022 shold be 1023???

Yes, you're correct.

xcurious wrote on Dec 1^st, 2010 at 8:11am:

Shouldn't that have been :

0 1 1 1023 254 63 as I asked in my post #60

But regarding to the quote in the start of this edit, should't we have:

1023 1 1 1023 254 63 for the two next entries.

You're heading in the right direction, but slightly off-track. (pun intended) They should actually be 1023-0-1, 1023-254-63.

My earlier posts were with regard to logical volumes in an extended partition. Your second and third partitions are primary partitions. Note where I stated in my Reply #55:

"Partitions were always divided along cylinder boundaries, except when it was preceded by a partition table, in which case the starting point was offset by one track. Thus, partitions always began on Sector 1 of Head 0 or 1 on a particular Cylinder, and always ended on Sector 63 of Head 254 on some other Cylinder."

Volumes in the extended partition are always preceded by a (secondary) partition table, so the volume itself must begin on Head 1--i.e., one track later. The first primary partition is preceded by the (primary) partition table, but other primary partitions do not have a separate partition table in front of them. They are instead defined by descriptors in the primary partition table. Consequently, while the first primary partition has to be shoved back to Head 1, other primary partitions begin on Head 0.

FTR, note that all of this discussion refers to legacy, cylinder-aligned partition layouts. Vista and Win7 introduced a new, megabyte-aligned layout that disregards cylinders and heads/tracks, but that's off-topic here.

xcurious wrote on Dec 1^st, 2010 at 8:11am:

I suppose that avoiding extended partitions should avoid this, and that removing any existing extended partitions should fix it. CORRECT?

In order to answer that, we'd really need to determine what created the problems. Note that, as you've recognized, your primary partition table also has anomalies. So simply avoiding extended partitions probably isn't the solution.

It isn't clear what caused your primary partition table anomalies. Apparantly, you have already run Ghost 2003 from Windows on this setup, so it's possible Ghost's Windows front-end messed things up.

Or, perhaps the anomalies were created by the partitioning tool that originally created the partitions--it may have even come from the factory that way.

It's not clear what tool created the partitions, but it's evident that they were not created by Microsoft tools (such as XP's Diskpart utility). Microsoft's tools have a habit of leaving a 1-cylinder gap (8 MB) behind each partition, but all your partitions butt up against each other, with no gaps. This can be seen in the following calculations:

63 + 32772537 = 32772600
32772600 + 153597465 = 186370065
186370065 + 126206640 = 312576705
19457 * 255 * 63 = 312576705

xcurious wrote on Dec 1^st, 2010 at 6:29am:

if Ghost 2003 cant be used from Windows safely but only from DOS, its bad that this is not a known fact by the users.

It's common knowledge amongst techs, but not by the brainwashed masses. And Symantec, of course, wants you to keep buying new versions, so they're going to tell you only the latest version is safe to use.

My own opinion is that the Windows interface to DOS-Ghost was primarily a marketing move. Ghost 2002-2003 came out when many self-proclaimed "experts" (with help from Microsoft) were on a mission to convince everyone that, "Windows=good, DOS=bad." The public was being brainwashed, and to avoid getting hammered by the competition Norton took their reliable, bullet-proof DOS utility, cobbled together a Windows go-between, and crafted a creative process of running it (that wierd, reboot into DOS, reboot back into Windows) that Rube Goldberg would be proud of.

FTR, I still use Ghost 2003, but only from DOS. I limit it to its intended purpose--imaging and restoring the contents of partitions--and it works fine. I do not use it to create or resize partitions, only to capture/restore partitions created by proper partitioning tools. It will even image/restore Win7 OS partitions from DOS. Like any program, you just need to understand its capabilities and limitations.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by NightOwl on Dec 2^nd, 2010 at 8:57am

@ xcurious

Quote:

But I thought it worked well, but nearly 2 years later I was not capable of seeing
my E and F from Ghost-Windows interface, only D.

An important point here is that I now booted into DOS-Ghost and then I could see
ALL my partitions as in Windows Disk-management, too.

Well, it did work well for two years--and for many (most), the Windows Ghost interface does work without a hitch! But, as Dan has forcefully noted, if something goes wrong with Ghost 2003, it's more likely to be with the Windows interface portion of the programing. The fact that DOS Ghost was able to still see and work with the *missing* partitions in its Windows interface, sort of reinforces the reality that DOS Ghost is less prone to problems!

Quote:

but wanted to sort out why Ghost in windows all of a sudden could no longer see what it had seen for nearly 2 years.

Any partitioning tools I can swear have never been used here, but the only things that comes to mind is
testing two imaging tools as mentioned earlier in this thread, and even making a boot-cd from one of them to try.

It's still a mystery why Windows Ghost stopped *seeing* the extended partitions which it had been working with for the last two years.

If you had tried the couple suggestions that were made (zero out the sector 62 with Ghost 2003 disk *marking*, or Dan's suggestion to delete the *mounted devices* in the Registry), that might have forced Windows Ghost to re-establish it's relationships with the missing partitions. But, we'll never know now. And, as mentioned before, you have gone to a different arrangement for your partition layout.

Quote:

From what I understand from Dan's first post, the first line must be suspicious:

| 0: | 80 | 0 1 1 | 7 | 1022 254 63 | 63 | 32772537 |

From what I understand the 1022 shold be 1023???

So, your partition tables are still showing an anomaly--have you installed Windows Ghost 2003, and are all your primary partitions showing up in the Window Ghost interface? If *yes*, then obviously it's not simply the incorrect partition table information that was causing the problem. Something else had to be at work!

FWIW, I use the Windows Ghost 2003 interface without any problems. (I did get *trapped* in the virtual partition one time 6-7 years ago, but, it never happened again! Never figured out what the problem there was!?). But, because you have to let Ghost shut down Windows and re-boot to DOS anyway--I usually just do that myself with a bootable optical disc. It's faster than setting up the backup in Windows first and then waiting for the whole shut down and re-boot.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by xcurious on Dec 2^nd, 2010 at 9:24am

@ NightOwl and Dan:

Thanks to both of you so far.

I will be back in a while with more information (and questions probably too :) ) .

Trying to get 'back on track' to follow Dan's terminology. :)

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by xcurious on Dec 2^nd, 2010 at 11:53am

Hi, back again.

Here is my new partinfo:

PARTINFW 1.11
Copyright (c) 1996-2008 TeraByte, Inc. All rights reserved.

