For some years now I've been using Ghost 2003 for backing up my Windows partitions and cloning my hard drives. Of late, I've been wondering whether I could substitute my single current conventional 7200rpm hard drive in my PC with a couple of SSDs. I'm constantly striving to quieten my system and this would be yet another way of doing it, whilst at the same time rendering improved longterm reliability, lessening the heat produced inside the PC, and increasing data fetch speeds. I've obviously looked over the Radified forums for any insight into this but haven't been able to conclude whether my Ghost 2003 could indeed be used to transfer the current partitions successfully on to the two Crucial SSDs that I have in mind.

I gather that there's possibly a problem in doing this because of a difference in file block structure on the two types of drive. Is there absolutely no way around this? Installing instead my WinXP-based setup from scratch on to an SSD is something I'd want to avoid now at all costs, as I've only recently completed such a reinstall on my conventional drive and it took me two weeks of solid work to complete. Beyond a certain amount, installing the OS and applications from scratch, plus all their updates, can be an absolute nightmare.

Currently, I run my backups and restores from a Build 793 Ghost 2003 bootdisk (floppy). I run multiple partitions on the single physical hard drive that I have in the PC. With the bootdisk I make two sets of backups of my system partition - one to a reserved partition on the PC's hard drive and one to an external conventional hard drive (connected via USB). Normally, if I need to restore, I do it from the copy on the PC's drive, as that's a faster operation. All partitions are NTFS-formatted, using the default block size.

Current situation
CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL DRIVE A, 1TB (PC's drive):
C:\Main 50GB Primary
D:\Images 150GB Primary
E:\Audiovis 715GB Logical
F:\Archived 15GB Logical

EXTERNAL CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL DRIVE B, 1TB (USB):
Same partitions as in Drive A, except named differently.

Planned situation
SSD PHYSICAL DRIVE A, 256GB.
C:\Main 45GB Primary
D:\Images 200GB Primary
E:\Archived 10GB Primary

SSD PHYSICAL DRIVE B, 512GB.
F:\Audiovis 510GB Primary

EXTERNAL CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL DRIVE C, 1TB (USB):
The same external drive as used now.

Main is the system drive. Apart from Images, which is the partition into which Ghost images are placed, all other partitions simply contain data. For example, Audiovis contains largely photo files. Ghost-imaging of the data partitions therefore isn't necessary, as copying from one drive to another can be done instead by, say, drag n' drop. Note that none of the partitions are near full, so any mapping discrepancies of partition sizes you might notice above may well be inconsequential.

The way I would approach the changeover from conventional to SSD drive would be:

(i) Physically replace the current conventional drive with the two SSDs;
(ii) Use the WinXP installation DVD to install a basic Windows XP on to the 256GB SSD;
(iii) Run Ghost 2003 from the bootdisk and restore the appropriate image from the Images partition that's on the external drive to the 256GB SSD, so as to replace the basic edition of WinXP;
(iv) Boot with the 256GB SSD, then create the remaining partitions required on it, using WinXP's Disk Management. Also, format and create the required new partition on the 512GB SSD.
(v) Copy across the data files in Partitions E and F on the external drive to the requisite partitions of the two SSDs.

This would all seem to be pretty straightforward, assuming of course that both my PC (a recent self-build) and Ghost recognises the two SSDs. Note that all the new partitions would be NTFS and, as before, would use the default block size.

Now, I thought I read somewhere that there was a fundamental incompatibility of conventional drives with SSDs, in that the layout structure of the files was different. I thought I read that conventional drives were CHS-organised but SSDs were something different. Or was it the other way around? The implication was that any swapping around of images from one to the other would therefore be impossible without disasterous results. Is this really the case? If so, has nobody yet found a workaround for it? Surely, the SSD manufacturers must have realised that users would want to perform image transfers, if only to start using the new drive?

@ voximan

I'll get the ball rolling here--but, I have no personal experience with the SSD technology--so can't help answer your specific questions----


Quote:

Now, I thought I read somewhere that there was a fundamental incompatibility of conventional drives with SSDs, in that the layout structure of the files was different.

I know how it is, you get on the scent of a particular topic, Google search and click on multiple entries, skimming the information looking for what you want, find all kinds of good info, but the next day, can't remember where those website are!

I now try not to simply click on a Google entry and have the browser switch to that link.  I right-click the entry and open the link in a new tab.  And then I use the *Favorites Tool Bar* that allows one to click on a *Star with a right pointing arrow* (talking about MS Internet Explorer v8.xx) and that website link is added to the Favorites Tool Bar list.  I make a *New Folder* on the Favorites Tool Bar by right-clicking on the tool bar and selecting the menu item.  Then I drag-and-drop each new web entry that looks promising onto that folder.