Run date: 12/02/2010 18:15

====================================================================
         MBR Partition Information (HD0 - 0xFF1AFF1A)
         (CHS: 1023/254/63) (WCHS: 19457/255/63)
+====+====+=============+====+=============+===========+===========+
| 0: | 80 | 0 1 1 | 7 | 1023 254 63 |       63 | 32772537 |
| 1: | 0 | 1023 0 1 | 7 | 1023 254 63 | 32772600 | 279804105 |
| 2: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |       0 |       0 |
| 3: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |       0 |       0 |
+====+====+=============+====+=============+===========+===========+
                        BOOT SECTOR INFORMATION
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
File System ID: 0x7 LBA: 63 Total Sectors: 32772537 ID: 0x1
                        Jump: EB 52 90
                  OEM Name: NTFS
               Bytes Per Sec: 512
               Sec Per Clust: 8
               Res Sectors: 0
                     Zero 1: 0x0
                     Zero 2: 0x0
                        NA 1: 0x0
                     Media: 0xF8
                     Zero 3: 0x0
               Sec Per Track: 63
                     Heads: 255
               Hidden Secs: 63
                        NA 2: 0x0
                        NA 3: 0x800080
               Total Sectors: 0x01F411B8
                     MFT LCN: 0x0C0000
               MFT Mirr LCN: 0x010
               Clust Per FRS: 0xF6
            Clust Per IBlock: 0x1
                  Volume SN:
                  Checksum: 0x0
                  Boot Flag: 0xAA55
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
File System ID: 0x7 LBA: 32772600 Total Sectors: 279804105 ID: 0x2
                        Jump: EB 52 90
                  OEM Name: NTFS
               Bytes Per Sec: 512
               Sec Per Clust: 8
               Res Sectors: 0
                     Zero 1: 0x0
                     Zero 2: 0x0
                        NA 1: 0x0
                     Media: 0xF8
                     Zero 3: 0x0
               Sec Per Track: 63
                     Heads: 255
               Hidden Secs: 32772600
                        NA 2: 0x0
                        NA 3: 0x800080
               Total Sectors: 0x010AD78C8
                     MFT LCN: 0x0C0000
               MFT Mirr LCN: 0x010
               Clust Per FRS: 0xF6
            Clust Per IBlock: 0x1
                  Volume SN:
                  Checksum: 0x0
                  Boot Flag: 0xAA55
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After what I can see this must be an errorfree partinfo...

BUT, referring to Dan's last post:

It's not clear what tool created the partitions, but it's evident that they were not created by Microsoft tools (such as XP's Diskpart utility). Microsoft's tools have a habit of leaving a 1-cylinder gap (8 MB) behind each partition, but all your partitions butt up against each other, with no gaps. This can be seen in the following calculations:

      63 + 32772537 = 32772600
32772600 + 153597465 = 186370065
186370065 + 126206640 = 312576705
19457 * 255 * 63    = 312576705

NOW we would get:

63 + 32772537 = 32772600
32772600 + 279804105 = 312576705

No cylinder gap between partition 0 and 1, but partition 1 is made by me in Windows Disk-management.
Partition 0 is originally from the new ASUS, but was shrinked by me in Ghost 2 years ago.

What I did to achieve this was to restore (in Windows :-? ) a modification of my original first Ghost Disk-image.

I have now only 2 primary partitions, but would like 3. That remains to test.

Any comments are welcome. :)

CONTINUES IN NEXT POST

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by xcurious on Dec 2^nd, 2010 at 12:08pm

I now deleted Partition D in Windows and made 1 new partition D and free space to accomodate partition E.

Here is what partinfo shows:

PARTINFW 1.11
Copyright (c) 1996-2008 TeraByte, Inc. All rights reserved.

Run date: 12/02/2010 19:04

====================================================================
         MBR Partition Information (HD0 - 0xFF1AFF1A)
         (CHS: 1023/254/63) (WCHS: 19457/255/63)
+====+====+=============+====+=============+===========+===========+
| 0: | 80 | 0 1 1 | 7 | 1023 254 63 |       63 | 32772537 |
| 1: | 0 | 1023 254 63 | 7 | 1023 254 63 | 32772600 | 143364060 |
| 2: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |       0 |       0 |
| 3: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |       0 |       0 |
+====+====+=============+====+=============+===========+===========+
                        BOOT SECTOR INFORMATION
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
File System ID: 0x7 LBA: 63 Total Sectors: 32772537 ID: 0x1
                        Jump: EB 52 90
                  OEM Name: NTFS
               Bytes Per Sec: 512
               Sec Per Clust: 8
               Res Sectors: 0
                     Zero 1: 0x0
                     Zero 2: 0x0
                        NA 1: 0x0
                     Media: 0xF8
                     Zero 3: 0x0
               Sec Per Track: 63
                     Heads: 255
               Hidden Secs: 63
                        NA 2: 0x0
                        NA 3: 0x800080
               Total Sectors: 0x01F411B8
                     MFT LCN: 0x0C0000
               MFT Mirr LCN: 0x010
               Clust Per FRS: 0xF6
            Clust Per IBlock: 0x1
                  Volume SN:
                  Checksum: 0x0
                  Boot Flag: 0xAA55
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
File System ID: 0x7 LBA: 32772600 Total Sectors: 143364060 ID: 0x2
                        Jump: EB 52 90
                  OEM Name: NTFS
               Bytes Per Sec: 512
               Sec Per Clust: 8
               Res Sectors: 0
                     Zero 1: 0x0
                     Zero 2: 0x0
                        NA 1: 0x0
                     Media: 0xF8
                     Zero 3: 0x0
               Sec Per Track: 63
                     Heads: 255
               Hidden Secs: 32772600
                        NA 2: 0x0
                        NA 3: 0x800080
               Total Sectors: 0x088B8FDB
                     MFT LCN: 0x0C0000
               MFT Mirr LCN: 0x088B8FD
               Clust Per FRS: 0xF6
            Clust Per IBlock: 0x1
                  Volume SN:
                  Checksum: 0x0
                  Boot Flag: 0xAA55
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Am I doing something wrong here?

Thanks. :)

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Brian on Dec 2^nd, 2010 at 5:22pm

Regarding the 1022 cylinder value. I have this in my partinfo. Some time ago I asked TeraByte Support what it meant and I was advised...

"It’s not an error – it’s reporting what the geometry is. Some BIOSes use last cylinder of 1023 and some 1022."

This is my partition table..

===============================================================================
               MBR Partition Information (HD0 - 0x41AB2316)
               (CHS: 1022/254/63) (WCHS: 77825/255/63)
+====+====+=============+====+=============+=============+=============+
| 0: | 80 | 5 0 1 | 7 | 1022 254 63 |    80325 | 26651835 |
| 1: | 0 | 1022 254 63 | c | 1022 254 63 | 1016448615 |    610470 |
| 2: | 0 | 1022 254 63 | e | 1022 254 63 | 934436853 |    32067 |
| 3: | 0 | 1022 254 63 | f | 1022 254 63 | 53335800 | 880635105 |
+====+====+=============+====+=============+=============+=============+
                           Volume Information
+----+----+-------------+----+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 0: | 0 | 1023 1 1 | 7 | 1023 254 63 |       63 | 61448562 |
| 1: | 0 | 1023 0 1 | 5 | 1023 254 63 | 61448625 | 819186480 |
| 2: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
| 3: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
+----+----+-------------+----+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 0: | 0 | 1023 1 1 | 7 | 1023 254 63 |       63 | 819186417 |
| 1: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
| 2: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
| 3: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
+----+----+-------------+----+-------------+-------------+-------------+

If I select "CHS Alternative" in BING I get...