Now, I have a folder with related websites on a topic so I can easily go back and find the information.  And, I can paste those links in postings to forums such as this one!

My point--it's very hard to evaluate your question(s) when you offer us a vague recollection summary of what you thought you understood, so that we can offer you any good answers, if you are not able to show us the links to the original information so we too can evaluate the information!


Quote:

I thought I read that conventional drives were CHS-organised but SSDs were something different.

Link(s)?


Quote:

The implication was that any swapping around of images from one to the other would therefore be impossible without disasterous results. Is this really the case?

Link(s)?  Are we talking about Ghost 2003 specifically--or any imaging program?


Quote:

I gather that there's possibly a problem in doing this because of a difference in file block structure on the two types of drive.

Link(s)?


Quote:

I've only recently completed such a reinstall on my conventional drive and it took me two weeks of solid work to complete.

Why did you start over--don't you have Ghost backup images to use?


Quote:

EXTERNAL CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL DRIVE B, 1TB (USB): Same partitions as in Drive A, except named differently.

Could you explain this--why partition your external HDD like the internal HDD--are you doing direct disk-to-disk or partition-to-partition Ghost backup--and not using Ghost Image files?


Quote:

(ii) Use the WinXP installation DVD to install a basic Windows XP on to the 256GB SSD;

Why this *extra* step--why not just have Ghost 2003 transfer the OS partition image file directly?  You should be able to do *Image to Disk* and tell Ghost what size to make the destination partition it will create.  Or, you could use the WinXP install disk to do an initial partitioning of the SSD (don't have to install WinXP) and then do an *Image to Partition* process.

Ghost 2003 is an *old* program!  And there could be an incompatibility factor (although--without links to evaluate that issue, I'm not yet convinced there is a problem).  So, there might be other imaging programs that are still under current development, and should be up to date with the newer technologies (i.e. TeraBytes Image for Windows, DOS, Linux series of programs).  They have the ability to transfer successfully an image from one machine to another that has completely different hardware.  Our resident expert on those programs, Brian, may have some insight into their use with SSD.  Hopefully he'll see this thread and will make comments.  If not, I'll flag him down.

@ voximan

I saw this comment, "All imaging software backup and restore SSDs without a hitch." I know KOR has lots of software and lots of SSDs.

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=2065363#post2065363#4

I gather WinXP is not optimized for SSDs so you may not get the performance benefits seen by folks using Win7. I recently helped a mate alter the partitions on a SSD in his Dell Win7 Precision computer. He had a couple of 2 TB conventional HDs as well. We used BIBM for the partitioning and IFW to create the subsequent partition images, writing the images to one of the conventional HDs. Now that is a fast computer.

I assume you realize your partitions need to be 2048 sector aligned to get the best out of your SSDs. So you can't let WinXP create your partitions as it creates legacy cylinder aligned partitions.

@ voximan


Brian wrote on Jun 8^th, 2012 at 5:10pm:

I assume you realize your partitions need to be 2048 sector aligned to get the best out of your SSDs. So you can't let WinXP create your partitions as it creates legacy cylinder aligned partitions.

Well, I guess my suggestion wasn't the best *answer*:


NightOwl wrote on Jun 8^th, 2012 at 10:40am:

Why this *extra* step--why not just have Ghost 2003 transfer the OS partition image file directly?You should be able to do *Image to Disk* and tell Ghost what size to make the destination partition it will create.Or, you could use the WinXP install disk to do an initial partitioning of the SSD (don't have to install WinXP) and then do an *Image to Partition* process.

Both procedures above would give you *legacy cylinder aligned partitions*!  Ghost 2003 only knows how to create cylinder alignment as is true of the WinXP partitioning tool as well.  If something else creates the correct partition alignment--then Ghost 2003 can restore to the existing partition without any problems.

Thanks Brian--thought you might know the answers.

NightOwl,

I think almost all the previous references to SSDs in the context of G2003 were scattered over this website, so you've probably seen them before anyway.

To make it clear, I'm concerned with only Ghost 2003 here, not any other imaging application.

Why shouldn't I partition my external drive?! It's a personal choice. In the main, I'm doing partition-to-partition imaging.

As for why I didn't start over when I recently reinstalled everything: well, the original system partition was corrupted on the drive itself. That's to say, the drive had some quite serious faults on it from new, faults that had taken months of work to investigate. In the end, I was able to work around the faults and was able to use the drive for a year or more. It was then at that stage that I decided to buy a completely new drive. It therefore made sense to install everything from scratch, rather than risk transferring the faults across on to the new drive. Besides, there were apps and utilities on the original that I didn't want any longer. (Don't let's digress into a discussion of all the whys and wherefores of this; there's a lot more to the story than I've given. Just accept that what I did was the only sensible recourse).