===============================================================================
               MBR Partition Information (HD0 - 0x41AB2316)
               (CHS: 1022/254/63) (WCHS: 77825/255/63)
+====+====+=============+====+=============+=============+=============+
| 0: | 80 | 5 0 1 | 7 | 1023 254 63 |    80325 | 26651835 |
| 1: | 0 | 1023 0 1 | c | 1023 254 63 | 1016448615 |    610470 |
| 2: | 0 | 1023 1 1 | e | 1023 254 63 | 934436853 |    32067 |
| 3: | 0 | 1023 0 1 | f | 1023 254 63 | 53335800 | 880635105 |
+====+====+=============+====+=============+=============+=============+
                           Volume Information
+----+----+-------------+----+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 0: | 0 | 1023 1 1 | 7 | 1023 254 63 |       63 | 61448562 |
| 1: | 0 | 1023 0 1 | 5 | 1023 254 63 | 61448625 | 819186480 |
| 2: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
| 3: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
+----+----+-------------+----+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 0: | 0 | 1023 1 1 | 7 | 1023 254 63 |       63 | 819186417 |
| 1: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
| 2: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
| 3: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
+----+----+-------------+----+-------------+-------------+-------------+

===============================================================================

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Dan Goodell on Dec 2^nd, 2010 at 10:41pm

xcurious wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2010 at 12:08pm:

I now deleted Partition D in Windows and made 1 new partition D and free space to accomodate partition E.
[...snipped...]
| 0: | 80 |0 11 |7 | 1023 254 63 |63 |32772537 |
| 1: |0 | 1023 254 63 |7 | 1023 254 63 |32772600 | 143364060 |
[...snipped...]
Am I doing something wrong here?

It's not a big deal, so don't fret too much over it. Windows (and linux, apparantly) use the LBA numbers in the last two fields and so are pretty tolerant of anomalies in the CHS fields. As I see it, there are basically three ways you can deal with this:

Dan Goodell wrote on Dec 1^st, 2010 at 5:02am:

one way to tell for sure might be if xcurious and/or DL258 reconstructed their partition structure before Ghost 2003 was installed, then installed Ghost 2003 in Windows, and then captured PartInfo reports before and after running Ghost 2003 from Windows for the first time.

Update: I used VirtualPC to do an experiment, installing Ghost 2003 in a XP virtual machine. Using Partition Magic on a virtual disk, I created a partition layout modeled after the layout in Reply #12, except that PM inserted all the correct numbers in the descriptors. That gave me a known-good "control" PartInfo. After running a whole-disk image/restore from Windows with Ghost 2003, the "after" PartInfo exhibited several of the 1022-vs-1023 anomalies and rollover anomalies, as described in my Reply #55. I saw no evidence of the overlapping partitions described in Reply #56.

Disclaimer: personally, I've always used "partition-to-image" from a DOS boot, not "disk-to-image". So my experiment doesn't rule out whether the anomalies are the result of Ghost's "disk-from-image" restore process, or whether it has something to do with the Windows front-end. (Offhand, the former seems more likely.)

Nevertheless, this quick experiment suggests the anomalies in xcurious' PartInfo in Reply #3 and DL258's PartInfo in Reply #15 may well have been caused by Ghost, but DL258's PartInfo in Reply #12 must have been caused by some other third-party partitioning tool.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by xcurious on Dec 3^rd, 2010 at 4:17am

This post has been moved by OP to a new post #72...

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by NightOwl on Dec 6^th, 2010 at 9:35am

@ Brian

Quote:

Whoooosh!

Did you hear that sound?! That was concepts flying over my head with little or no understanding of what's going on!!!!

Okay, what I thought I knew:

I thought the partition tables where created by a partitioning tool and stored on the HDD.

The BIOS queries the HDDs to see what's connected. Usually, the BIOS is set to *auto* mode, and detects what the cylinder, heads, and sectors (the CHS) of the HDD are--and on large HDDs, basically ignores that information and uses LBA data instead. And in by-gone days, if your BIOS could not automatically detect the CHS of your HDD, you had to *manually* enter that data!

In the statement above, the first part seems to validate what I thought I knew:

Quote:

It’s not an error – it’s reporting what the geometry is

Okay, so PartInfo is reporting what the HDD geometry is--that makes sense!

But,

Quote:

Some BIOSes use last cylinder of 1023 and some 1022

So, this I don't understand! Is the BIOS telling the partitioning tool what *geometry* is to be used? And that's how we get the *1022* showing up in the partition tables?

And, it appears that most programs (like Windows Disk Management) seem to simply ignore that aspect of the partition table anyway, and simple use the LBA information to find the boundaries of the partitions.

So, what's the purpose of the:

Quote:

===============================================================================
               MBR Partition Information (HD0 - 0x41AB2316)
               (CHS: 1022/254/63) (WCHS: 77825/255/63)
+====+====+=============+====+=============+=============+=============+
| 0: | 80 | 5 0 1 | 7 | 1022 254 63 |    80325 | 26651835 |
| 1: | 0 | 1022 254 63 | c | 1022 254 63 | 1016448615 |    610470 |
| 2: | 0 | 1022 254 63 | e | 1022 254 63 | 934436853 |    32067 |
| 3: | 0 | 1022 254 63 | f | 1022 254 63 | 53335800 | 880635105 |
+====+====+=============+====+=============+=============+=============+

Is this the result of the BIOS telling the partitioning tool what to do?

If this is *common*--then, I have to believe that the original problem of partitions not showing up any longer in the Windows Ghost interface has absolutely nothing to do with the *anomaly* noted in the original *PartInfo* information!

And now:

Quote:

If I select "CHS Alternative" in BING I get...

===============================================================================
               MBR Partition Information (HD0 - 0x41AB2316)
               (CHS: 1022/254/63) (WCHS: 77825/255/63)
+====+====+=============+====+=============+=============+=============+
| 0: | 80 | 5 0 1 | 7 | 1023 254 63 |    80325 | 26651835 |
| 1: | 0 | 1023 0 1 | c | 1023 254 63 | 1016448615 |    610470 |
| 2: | 0 | 1023 1 1 | e | 1023 254 63 | 934436853 |    32067 |
| 3: | 0 | 1023 0 1 | f | 1023 254 63 | 53335800 | 880635105 |
+====+====+=============+====+=============+=============+=============+

So, what exactly did *BING* do here?! Did it re-write the partition tables to reflect a different geometry? Or, did it simply report the existing *1022 254 63* geometry with different internally calculated numbers so now it *reports* the *1023 254 63* numbers?

So, what exactly *is* the geometry of your HDD?

And Dan has reported:

Quote:

So, who's in charge here--the virtual machine's BIOS, the virtual machines *partition tables* (where do those come from in the virtual machine anyway?), or did the partitioning tool create the partition tables, but the BIOS told it what to do?

I'm lost in all the *variables* that are undefined in all this! Isn't there a *standard* that all BIOSs and partition tools are supposed to adhere to?

(Note: this reminds me of the issue of the *laptop* that *uses* a different CHS and that's why it's necessary to have a new HDD be installed on the machine so it creates the correct CHS when attempting to transfer an image to the new HDD--if it's installed on an adaptor of some sort externally, it gets the wrong CHS created (I once again forgot where that thread is on the forum here--do you remember (again) where it is Brian?)

Way back when, I didn't think much about it--at the time I think I thought it had something to do with the HDD controller on the laptop--but, now I think it's relevant to this whole discussion! Why/how does the BIOS control the *geometry* of the HDD on that brand of laptop--and why does it matter if on large HDDs, it's the LBA info that makes any difference?

Whooosh, whooosh, whooosh...........

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by NightOwl on Dec 6^th, 2010 at 9:41am

@ xcurious

Just a suggestion--it's probably not a good idea to make significant edits or addition on previous reply(s)--folks that are following the thread will not necessarily go back and re-read and discover your new, added information--even if it's in a new color ;) .

Creating a new post and indicating you have made such changes to a previous reply will alert everyone to go back and re-read the prior edited post--or the put the new information in the new post!