And about first creating a basic WinXP on the SSD: yes, you're quite right, I could merely create the new partition and do the image all in one procedure using Image to Partition, getting G2003 to set up the partition size.

Brian,

I worry when I see such sweeping statements as are in that link you gave. This is why I'd like to hear from others who've attempted this exercise.

Ah, so the SSDs would need to be 2048 sector aligned, to get the optimum performance? Hmm, well, in my case, performance (speed) wouldn't be the main reason for changing to SSDs, but just how much of a performance hit would there be if I used WinXP and/or G2003 to create/restore the partitions? Or is it that any such attempt would result in corruption of files? This is the kind of thing I was hoping to get clarified. And, from what you say, it sounds as though I might well have to throw out my external hard drive as well, as continuing to use it with SSDs in the PC would be equally incongruous.

It rather looks as though I'm going to have to stay with conventional drives - unless someone somewhere produces a utility that could solve the alignment issue. Unfortunately, the current costs of SSDs are such that this is something that one cannot test out for oneself without risking an awful lot of money.

@ voximan

I have no idea how much of a performance hit you will suffer by using cylinder aligned partitions but why take the risk when you can easily create 2048 sector aligned partitions. Gparted is free and will create these partitions. I use BIBM but it isn't free. Just ask if you need help.

I have no doubt KOR is correct. You are just imaging sectors and Ghost 2003 will work.

Don't worry about your external HD. It will be fine. As will any conventional internal HDs you may add later. I don't have any SSDs but my next computer will have one. Only one for my many OS. I'll use large conventional HDs for data and backups. Just like my mate's computer I mentioned.

So you are ready to go. Install the SSD and create the 2048 sector aligned partitions on your SSD. Restore your Ghost 2003 images. Boot from the SSD. Easy.


Quote:

I'm doing partition-to-partition imaging.

Or Partition to image? Partition to partition could present booting issues.

Edit... I forgot to ask whether the SSD needs drivers.

Sorry Brian, when you previously hinted that 2048 aligned partitions would be required, I thought you meant that the whole thing would therefore be impossible. But it seems that, on the contrary, if something such as GParted is used, the problem can be solved. I'll google for it. At this stage, I've absolutely no idea what BIBM is, either.

When I stated that I'm doing 'partition-to-partition imaging', I meant that in the wider sense. I meant that I was making images from one partition into another (and, when necessary, restoring from one image to another). So, in strict G2003 terminology, 'Partition-to-Image' and 'Image-to-Partition'.

You ask about drivers. I'm not aware that the SSDs would require any special drivers in my setup. Have you found that some SSD/BIOS/motherboard combinations need special drivers, then?

I'm on a big learning curve here.

@ voximan

http://sourceforge.net/projects/gparted/files/gparted-live-stable/

Get gparted-live-0.12.1-5.iso (129.6 MB) and make a CD.

To create partitions...

Boot from the CD and press Enter for all challenges
When in GParted /dev/sda is your first SSD, /dev/sdb is your second SSD. Or HD if you are using HDs.


Right click in "Unallocated"
New
New size, type in your desired MiB
Align to MiB (not to Cylinder or None)
Primary Partition
File system ntfs
Label eg WinXP, Data, Images, etc
Click Add


To create further partitions Right click in the remaining "Unallocated"
New
as above

When finished creating the partitions, click Apply
Apply again
Close

You can check the partition alignment by right clicking a partition and clicking Information. Write down the First sector number and divide it by 2048. The result should be an integer.

Close the GParted window
Double click Exit
Shutdown

You are using images; that's good.
I'm not sure about the need for drivers either.

Brian,

Yes, I immediately googled for GParted and found it at sourceforge.net. Am I right in thinking it's some sort of open-source software? It looks as though it's still under a bit of development.

You'll have to excuse my ignorance in this area, as I'm completely new to SSDs and to considering alignment on disks, but I'm still unclear about a couple of things surrounding your detailed procedure (given in your reply above) if using GParted. For example, if I were to opt to use GParted simply to create the partitions I need on the two SSDs with the 2048 alignment, will my G2003 imaged partition(s) then transfer correctly back from my ext drive to the SSDs? Or are you suggesting that I dispense with G2003 altogether? From what you've previously explained, the continued use of my ext drive wouldn't be possible. Sorry, but I'm confused about this.