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by xcurious on Dec 6^th, 2010 at 11:24am

@NightOwl: Thanks for your hint, please don't delete my doublepost :'( including edit coming here: ;)

xcurious wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2010 at 11:53am:

Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Reply #65 - Yesterday at 18:53:15
Hi, back again.

Here is my new partinfo:

PARTINFW 1.11
Copyright (c) 1996-2008 TeraByte, Inc.All rights reserved.

Run date: 12/02/2010 18:15

====================================================================
MBR Partition Information (HD0 - 0xFF1AFF1A)
(CHS: 1023/254/63) (WCHS: 19457/255/63)
+====+====+=============+====+=============+===========+===========+
| 0: | 80 |0 11 |7 | 1023 254 63 |63 |32772537 |
| 1: |0 | 1023 01 |7 | 1023 254 63 |32772600 | 279804105 |
| 2: |0 |0 00 |0 |0 00 | 0 | 0 |
| 3: |0 |0 00 |0 |0 00 | 0 | 0 |
+====+====+=============+====+=============+===========+===========+
BOOT SECTOR INFORMATION
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
File System ID: 0x7 LBA: 63Total Sectors: 32772537 ID: 0x1

@Dan: Thanks for much useful info in your posts.

I have decided to stick with your solution 4 ( :)) in your last reply to me in post # 68.

Solution # 4 is quoted by me from my earlier post # 65 at the beginning of this post.

It has a correct Partinfo, and it's ok with C and a huge D filling the rest of the disk.
I like to have it correct if I can.

The partinfo you qouted from me in the beginning of your post # 68 is
an experiment done AFTERWARDS to show that deleting D in windows by letting Windows
Disk Management delete the huge D partition and create a (more useful perhaps) smaller
partition D to get room for a planned E partition. The partinfo then screws up a little.
I would believe that's windows fault.

But, as said, I stick with my C and huge D solution that has a correct partinfo as quoted
in the start of this post.

------------------------------------

After thinking and sleeping I can't get to any other conlusion that Ghost 2003 can't be at fault
here.

The correct partinfo from the start of this post with a 'normal' C and a 'huge' D was
created by starting a DISK FROM IMAGE operation in Windows-ghost 2003 interface.
That should be 'against all odds' from some conclusions in this thread.

But it comes out the right way. (as far as I can see).

It's first when Windows own disk-management comes into play (deleting D partition, creating a new and lesser D partition), we get the transformation from:

1: |0 | 1023 01 |7 | 1023 254 63 |

to

1: |0 | 1023 254 63 |7 | 1023 254 63 |

Can we really blame Ghost 2003 for this?

As a side-note, by googling I found statements like ' 1023 254 63 ' is a placeholder to indicate
out of CHS addressing in both begin CHS and end CHS fields...

Different standards perhaps? Ghost follows the standard cited earlier in this thread,
but not Windows?

My first partinfo posted in this thread was not good, I am just concentrating
now on the 'transformation' above.

Edit to add: This thread is really starting to get confusing. (Understatement intended.) :(

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Brian on Dec 6^th, 2010 at 1:38pm

@ NightOwl

Great post. I wish I could answer your questions with something other than whoosh.

In the BING manual it says...

Quote:

Under General, select the CHS Alternative check box to fill in the CHS values for partitions and volumes using an alternative method that is compatible with older third-party partitioning software.

The link to that thread is...

http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1128609708/0

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Dan Goodell on Dec 7^th, 2010 at 7:24am

xcurious wrote on Dec 6^th, 2010 at 11:24am:

As a side-note, by googling I found statements like ' 1023 254 63 ' is a placeholder to indicate out of CHS addressing in both begin CHS and end CHS fields...

Different standards perhaps? Ghost follows the standard cited earlier in this thread,
but not Windows?

No standards, really, just conventions ... multiple conventions. I'm not aware of any official industry standard. Not that it would matter much anyway, since Microsoft is arrogant enough to do whatever they feel like, regardless of standards. (A relevant case in point is the Vista/Win7 shift to megabyte-alignment instead of the age-old CHS alignment. There may be some rationale behind it, but it's a unilateral change by Microsoft, not an official standard.)

(in reference to the VirtualPC experiment) ...
NightOwl wrote on Dec 6^th, 2010 at 9:35am:

So, who's in charge here--the virtual machine's BIOS, the virtual machines *partition tables* (where do those come from in the virtual machine anyway?)

Yes, a virtual machine has a virtual BIOS, and the virtual BIOS "autodetects" the "geometry" of the virtual hard disk. Just like a physical hard disk, a virtual hard disk has sectors, partitions, a MBR, and a partition table--all virtual.

NightOwl wrote on Dec 6^th, 2010 at 9:35am:

Whoooosh!

Did you hear that sound?!That was concepts flying over my head with little or no understanding of what's going on!!!!

NightOwl, have you ever been on a subway or commuter train, and after you enter a car you walk all the way down the aisle, through the double-doors, and into the adjacent car, looking for a seat? What you didn't notice is that this thread changed topics--IOW, we've moved to another rail car. That whooshing is just that distracting noise as you go through the double-doors. ;)

The early part of this thread was about the numbers actually recorded in the partition table. The latest posts are about the BIOS and geometry autodetection. Those are two different topics.

Ideally, you'd want the BIOS and the partition table to agree, but whether that happens or not, the numbers in the partition table are static and don't change just because there's now a different autodetection or the hard disk is moved to another computer. (What you were thinking of, BTW, is potential geometry mismatches when cloning IBM/Lenovo/HP/Compaq hard disks.)

What could be misleading you is Terabyte's terse response in Reply #67, which I fear readers might think implies the values in the partition table can morph depending on how the BIOS autodetects the geometry. That's not true. They are static and once written they remain fixed (at least until some utility is used to specifically change them).

Partition descriptors are written in the partition table when a partition is created. I believe what Brian was describing in Reply #67 was creating partitions (and thus generating new partition descriptors) two different ways--both with BING, but one way with BING's [Alt CHS] option ticked and the other without.

IOW, the two PartInfo reports in Reply #67 are not different looks at the same partition table, they are different partition tables--one with partitions created one way, and one with partitions created the other way.

When any utility generates a partition table descriptor for a new partition, in theory it should use CHS values that match up with the CHS numbers it gets from the BIOS. The vast majority of system BIOS's I come across report 1024 cylinders (range: 0-1023) and 63 sectors/track (range: 1-63). IBM/Lenovo/HP/Compaq laptops report 240 heads or tracks (range: 0-239), while everybody else reports 255 heads (range: 0-254).

While I haven't seen any of these in a long time, some very old BIOS's assumed the last cylinder was a maintenance cylinder, so if the hard disk reported it had 1024 cylinders the BIOS assumed only 1023 of them (range: 0-1022) were usable. (Old-timers might remember the days of MFM hard disks, when the last cylinder was where the heads were supposed to be parked when powering down.)

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Brian on Dec 7^th, 2010 at 3:26pm

Dan Goodell wrote on Dec 7^th, 2010 at 7:24am:

IOW, the two PartInfo reports in Reply #67 are not different looks at the same partition table, they are different partition tables--one with partitions created one way, and one with partitions created the other way.