A few moments ago, I dropped over to Crucial's website, to see if I could find any article by them on alignment. There wasn't as such. However, they do have a couple of useful videos there, one of which is a guide to transferring the contents of existing partitions from a conventional HDD to a new m4 SSD. As far as Crucial are concerned, apparently all you need in order to do this is to buy a 'transfer kit' of theirs when buying the SSD itself. You can buy with or without the transfer kit. You install a bit of software from a CD they supply in the kit, switch the PC off, then connect a special lead into a USB port, then boot from that port. The software then does the rest. I noticed in particular that the video advised not to select 2048 alignment under WinXP when initially installing the software. Also (and more generally), I'm assuming that, thereafter, it's impossible to continue using a conventional ext drive, or any application or utility that relies on cylinder alignment. But it's not at all clear. I may well contact Crucial to get this clarified.

@ voximan


voximan wrote on Jun 10^th, 2012 at 7:18am:

It looks as though it's still under a bit of development.

It's stable. Been around for years.


voximan wrote on Jun 10^th, 2012 at 7:18am:

if I were to opt to use GParted simply to create the partitions I need on the two SSDs with the 2048 alignment, will my G2003 imaged partition(s) then transfer correctly back from my ext drive to the SSDs?

Yes, just restore your current Ghost 2003 images into the 2048 sector aligned partitions.


voximan wrote on Jun 10^th, 2012 at 7:18am:

the continued use of my ext drive wouldn't be possible.

Not at all. Continue to use your external HD.


voximan wrote on Jun 10^th, 2012 at 7:18am:

all you need in order to do this is to buy a 'transfer kit' of theirs

That is the slow way to do it. It's better to create the partitions first.


voximan wrote on Jun 10^th, 2012 at 7:18am:

it's impossible to continue using a conventional ext drive, or any application or utility that relies on cylinder alignment.

Not at all. You can continue to use cylinder aligned partitions on your internal and external HDs. There is no need to change these partitions. It is only the SSD partitions that need the new alignment. Don't regard it as complicated. All the image/restore steps are the same as for a conventional HD. The only difference is the partition alignment.

I've just done something similar. My primary HD was 640 GB with 28 primary partitions. Don't ask. I transferred the partitions to a 2 TB advanced format HD. It's recommended the partitions on these HDs be 2048 sector aligned so I've done that. I must say I noticed no difference in WinXP or Win7 performance after changing the alignment. But I wasn't using a SSD.

If you would prefer to use the trial version of BIBM instead of GParted I can post instructions.

Oh crikey, that sounds a lot more hopeful! I understand it more now.

When you make and then use a GParted CD as you've instructed, does GParted get permanently installed on the PC, or does it only run if you boot from the CD? Does the download include a CD-maker, or will any half-decent one do, such as Nero? Can't remember the last time I ever burned a CD/DVD. Must have been several years ago.

Is there any reason why a USB stick can't be used instead?

@ voximan

GParted runs from the boot disk. It is not installed. Stick with running it from a CD. It can be run from a USBFD but that adds to the complexity.

The ISO has to be burnt as an image so in Nero it is..

Recorder
Burn image
Browse to the ISO

You can't just copy the ISO to a CD.


NightOwl,

When you restore a Ghost 2003 image how do you restore the MBR? I noticed GParted doesn't create a Standard MBR when it creates partitions on an empty HD. It only creates a Disk Signature, a partition table and MS-DOS boot code.

@ voximan

I now think you would be better off using BIBM rather than GParted. Download the 30 day trial from....

http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/downloads-bootit-bare-metal.htm

Unzip the file
double click makedisk.exe, next
dot in BootIt Bare Metal, next
dot in I accept the agreement, next
select Image for DOS (GUI), next
dot in Mouse Support Enabled, next
dot in VESA Video, next
dot in Video Mode 1024*768 - 64K Colors, next
dot in Partition Work (Don't put a dot in Normal), next
don't choose any Device Options, next
tick in Enable USB 1.1 (UHCI), next
tick in Align partitions on 2048 Sectors
ignore Additional bootitbm.ini Options, next
select your CD burner drive letter (you can use a CD-RW or a CD-R disc)
Finish

A CD will be easier for you to use than a USBFD. We can discuss how to use BIBM later.

It's now later. How to create partitions...

The trial CD boots to "Work with Partitions"
Use Bus: BIOS
Drive 0 (the SSD should be the only drive in your computer. Saves getting confused with other drives)
Select Free Space and click Create
Name (eg Main, Images, etc)
File System NTFS
Choose Size (Type in your desired MiB size)
Leave the rest untouched
OK, OK, OK

Create further partitions with the same method. If you make a mistake, no problem, delete the partitions using the Delete button and start again.

When finished, click View MBR and write down the LBA or each partition. Divide each LBA by 2048 and the result should be an integer. While still in View MBR select the first partition (the future WinXP), click Set Active, Apply.