Dan, I'm having trouble with this concept because those two PartInfo reports were created a few minutes apart. To me they are different looks at the same partition table. One look with CHS Alternative selected in BING and one look without the selection.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Brian on Dec 7^th, 2010 at 4:24pm

Dan, I'm impressed with Xnews and Thunderbird Portable. One question. Do we need to change the drive letter of the USB flash drive (on other computers) so that it matches the paths in the Files tab of Xnews and Local Folders in Thunderbird?

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Dan Goodell on Dec 7^th, 2010 at 5:59pm

Brian wrote on Dec 7^th, 2010 at 3:26pm:

those two PartInfo reports were created a few minutes apart. To me they are different looks at the same partition table

Really??? Ouch, that would be extremely disturbing! I disdain utilities that mask the facts and instead show their interpretation of the facts. The partition table contains static numbers. To reinterpret those numbers and pretend they are different numbers is definitely not what I want to know. I want to know what numbers are actually there. It would be foolish to think every utility will reinterpret things the same way, so just tell me what's there, not what you think should be there!

Readers can use a tool like DiskEdit or Roadkil's Sector Editor to see the actual numbers in your own partition table. The partition table is at the bottom of LBA 0. In the illustration below, I've highlighted the BCHS and ECHS bytes in the first (yellow) and fourth (orange) descriptors for reference.

The three bytes in each CHS group denote the head number, sector number, and cylinder number, except you need to lop the high-order two bits off the middle byte and tack them onto the high end of the third byte. To visualize, the bits in the C, H, and S values are mapped to the partition descriptor bytes as follows:

1111 1111 - 1111 1111 - 1111 1111
hhhh hhhh - ccss ssss - cccc cccc

For example, to decode the BCHS values (00-C1-FF) in the fourth descriptor:

0 0 - C 1 - F F
0000 0000 - 1100 0001 - 1111 1111

C = 11 1111 1111 = 1023
H = 0000 0000 = 0
S = 00 0001 = 1

A CHS of 1022/254/63 would be recorded as FE-FF-FE hexadecimally.

Hmm, on second thought . . . Brian, when you captured those PartInfo reports, were you booting through BING? BING has the capability of rewriting the partition table on the fly each and every time you boot, so perhaps BING is rewriting a different partition table based on your BING settings. In that case, PartInfo would indeed be seeing two different partition tables. Users who don't use BING don't get a new partition table every time they boot.

partdesc.jpg (37 KB | 534 )

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Brian on Dec 7^th, 2010 at 6:49pm

Dan, you have hit the nail on the head. I am booting with BING and using the same 4 partitions in the MBR. But BING is changing the partition table.

These extracts from Sector Editor and partinfo were taken when CHS Alternative was not selected in BING.

===============================================================================
               MBR Partition Information (HD0 - 0x41AB2316)
               (CHS: 1022/254/63) (WCHS: 77825/255/63)
+====+====+=============+====+=============+=============+=============+
| 0: | 80 | 5 0 1 | 7 | 1022 254 63 |    80325 | 26651835 |
| 1: | 0 | 1022 254 63 | e | 1022 254 63 | 934404660 |    32130 |
| 2: | 0 | 1022 254 63 | e | 1022 254 63 | 934436853 |    32067 |
| 3: | 0 | 1022 254 63 | f | 1022 254 63 | 53335800 | 880635105 |
+====+====+=============+====+=============+=============+=============+

These extracts from Sector Editor and partinfo were taken when CHS Alternative was selected in BING.

===============================================================================
               MBR Partition Information (HD0 - 0x41AB2316)
               (CHS: 1022/254/63) (WCHS: 77825/255/63)
+====+====+=============+====+=============+=============+=============+
| 0: | 80 | 5 0 1 | 7 | 1023 254 63 |    80325 | 26651835 |
| 1: | 0 | 1023 0 1 | e | 1023 254 63 | 934404660 |    32130 |
| 2: | 0 | 1023 1 1 | e | 1023 254 63 | 934436853 |    32067 |
| 3: | 0 | 1023 0 1 | f | 1023 254 63 | 53335800 | 880635105 |
+====+====+=============+====+=============+=============+=============+

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by NightOwl on Dec 7^th, 2010 at 7:55pm

@ Dan Goodell

Quote:

Okay, so that was going to be my first question to Brian--were the PartInfo's reported from the *same* HDD with the same partition table, or did he use BING and re-partition using a different setting in BING? It sounded like is was simply the same HDD with a different setting in BING--and apparently that is in fact *true*--but, as Brian has said:

Quote:

Dan, you have hit the nail on the head. I am booting with BING and using the same 4 partitions in the MBR. But BING is changing the partition table.

Well, BING is apparently not a *good example* to support this premise:

Quote:

The partition table contains static numbers.

!!!!!

I would have to say I agree with this response:

Quote:

Really??? Ouch, that would be extremely disturbing! I disdain utilities that mask the facts and instead show their interpretation of the facts. The partition table contains static numbers.

But, I guess BING is not *masking* anything! It's re-writing the *facts* to it's own ends!!!!

I'm afraid this has made the *whoooshing* sounds a bit loader! I will post more questions in my next post.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Brian on Dec 7^th, 2010 at 9:04pm

NightOwl,

Regarding BING changing the MBR. The following comments are only partly relevant to the above discussion. You can run BING in unlimited primaries mode. Partition information is stored in the EMBR, LBA-1 and beyond. Up to 200 primary partitions are supported on the HD but you can only have a maximum of 4 primary partitions in the MBR. Each Boot Item creates its own MBR (partition table). Say you want to boot partition 4. The Boot Item could contain partitions 4, 6, 8, 2 or it could contain 4, 6. A maximum of 4 primary partitions and a minimum of 1. You don't have to fill all four slots.

It took six months before I was game to use unlimited primaries.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Brian on Dec 8^th, 2010 at 1:17am

A few more points to decrease the whoosh. Maybe.

With unlimited primaries, Windows Disk Management only sees the partitions that are in the MBR. The partitions that aren't in the MBR are represented by Unallocated Space. However IFW and TBOSDT can see all the primary partitions on the HD as they are reading the EMBR. So you can use IFW to backup or restore a partition that isn't seen by Windows as it isn't in the current MBR.

You can use TBOSDT to copy data to/from partitions that aren't seen by Windows.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by NightOwl on Dec 8^th, 2010 at 10:36am

@ Brian

Thanks for that link about how to restore an image to certain laptops that *require* creating an atypical CHS pattern--specifically 240 Heads instead of the more common (?) 254 Heads. I thought the last time I asked you that I put that into my *threads to remember* file--but, could not find it (again)! It's now there!

Quote:

A few more points to decrease the whoosh. Maybe.

It's actually not BING that has *caused* the whooshing sound(s)! Although, it has it's own *whoosh* factor! I haven't started using it, just yet, but when I do I will probably be *picking your brain* to help explain things (but, in a separate thread most likely ;) !).

No, the *whooshing* is really in regards to *what I thought I knew* about partition tables, BIOSs interaction with the HDD and the HDD's geometry, and what role a HDD controller plays in determining the final HDD geometry. And does any of that influence whether you can hook up a HDD from another machine and expect it to work in a current machine.

I quite frequently hook up HDDs from other sources to an external USB adaptor (or directly to a test machine)--how does the partitioning that has been done on another machine influence the success/failure of the USB adaptor (or test machine) mounting that HDD on the system it's now attached to?

And, come to think of it--is there any influence on flashdrives that are *bootable*--and you want use it to boot multiple different machines--including laptops with the *atypical* 240 Heads requirement--is there an issue there?

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Dan Goodell on Dec 9^th, 2010 at 5:57am

(Didn't see this earlier . . . )

Brian wrote on Dec 7^th, 2010 at 4:24pm:

I'm impressed with Xnews and Thunderbird Portable. One question. Do we need to change the drive letter of the USB flash drive (on other computers) so that it matches the paths in the Files tab of Xnews and Local Folders in Thunderbird?

For the most part, Xnews seems to pretty immune to drive letter issues. I just take the entire Xnews folder and drop it on any drive, and when I double-click Xnews\xnews.exe, everything pops right up. The only places where the drive letter becomes material is if you use a shortcut to launch Xnews (Windows embeds the drive letter in the shortcut) and in the Files tab items you mention. That's an issue if you're downloading attachments and binaries, but the drive letter doesn't matter for ordinary newsgroup activity.

For Thunderbird Portable, I think that's the purpose of the portable executable--when it's launched it identifies what drive letter it is on and changes any relevant settings (such as in prefs.js) before it starts up the main Thunderbird app. Then Thunderbird can find things on the same drive the portable launcher starts up from. (My "Local Folders" directory, which I renamed to "Archives" to avoid confusing myself, is in the Thunderbird folder.)

That said, however, my drive letter never changes because I run the apps from a Truecrypt volume. I use a 4GB flash drive that contains the Truecrypt program, a 3.5GB Truecrypt encrypted volume, and a little .vbs script I devised. That way, if I ever lose the flash drive nobody else is going to be able to get at all my emails and such. The Truecrypt volume also carries my FTP, calendar, Quicken, and KeyPass (password manager with passwords to online accounts, networks, etc) programs on it.

When I plug the flash drive into a computer, Windows gives it a drive letter, I open that drive letter in Explorer and double-click the .vbs script. It asks me for the Truecrypt password, mounts the Truecrypt container as "drive T:", and opens a "T:\" Explorer window. In the root directory I have shortcuts to Xnews and Thunderbird. They always startup on T: and the drive letter of the flash drive is immaterial.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Brian on Dec 10^th, 2010 at 11:01pm

Dan, that KeePass app is brilliant. I'm now using it too.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Dan Goodell on Dec 11^th, 2010 at 4:27pm

Brian wrote on Dec 10^th, 2010 at 11:01pm:

Dan, that KeePass app is brilliant. I'm now using it too.

Yeah, and I like that it's "no-install", so I can carry it around on my flash drive. (Thanks for correcting my spelling of the app.)

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by NightOwl on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 1:25am

@ Dan Goodell

So, I've been doing some web searching--trying to better understand the Cylinder-Head-Sector (CHS) setup reported in PartInfo and the HDD geometry--my starting point was a Google Search: Hard Drive Geometry . Interesting reading.....

I came across The PC Guide which appears to be slightly dated--copyright is listed as 1997-2004, but the information still seemed relevant.

One can begin here: Hard Disk Geometry Specifications and Translation . From there you can read up on HDD Physical Geometry , and then onto HDD Logical Geometry .

Seems to be quite complicated! Moving onto BIOS Geometry Translation , and then Zoned Bit Recording -- apparently no modern HDD has *63 sectors per track* anywhere on the HDD--well, maybe on the inner tracks--but that information is not easily ascertained!

Further reading--Normal / Standard CHS Mode , Extended CHS (ECHS) / Large Mode , Logical Block Addressing (LBA) , Comparison of Translation Modes -- helps shed more light (or *darkness*--depending on how much one understands of all this ;) !) on the subject.

Remember, I asked the rhetorical question above in reply #82:

Quote:

No, the *whooshing* is really in regards to *what I thought I knew* about partition tables, BIOSs interaction with the HDD and the HDD's geometry, and what role a HDD controller plays in determining the final HDD geometry. And does any of that influence whether you can hook up a HDD from another machine and expect it to work in a current machine?

Well there's this: Caveats on Changing Translation Modes and Transferring Hard Disks Between PCs .

So, my general take away message for modern HDDs is: CHS and HDDs is a series of *smoke and mirrors*--the whole thing is *make believe*--and has no real basis in reality--everything is simply *pretend* and as long as everyone agrees--everything is *ok*!

I'm back to my question in reply #70:

Quote:

So, who's in charge here...?

There is the BIOS, the HDD controller on the motherboard, and the controller *inside* the HDD (is there anything else I'm missing?)

Reading carefully your reply #14 in this old thread: Mysterious Problem, cloning laptops , you make the following statements:

Quote:

When any computer boots, one of the first things it does is query the controller firmware on the HDD to find out the disk size and parameters. Put that HDD in an IBM (or, it seems, a HP/Compaq) laptop and it will report back cylinders/heads/sectors configuration of 5168/240/63. But put that same HDD in a Dell or Toshiba laptop and it will report back cyl/hd/sec = 4863/255/63.

and

Quote:

Note this idiosyncracy is dependent on the bios, not the HDD itself. Any autodetected HDD will always show 240 heads in a Thinkpad, and always show 255 heads in a Dell. Since all that really matters is the disk size, you'll notice the cylinder count is adjusted to provide the same disk sizes under either bios

Well, that says the BIOS is *in charge*--right?!

Quote:

Note these are fictitious numbers anyway (and have been since we got beyond 528MB disks and started using LBA a decade ago), but it has serious ramifications in the way the partitions and partition table are consequently structured. When you write your partitions and file systems using one geometry, it will not work if you try to read them using a different geometry.

So the BIOS *tells* the partitioning software that the HDD attached to it will be either a 240 head HDD, or a 255 head HDD. And, the HDD from that point on *remembers* that 240 or 255 head * fake geometry*--and it can not be placed on a different machine which uses a different head count than was initially used and be accessed--it has to be on a machine whose BIOS reports the same head count as was originally used to format and partition the HDD.

Is all that *right*?

On to the next post.....

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by NightOwl on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 2:06am

@ Dan Goodell

In you reply #74, you made this statement:

Quote:

The early part of this thread was about the numbers actually recorded in the partition table. The latest posts are about the BIOS and geometry autodetection. Those are two different topics.

I'm not sure what you mean here--seems like everyone is posting their *PartInfo* summaries--isn't that the *actual numbers recorded in their partition tables*?

So, Brian posted his BING PartInfo's, and he simply changed in BING how he wanted the CHS to be reported--and he got 1023 cylinders in one report and 1022 in another report. So, unlike *heads* (240 vs 255), are *cylinders* not part of the HDD *geometry*?

In your reply #68 where you talk about using the Virtual PC:

I have used both ParttionMagic and Ghost 2003 on my system for years. And I have used Ghost 2003 to do *disk to image* and *image to disk* multiple times. I've upgraded from 80 GB HDDs to 120 GB HDDs, and then to 160 GB HDDs using *disk from image*--I've never seen a change in the cylinder count--I've always have had 1023 for the cylinder count.

Ah...but:

Quote:

After running a whole-disk image/restore from Windows with Ghost 2003, the "after" PartInfo exhibited several of the 1022-vs-1023 anomalies and rollover anomalies, as described in my Reply #55

You mean you used the Ghost 2003's Windows interface to set up the Ghost restore *disk from image* procedure which then did the boot to DOS to proceed, and then back to Windows--correct?! I've never done that! I always have done that from a DOS boot disk or disc! Perhaps that's were the variable that's resulting in changes in the cylinder count lies!