Click Close, Reboot and remove the CD. You are now ready to restore your WinXP image in the usual manner.

@ Brian


Brian wrote on Jun 10^th, 2012 at 4:31pm:

NightOwl, When you restore a Ghost 2003 image how do you restore the MBR? I noticed GParted doesn't create a Standard MBR when it creates partitions on an empty HD. It only creates a Disk Signature, a partition table and MS-DOS boot code.

Here we go again  ;) !  Define what is meant by a *Standard MBR*?!  Isn't *MS-DOS boot code* a *Standard MBR*--just pre-WinXP, Vista, Win7--which each have their own *Standard MBR*?  Actually, the MS-DOS boot code MBR changed over time from the Win3.x, to Win95 and later Win98, and Win98se, and then WinME.  I really don't know how to define a *Standard MBR*--I wish there was such a *standard*--or at least an identifiable version number!

I wonder what MBR various Linux OS's create?  I suspect that's why some folks have major problems trying to uninstall a Linux OS and revert to a Windows OS--most partitioning tools will not zero and/or over-write an existing MBR unless explicitly instructed to do so (many do not have such an option)!

Well, once again this is one of the limitations of DOS Ghost 2003.  I'm not sure if Symantec has improved this in the newer Corporate versions--I know that the consumer Ghost 9, 10, 12, 14, and 15 have a check box to tell Ghost to restore the MBR--but, when checked, do those versions of Ghost over-write any existing MBR code, and restore the original source MBR recorded along with the image file?  And, if it does over-write any existing MBR code, is the restored MBR just absolute sector 0, 0 thru 63, and/or 2048 sectors for the new aligned sector requirements?  Does it give you the choice?

I do *whole disk* images.  The MBR absolute sector 0 from the source disk is recorded along with the data from the partition(s) to the image.  If you restore the image to a *factory fresh* HDD (or zeroed absolute sector 0 HDD), then Ghost 2003 will restore the MBR that was from your original source HDD MBR.

If the HDD is not a factory fresh HDD (or zeroed absolute sector 0 HDD), then Ghost 2003 will not restore the MBR that was on the original source HDD!  It will simply update the partition table.  There is no box to check or command line switch that will force the original MBR to be restored on a HDD that has an existing MBR!

You can use a command line switch to force Ghost to save the entire boot tract (absolute sector 0 thru 63), but you have to do a whole disk image backup--and you must restore the whole disk image in order to get that stored MBR restored.  In this case an existing MBR will be over-written with the original source HDD MBR.

You can also do a whole HDD image, and then do a *From Image/Partition to Disk* restore and this too will restore the original source HDD's MBR (if to a *factory fresh* HDD (or zeroed absolute sector 0 HDD)).  Here, you can then control how much of the disk is to be used for that partition, and you can later create additional partitions with DOS partitioning tools, or once booted to a Windows OS.

You can not do a *From Image/Partition to Partition* unless you have already created a partition (which means you have already created a MBR) as an existing destination for the image file data.

@ voximan


voximan wrote on Jun 9^th, 2012 at 7:19am:

I think almost all the previous references to SSDs in the context of G2003 were scattered over this website, so you've probably seen them before anyway.

I do remember that SSDs have been discussed here in the past.  But, as I said, I am not using that technology--so to assume that I would recall those threads, their content, and their conclusions is a big stretch--sorry, I don't have a photographic memory--that's why I was suggesting including links to those threads would be helpful.


voximan wrote on Jun 9^th, 2012 at 7:19am:

To make it clear, I'm concerned with only Ghost 2003 here, not any other imaging application.

I understood completely--re-read my response:


NightOwl wrote on Jun 8^th, 2012 at 10:40am:

Ghost 2003 is an *old* program!  And there could be an incompatibility factor (although--without links to evaluate that issue, I'm not yet convinced there is a problem).

Meaning, I thought there's a possibility that Ghost 2003 may work just fine.  But, obviously from Brian's responses, we now know that the partitioning will have to be handled by some other utility--Ghost 2003 is not up to the task.


voximan wrote on Jun 9^th, 2012 at 7:19am:

Why shouldn't I partition my external drive?! It's a personal choice. In the main, I'm doing partition-to-partition imaging.

Actually, you're not!  That's why I was asking the question.  You're later answer to Brian finally answered the question:


voximan wrote on Jun 10^th, 2012 at 4:29am:

When I stated that I'm doing 'partition-to-partition imaging', I meant that in the wider sense. I meant that I was making images from one partition into another (and, when necessary, restoring from one image to another). So, in strict G2003 terminology, 'Partition-to-Image' and 'Image-to-Partition'.