But, is that value *important*, given Brian's result where he can make BING report either result?

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Brian on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 2:43am

NightOwl, good posts. I'm trying to understand these concepts too. One thing I noticed in the TBOS manual is the CHS values can be changed for an established partition. I hope this eventually fits together.

Quote:

Setting the CHS values for a partition entry

The SET PART GEO command will set one or more of the CHS values for a partition to specified values. The following is an example of how this command can be used:

SET PART GEO 0 1 /h=254 /s=63 for partid=1 on HD0, set last head to 254, sectors/track to 63

I tried some crazy numbers. Data partitions still worked but when done on the OS partition it no longer booted.

This is the partinfo before editing...

Code:

MBR Partition Information (HD0 - 0x7FB77FB7)
                  (CHS: 1022/254/63) (WCHS: 4865/255/63)
+====+====+=============+====+=============+=============+=============+
| 0: | 80 | 0 1 1 | 7 | 508 254 63 |       63 |    8177022 |
| 1: | 0 | 509 0 1 | 7 | 1023 254 63 |    8177085 | 24563385 |
| 2: | 0 | 1023 0 1 | 7 | 1023 254 63 | 32740470 | 45415755 |
| 3: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
+====+====+=============+====+=============+=============+=============+

And after editing...
For the second partition I used
/C=500 /H=170 /S=40

For the third partition I used
/C=300 /H=100 /S=20

Code:

MBR Partition Information (HD0 - 0x7FB77FB7)
                  (CHS: 1022/254/63) (WCHS: 4865/255/63)
+====+====+=============+====+=============+=============+=============+
| 0: | 80 | 0 1 1 | 7 | 508 254 63 |       63 |    8177022 |
| 1: | 0 | 1023 82 6 | 7 | 1023 105 30 |    8177085 | 24563385 |
| 2: | 0 | 1023 15 11 | 7 | 1023 20 5 | 32740470 | 45415755 |
| 3: | 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 0 0 |          0 |          0 |
+====+====+=============+====+=============+=============+=============+

Here is the Boot Sector information on the edited HD...

Code:

BOOT SECTOR INFORMATION
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      File System ID: 0x7 LBA: 63 Total Sectors: 8177022 ID: 0x1
                              Jump: EB 52 90
                           OEM Name: NTFS
                     Bytes Per Sec: 512
                     Sec Per Clust: 8
                        Res Sectors: 0
                              Zero 1: 0x0
                              Zero 2: 0x0
                              NA 1: 0x0
                              Media: 0xF8
                              Zero 3: 0x0
                     Sec Per Track: 63
                              Heads: 255
                        Hidden Secs: 63
                              NA 2: 0x0
                              NA 3: 0x800080
                     Total Sectors: 0x07CC57D
                           MFT LCN: 0x029ABF
                        MFT Mirr LCN: 0x03E820
                     Clust Per FRS: 0xF6
                  Clust Per IBlock: 0x1
                           Volume SN: 0xF2C474B7C4747FA1
                           Checksum: 0x0
                           Boot Flag: 0xAA55
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   File System ID: 0x7 LBA: 8177085 Total Sectors: 24563385 ID: 0x2
                              Jump: EB 52 90
                           OEM Name: NTFS
                     Bytes Per Sec: 512
                     Sec Per Clust: 8
                        Res Sectors: 0
                              Zero 1: 0x0
                              Zero 2: 0x0
                              NA 1: 0x0
                              Media: 0xF8
                              Zero 3: 0x0
                     Sec Per Track: 40
                              Heads: 171
                        Hidden Secs: 8177085
                              NA 2: 0x0
                              NA 3: 0x800080
                     Total Sectors: 0x0176CEB8
                           MFT LCN: 0x0C0000
                        MFT Mirr LCN: 0x0176CEB
                     Clust Per FRS: 0xF6
                  Clust Per IBlock: 0x1
                           Volume SN: 0xFC0C3653C3608E2
                           Checksum: 0x0
                           Boot Flag: 0xAA55
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
File System ID: 0x7 LBA: 32740470 Total Sectors: 45415755 ID: 0x3
                              Jump: EB 52 90
                           OEM Name: NTFS
                     Bytes Per Sec: 512
                     Sec Per Clust: 8
                        Res Sectors: 0
                              Zero 1: 0x0
                              Zero 2: 0x0
                              NA 1: 0x0
                              Media: 0xF8
                              Zero 3: 0x0
                     Sec Per Track: 20
                              Heads: 101
                        Hidden Secs: 32740470
                              NA 2: 0x0
                              NA 3: 0x800080
                     Total Sectors: 0x02B4FD4A
                           MFT LCN: 0x0C0000
                        MFT Mirr LCN: 0x02B4FD4
                     Clust Per FRS: 0xF6
                  Clust Per IBlock: 0x1
                           Volume SN: 0x3874453B7444FCDE
                           Checksum: 0x0
                           Boot Flag: 0xAA55
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Brian on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 3:32am

These are the pre and post edited partition tables from Sectedit.

good-ps.gif (3 KB | 524 )

edited-ps.gif (3 KB | 540 )

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Dan Goodell on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 1:14am

NightOwl wrote:

So, my general take away message for modern HDDs is: CHS and HDDs is a series of *smoke and mirrors*--the whole thing is *make believe*--and has no real basis in reality--everything is simply *pretend* and as long as everyone agrees--everything is *ok*!

YES! Now you're catching on! ;)

As much as I despise Microsoft's arrogant, "go-it-alone" attitude in their invention of their new, MB-aligned partitions, at least they're finally giving up the charade of cylinders and fictitious geometry. "The Emperor has no clothes!"

In reference to:

who's in charge here...?

NightOwl wrote:

There is the BIOS, the HDD controller on the motherboard, and the controller *inside* the HDD (is there anything else I'm missing?)

There is no such thing as a HDD controller on the motherboard anymore. It's merely an interface connection.

Back in the MFM/RLL days, you needed a controller on the motherboard or an add-in card, and that controller directly accessed the "dumb" disk drive by directly addressing the cylinder, head, and sector the controller wanted to access. Drive manufacturers provided their products with a certain number of physical platter sides (aka, heads), tracks per platter (aka, cylinders), and sectors per track. The controller needed to know what those values were in order to know what it had access to.

With the advent of IDE drives ("Integrated Drive Electronics"), the controller was moved from the motherboard or add-in card and physically attached to the hard drive itself. That move opened up all sorts of flexibility for the drive manufacturers. Since they now had control over the HDD controller, they could customize its firmware to report back to the motherboard and bios whatever numbers they wanted without having to reveal the true number of physical platters, tracks, and sectors/track they were using.

The bios and operating systems could only accept particular ranges of values, so drive manufacturers could have their IDE controllers report back values in the acceptable ranges while behind the scenes there were actually fewer platters, more tracks per platter, and more sectors/track. They could even use tracks with variable numbers of sectors, packing more sectors in the longer tracks near the outer edges of the platters. All of this mapping between the actual sectors and what was reported to the outside world was now strictly under the drive manufacturer's control. (Some manufacturers post detailed data sheets on their websites. Today, mainstream HDDs usually have only 2 or 3 real platters.)