I could care less if you partition your external HDD--and for that matter--how you partition your external HDD--I was trying to figure out if you were doing *Partition-to-Partition* cloning, or *Partition-to-Image* backups.


voximan wrote on Jun 9^th, 2012 at 7:19am:

As for why I didn't start over when I recently reinstalled everything: well, the original system partition was corrupted on the drive itself. That's to say, the drive had some quite serious faults on it from new, faults that had taken months of work to investigate. In the end, I was able to work around the faults and was able to use the drive for a year or more. It was then at that stage that I decided to buy a completely new drive. It therefore made sense to install everything from scratch, rather than risk transferring the faults across on to the new drive. Besides, there were apps and utilities on the original that I didn't want any longer. (Don't let's digress into a discussion of all the whys and wherefores of this; there's a lot more to the story than I've given. Just accept that what I did was the only sensible recourse).

Have no desire to digress (unless you want to  ;) ) -- just wondered why you thought using Ghost 2003 to switch to the new SSD technology would be easier than switching to a new HDD!


voximan wrote on Jun 10^th, 2012 at 4:29am:

I'm on a big learning curve here.

http://www.crucial.com/support/ssd/ssd_buying_guide.aspx

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=N1mpTyBf1IU#t=0s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vRCgNylkOo&feature=player_embedded#t=0s

http://lifehacker.com/5837543/how-to-migrate-to-a-solid+state-drive-without-reinstalling-windows

http://lifehacker.com/5802838/how-to-maximize-the-life-of-your-ssd

http://lifehacker.com/5837769/make-sure-your-partitions-are-correctly-aligned-for-optimal-solid-state-drive-performance

http://blog.superuser.com/2011/05/07/where-did-all-my-hard-drive-space-go/


voximan wrote on Jun 8^th, 2012 at 5:51am:

I've been wondering whether I could substitute my single current conventional 7200rpm hard drive in my PC with a couple of SSDs. I'm constantly striving to quieten my system and this would be yet another way of doing it,

The HDD is the least likely source of noise.  The fans are the most likely source--well, after the speakers, of course--power supply fan(s), case fan(s), cpu fan, north bridge fan, and video card fan are the biggest noise makers.

Bigger fans at slower speeds have been the best noise reduction on my system.  And, much cheaper than SSD's--at least for now.  And, you can get video cards without fans at all--much quieter.

Unless the bearings are going bad on your HDD, you should hardly hear a HDD without getting your head very close!  Or, perhaps you are using a noisy brand of HDD.

@ NightOwl

TeraByte calls this a Standard MBR...

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b16/bjkdegree/MBR-Standard.gif

TeraByte calls this a Win7 MBR...

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b16/bjkdegree/MBR-Win7.gif

I shouldn't have used the term MS-DOS boot code. GParted actually says MS-DOS partition table. Gparted doesn't create boot code when it creates partitions. BIBM does create boot code when it creates partitions.

As for Ghost 15, "Restore MBR" does restore the first track and over-writes the pre-restore first track. I haven't looked what happens with 2048 sector aligned partitions.

If Voximan creates his partitions with BIBM then he will get a Standard MBR too and will be ready for a Ghost 2003 Partition from Image restore.

Edit... Here is a TeraByte BING MBR...

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b16/bjkdegree/MBR-BING.gif

@ Brian


Quote:

TeraByte calls this a Standard MBR...

Well, it has to be in regards to *something*--i.e. DOS  (older vs newer versions?), as of what date, for what file system, for what size HDD, etc.  (For example--old DOS boot code would not allow for booting a partition beyond the 8 GB size limit--newer code in the MBR allowed booting from anywhere on a large HDD.)

If the MBR was a *standard*, how can they keep changing it--at least without giving it a version ID of some sort.


Quote:

Gparted doesn't create boot code when it creates partitions.

Can Gparted add boot code?  Or, does it only make partitions? 


Quote:

BIBM does create boot code when it creates partitions.

What can you boot to?  I guess I'm not sure what *boot code* means--doesn't that have to be added by an OS?

@ NightOwl

It looks like the term Standard MBR has been around for a long time even though it has been changing. I hope Dan can enlighten us.

http://starman.vertcomp.com/asm/mbr/STDMBR.htm

GParted can't create boot code. I regard boot code as MBR code preceding the Disk Signature.

Brian wrote on Jun 10^th, 2012 at 5:31pm:

@ voximan I now think you would be better off using BIBM rather than GParted. Download the 30 day trial from.... http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/downloads-bootit-bare-metal.htm Unzip the file ..................... A CD will be easier for you to use than a USBFD. We can discuss how to use BIBM later.

Brian,

Can you say why you've changed your mind and are no longer recommending GParted for this?

Do appreciate that I have a FDD built specifically into my PC. It's not a USB FDD that I have. So, if it'll make it any easier to use FDs, please say so. The main problem, of course, with FDs is their extremely limited storage capacity. Fine for running G2003, though. All it takes at present is just the one.

I assume that, as with GParted, the BIBM utility does not get permanently installed.

@ Brian


Brian wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 2:28am:

GParted can't create boot code. I regard boot code as MBR code preceding the Disk Signature.

Thanks for the links and explanations--helps make things clearer.

A thought--if Ghost 2003 only sees the partition table in the first sector, will that trigger Ghost 2003 to over-write the first sector with the stored MBR as well as updating the partition table during a restore of the image file.  In other words, if Ghost 2003 doesn't see *boot code*, will it restore the MBR it has taken from the original source HDD, and restore it on a HDD that only has a partition table.  In which case, GParted might work fine--might have to test that!

If using GParted on a used HDD that already has a previous MBR--does it over-write what's there and leave only the partition table, removing and zeroing out the rest of the 1st sector--or does it only change the partition table leaving the existing MBR as it originally was except for the partition table.  Are there options to control that behavior?

NightOwl wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 9:54am:

If using GParted on a used HDD that already has a previous MBR--does it over-write what's there and leave only the partition table, removing and zeroing out the rest of the 1st sector--or does it only change the partition table leaving the existing MBR as it originally was except for the partition table.

It does the latter.  If it zeroed the bootstrap code it would be useless for adjusting existing partitions on a bootable HDD.  We hear a lot of recommendations to use GParted to repartition Windows machines, and we'd never hear that if it zeroed the bootstrap code.

NightOwl wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 2:15am:

If the MBR was a *standard*, how can they keep changing it--at least without giving it a version ID of some sort.

In this context, standard just means, "whatever most computers have."  There really isn't a standard MBR--it would be more accurate to call it a "common" MBR, but good luck getting everyone else to change their terminology.  (Forum regulars can no doubt testify that sloppy terminology is one of my pet peeves.)

Brian's first snapshot (MBR-Standard.gif) in Reply #16 is Microsoft's MBR installed by Windows 2K/XP.  Microsoft used several different MBRs for Win98 and earlier.  The second snapshot (MBR-Win7.gif) is the MBR Microsoft uses for Win7.  Vista's MBR is similar to Win7's but not identical.

(I got well acquainted with various MBRs during my Dsrfix research several yrs ago.  That skill was beneficial when trying to forensically determine what a user may have done to mess up their Dell MBR.)




NightOwl wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 2:15am:

What can you boot to? I guess I'm not sure what *boot code* means--doesn't that have to be added by an OS?

The term is not precise, as you have boot code in the MBR, boot code in the PBR, boot code in the system files (e.g., you may recall DOS's old io.sys and msdos.sys files), etc.  The code in the MBR has also been referred to as bootstrap code and IPL code ("Initial Program Loader"), although I think the latter is more often used WRT the PBR.  And then there's Microsoft, making things even worse by mangling the distinction between "boot" and "system"--we don't need to rehash that debacle here.

The MBR bootstrap code need not be specific to any OS.  All it does is determine which partition to boot and load that partition's PBR into memory, regardless of what OS may be installed in that partition.  It then passes CPU control over to whatever code it loaded into memory.

This is a subtle distinction many people don't fully grasp, but it's at the very heart of why multibooting works at all.  You don't need Microsoft's XP MBR to boot XP, or their Win7 MBR to boot Win7.  In fact, you can even boot Win7 with a Win98 MBR if you wanted to.  All you need is bootstrap code that will find the right PBR and pass control to it.  It's after that point that things start to become specific to the OS.

But you need some kind of code to get you to that point, and in the absence of a standard dictated from above, anyone can come up with their own code to do it.  Microsoft, the linux community, even Dell and HP have come up with their own ways of doing the same thing.

FWIW, note you only need bootstrap code if you need to boot from that HDD.  If it's only meant to be a data disk, then strictly speaking it doesn't need bootstrap code.  Your boot OS (on another HDD) should be able to look over at the secondary HDD and say, "Oh, I see a partition table over there, so let's go ahead and mount those partitions so the OS can use them."  That used to be the case with DOS and early Windows versions, but in more recent versions Microsoft has instead treated empty MBR code as signifying an "uninitialized" disk.  Even if there are partitions on it, Windows won't see the partitions until it has "initialized" the HDD.

@ voximan


voximan wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 6:06am:

Can you say why you've changed your mind and are no longer recommending GParted for this?

I didn't know GParted couldn't create boot code on an empty drive. Sure, you can create the code in other ways but it's simpler if one app can do the lot. BIBM. Ghost 2003 can't restore the boot code with a Partition From Image restore. So use BIBM and then restore your image into the Active primary partition on the SSD. WinXP will load.