Another side-benefit is that manufacturers could now work around the inevitable defective areas of the platter surfaces. They could now map just the good sectors to the outside world--which is why today's drives appear to be perfect, with no bad sectors. In truth, every platter has bad sectors, but the controller maps them out of service. If there are more than enough good sectors, the spare sectors are held in reserve. This small cache is what the controller's S.M.A.R.T. monitor can use to "replace" sectors that are starting to go bad in the user-accessible area. In actuality, a sector can't be replaced, but a bad sector is mapped out of service and one of the reserves is mapped in in its place.

In reference to:

NightOwl wrote:

Well, that says the BIOS is *in charge*--right?!

Modern BIOS firmware "autodetects" the HDD parameters, so in that sense the BIOS is in charge. At startup, the BIOS POST routine sends an ATAPI "IDENTIFY" query to the HDD's on-board controller. What the BIOS does with that information is up to the BIOS.

For example, a 500GB disk drive might respond to an "IDENTIFY" query by reporting that it has 500,006,545,920 sectors and a "geometry" of CHS=16383/16/63. (Note: most of today's HDDs larger than 137GB respond back with this geometry--I imagine for backward compatibility with older BIOS firmware.) BTW, this is the geometry you will sometimes see printed on the HDD's label, even though the HDD size is larger.

The BIOS autodetect routine takes the LBA number and does its own math, using preset values of 63 sectors/track and either 240 or 255 tracks per cylinder. IOW, it might calculate CHS=60789/255/63 or CHS=64588/240/63 for this 500GB example. Some BIOS's might display this result in their BIOS Setup pages.

Remember, the geometry the controller reports to the BIOS is fictitious, and the geometry the BIOS autodetects is a different fictitious set of numbers.

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Dan Goodell on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 1:14am

NightOwl wrote:

No, the HDD doesn't know or care what geometry everybody else is using. If anybody asks, it claims to be 16383/16/63.

Utilities might get the HDD parameters either by asking the BIOS what it autodetected, or by directly asking the HDD's controller. For the sake of consistency amongst operating systems, I believe most partitioning programs ask the BIOS for the numbers. Since the function calls do not have room for large cylinder values, the BIOS responds to the program with either 1023 or 1022 (perhaps for the historical reasons previously mentioned). Now you have a third set of fictitious numbers.

and it can not be placed on a different machine which uses a different head count than was initially used and be accessed--it has to be on a machine whose BIOS reports the same head count as was originally used to format and partition the HDD.

No, the HDD can be placed in any system. What matters is whether the operating system in use can find the data it's expecting in the places it's looking.

Programs that rely on CHS access (such as DOS 7.0 and earlier) do indeed need to see a consistent geometry. But CHS is irrelevant if an OS is looking for data via LBA. Linux and Windows (once it's finished booting) use LBA. They have no trouble accessing data sectors, regardless of the fake geometry being used, because LBA access ignores geometry.

The problem is the initial phase of the Windows boot process uses CHS, so it can have trouble finding the files it needs to boot itself far enough before it switches over to LBA.

As Brian reported in Reply #88, "Data partitions still worked but when done on the OS partition it no longer booted."

In reference to:

The early part of this thread was about the numbers actually recorded in the partition table. The latest posts are about the BIOS and geometry autodetection. Those are two different topics.

NightOwl wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean here--seems like everyone is posting their *PartInfo* summaries--isn't that the *actual numbers recorded in their partition tables*?

Yes, actual numbers ... which don't subsequently change just because somebody's fake geometry calculations might change.

The early part of the thread was about the numbers in the partition descriptors, which may have been derived from the geometry at the time they were written, but thereafter are just numbers.

The later part of the thread started getting into geometry *changes*, which has no effect on numbers already written to a partition descriptor on the hard drive.

So, Brian posted his BING PartInfo's, and he simply changed in BING how he wanted the CHS to be reported ..."

No, not "how he wanted CHS to be reported." The BIOS is going to report CHS as per the code embedded in its firmware. BING can't change that. Brian was merely directing BING to write a partition table with different numbers than BING is getting from the BIOS. That doesn't mean the HDD will adopt that geometry, only that that geometry will be used to calculate what to put in the partition table descriptors.

Remember, the geometry written into the partition table descriptors doesn't necesssarily have to agree with what the BIOS autodetects. Normally, you want it to agree or the OS might not boot, but you can put anything in the partition table descriptors. In fact, that's what Brian is exploring in Reply #88. The descriptors are just bytes in a data sector on the hard drive. Like any data sector, the bytes don't change unless some program specifically rewrites the sector.

(Aside: the only thing special about the MBR sector is it happens to be the first sector. Other than that, it is just another data sector. Its bytes may represent some special meaning, but they are ordinary bytes in an ordinary sector.)

Title: Re: Disappearing partitions in Ghost 2003
Post by Dan Goodell on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 1:14am

In reference to:

After running a whole-disk image/restore from Windows with Ghost 2003, the "after" PartInfo exhibited several of the 1022-vs-1023 anomalies and rollover anomalies, as described in my Reply #55

NightOwl wrote:

You mean you used the Ghost 2003's Windows interface to set up the Ghost restore *disk from image* procedure which then did the boot to DOS to proceed, and then back to Windows--correct?!

Yes. Any partitioning or cloning program must necessarily rewrite the partition table as a byproduct of the cloning or repartitioning operation. The experiment was to see if perhaps Ghost was recalculating the descriptors incorrectly before it rewrote the partition table. It turns out it does. Since I haven't noticed such errors when using Ghost 2003 from DOS, the experiment implies the problem is in whatever makes Ghost 2003 from Windows different from Ghost 2003 from DOS.

Additional comments, FWIW:

As mentioned above, programs typically get geometry parameters from what the BIOS calculates at boot time, but a program could directy query the HDD if it wants. It appears to me the CHS and WCHS geometry numbers PartInfo shows are probably coming from two different places--one from a call to the BIOS and one calculated from a call to the HDD's controller.

In a similar vein, my Dsrfix program queries both sources. The ATAPI function call to the HDD controller is different if the HDD is larger than 137GB. If the BIOS is not 48-bit LBA aware, it will use the wrong ATAPI call and cannot access the part of a HDD beyond the 137GB boundary. In layman's terms, Dsrfix directly asks the HDD, "How big are you?" Then it asks the BIOS, "How big do you think the HDD is?" If those figures are different, that verifies the BIOS has a 137GB limit.

Discussion of the 137GB limit is off-topic in this thread, but I present it as an example of how a program can get different responses depending on who it asks. (Aside: Dsrfix can be run on any machine, though its purpose is to evaluate Dell XP machines with the Dell System Restore feature.)

Sample Dsrfix report illustrating the BIOS limitation:

DSRFIX - Dell DSR Analyzer, version 3.12
Copyright 2005-2008 by Dan Goodell, all rights reserved.
(Type DSRFIX /H for syntax help)

Disk 80 found, master device at port 01F0
48-bit user secs : 312581808 (160 GB)
48-bit max secs : 312581808 (160 GB)
i13/48 user secs : 268435455 (137 GB)
disk cyls/hds/secs: 16709/255/63

alert: boot code does not match dell mbr.
good : pbr descriptor 1 is type DE.
good : pbr descriptor 2 is type 07.
good : pbr descriptor 3 is type DB.
info : pbr descriptor 4 is type 00.
good : pbr1 is fat16, label is DellUtility.
fatal: pbr3 is not fat32.
alert: reference partition table not in sync.

disk model number : WDC WD1600BEVE-00WZT0
48-bit feature set: supported
hpa feature set : supported