BIBM won't get installed from your CD and it is too big to run from a 1.4 MB floppy. Its precursor, BING, could run from a floppy. I still have floppy drives in my computers but I don't use them anymore. Too slow. When I use Ghost 2003 it's run from a USBFD.



@ NightOwl

WinXP didn't boot when I restored a Ghost 2003 image to a GParted partitioned HD without boot code. There was still no boot code.

@ Dan Goodell

An interesting experiment, for me at least. I restored a WinXP Ghost 2003 image to HD2 and booted it with BIBM using the Swap option. The partitions on HD0 weren't loaded into the HD0 MBR so HD0 showed as entirely "Unallocated" in Disk Management.

Using DE, all bytes preceding the Disk Signature on HD2 were zeroed. WinXP loaded just as before.

@ Dan Goodell


Dan Goodell wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 5:39pm:

It does the latter.If it zeroed the bootstrap code it would be useless for adjusting existing partitions on a bootable HDD.We hear a lot of recommendations to use GParted to repartition Windows machines, and we'd never hear that if it zeroed the bootstrap code.

That makes sense--thanks for the feedback.


Dan Goodell wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 5:47pm:

In this context, standard just means, "whatever most computers have."There really isn't a standard MBR--it would be more accurate to call it a "common" MBR

Yes--*currently common*--it will apparently be different in the future (without an identifiable version ID so you know something has changed--and you can't find out what or why it has changed)!  Actually, I think Microsoft used to have a DOS version ID at the beginning of the data in absolute sector 0--but, I don't see a similar ID since WinXP--or there abouts.


Dan Goodell wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 5:47pm:

The term is not precise, as you have boot code in the MBR, boot code in the PBR, boot code in the system files (e.g., you may recall DOS's old io.sys and msdos.sys files), etc.The code in the MBR has also been referred to as bootstrap code and IPL code ("Initial Program Loader"........),

Again, thanks for the clarifications--makes it easier to appreciate why there is *no standard*  ;) !

@ Brian


Brian wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 6:42pm:

WinXP didn't boot when I restored a Ghost 2003 image to a GParted partitioned HD without boot code. There was still no boot code.

Thanks for that info.

You might want to look at one of the links I suggested to voximan above: 


NightOwl wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 1:37am:

http://lifehacker.com/5837543/how-to-migrate-to-a-solid+state-drive-without-rein...

It talks about using EaseUS Partition Master  to clone your existing Windows OS, and then using Gparted to create the proper alignment by moving the beginning of the data OS partition to the proper location.

I think you can simply substitute Ghost 2003 for where they say to use EaseUS Partition Master (or substitute any other cloning software), and Ghost 2003 will create the necessary, but cylinder aligned MBR, and then use GParted to give the correct alignment using their outline! 

Note, that technique mentions that GParted has a design flaw and you have to use two moves to get the actual correct alignment:


Quote:

Yes, moving it 2MB away then moving it back 1MB seems roundabout, but Gparted measures space in a weird way. When you first start up Gparted, your partition will have less than 1MB of space preceding it, but Gparted will only measure it as 0—meaning if you align it to 1MB right off the bat, it'll keep the drive annoyingly misaligned at 1.03MB. If you set it to 2MB, hit Apply, and then move it back to 1MB, it works fine.

It tells you how to verify what the alignment is:


Quote:

Once you're in Windows, hit the Start menu and search for msinfo32. Start up Msinfo32.exe when it pops up, and head to Components > Storage > Disks. Look for your SSD and find the "Partition Starting Offset". If this number is divisible by 4096 (that is, if dividing it by 4096 reveals a whole number and not a decimal), your partition is correctly aligned. If not, head back into Gparted and try again—make sure there's exactly 1MB of space before your partition, or it won't work.

You can find the same information in WinXP by using *System Information* found under *Start/Programs/Accessories/System Tools*, or typing *msinfo32* in the *Start/Run* dialog box.

@ NightOwl

That would work but I don't like the method. Converting a cylinder aligned partition to a 2048 sector aligned partition can be very time consuming depending on the partition size and amount of data. BIBM only slides the data but I suspect GParted slides the unused sectors as well.

It's far easier to have the correct partition alignment before the image is restored.

@ Brian


Quote:

It's far easier to have the correct partition alignment before the image is restored.

No argument here--just mentioning it because it showed that it probably doesn't matter what cloning software is used, and that GParted is an option, as well, if a non-aligned partition is created by older utilities that can not directly create the correct alignment.

Just because there's more than one way to do something doesn't mean there isn't a *best* way  ;) !

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.