Re: Copied HD boot problem

Anna;

I have the Ghost 3.0 DOS boot disk floppy that I always have been using for
cloning. The problem, is that Ghost 3.0 won't let me clone my HD because of
the problems I stated below, that's why Symantec told me to go to Ghost 9.0
which doesn't clone, just copy/backup/restore. Now I'm just trying to get my
copied/backup/restore HD back to a normal boot, without having to launch
fdisk/mbr.

I didn't know Ghost 3.0 came bundled with Ghost 9.0. How do you unbundle
it? The Ghost 9.0 I'm using is part of Norton system Works Pro 2005. I also
didn't know you can clone to a USB/Firewire HD, I thought it had to be a
Master/Slave connection.

Hope I didn't misunderstand you. Welcome any other comments/suggestions.

Regards...Don

"Anna" <myname@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uwWLxXCfFHA.2156@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Donald" <donaldnemy@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:%23VxtMuBfFHA.3560@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >I have a 2.0 GHz Gateway computer, with 512 Mb RAM, an 80 Gb Western
> >Digital
> > Master HD 40 Gb free, & a 80 Gb Western Digital
> >
> > Slave HD, & a 200 Gb Seagate Firewire HD, running Windows XP Pro SP-1.
> >
> > I have been successfully cloning my Master HD (which boots & runs
normal)
> > to
> > my Slave HD for over two years every other week
> >
> > (disconnecting the Slave HD from the computer at the completion of each
> > cloning) using Norton Ghost 3.0 that runs in DOS from
> >
> > a floppy disk (part of Symantec System Works 2003). Before each cloning
I
> > would defrag my Master HD using the Windows defrag
> >
> > program with no problems. Then on 04/28/05 I defragged my Master HD
using
> > the Symantec System Works 2003 defrag program.
> >
> > After that defragging, I was unable to clone my Master Hd, receiving the
> > message;
> >
> > "file system references disk sectors beyond the partition boundary" when
> > attempting to clone my Master HD.
> >
> > Symantec Tech Support advised me to purchase Symantec System Works 2005
> > which has Ghost 9.0 that gets around this problem.
> >
> > So I did. This new program does not have a cloning feature, but has HD
> > complete copy and backup/restore features. Symantec
> >
> > Tech Support was right, I no longer get this message, however, I now
have
> > a
> > new problem. I copy my Master HD to my Slave HD
> >
> > using Ghost 9.0, or backup using Ghost 9.0 or the Windows backup program
> > to
> > my Firewire drive, then I restore to the Slave
> >
> > HD, formatting it before each copy or restore. My new problem is the
> > Slave
> > HD won't boot, when connected as the only HD on
> >
> > the computer. In order to get it to boot I must run fdisk/mbr from a
> > floppy
> > disk. Then the copied/restored HD boots & runs
> >
> > normal.
> >
> > Symantec Tech Support told me to run Windows defrag, CHKDSK, fdisk/mbr,
> > clean boot, disable/enable virtual memory, & delete
> >
> > the page file on my Master HD. I did that several times with the same
> > results above. When Symantec Tech Support ran out of
> >
> > ideas, they told me that some systems require the fdisk/mbr applied
after
> > copy, backup/restore to get a HD to boot, nobody
> >
> > knows why, not even Microsoft, but that it works. I don't accept this
> > explanation, because it seems to me that the Symantec
> >
> > System Works 2003 defrag program somehow moved files outside the
partition
> > boundary on my Master HD, resulting in the message
> >
> > I received immediately after using it.
> >
> > I have two questions after this history:
> >
> > 1. Except for the nightmare of formatting re-installing upgrading
> > everything & redoing settings on my Master HD, does anyone
> >
> > have any ideas how I can restore my Master HD (which boots & runs OK)
back
> > to a condition where copy backup/restore of it
> >
> > works normally?
> >
> > 2. One Symantec Tech Support technician told me there is no problem
> > having
> > Master Slave HD's both Windows bootable,
> >
> > connected on the computer. Another Symantec Tech Support technician
told
> > me
> > that Master Slave HD's both Windows bootable,
> >
> > connected on the computer is a disaster waiting to happen. As soon as
the
> > copy or restore is made, that HD should
> >
> > immediately be removed from the computer. Which is the correct advice?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Regards...Don
>
>
> Don:
> That you've been able to use the Ghost 3.0 version all these years to
> successfully clone your XP hard drives is a minor miracle in itself! There
> *were* major problems with using Ghost to clone NTFS partitions prior to
> their Ghost 2003 version. But all that's behind you now, so let's start
> fresh.
>
> Since you're obviously familiar with using Ghost in a DOS environment,
would
> you be interested in using the 2003 version which came bundled with your
> Ghost 9.0 package? It's the version I've been using for the past few years
> to perform disk-to-disk cloning in an XP environment. I use the Ghost 2003
> bootable floppy disk (or bootable CD) that one can easily create in the
> Ghost 2003 program to perform the clone, since I prefer the portability &
> simplicity of that approach.
>
> If this appeals to you, please so indicate and I'll provide you with
> step-by-step instructions for creating the bootable Ghost media and
> performing the disk-to-disk clone.
>
> As to the problem, or anticipated problem, with having two connected
> bootable hard drives containing the XP OS. I'm aware that over the years
> Symantec has cautioned against that configuration and recommends, as one
> Symantec technician has advised you, to disconnect the clone (or the
source
> disk if you plan to use the clone) following the cloning operation. I
> suppose that all things considered, it's wise to do so. But it's certainly
> an awkward thing to do when you're working with two internal HDs and you
> routinely clone your working HD for backup purposes. I suppose it's
another
> advantage of using a USB/Firewire external HD as the recipient of your
> clone. However, I have to say that in my own experience with working with
> two internal HDs, I can't honestly recall *any* problems resulting from
> having both bootable drives connected, but I must admit that we *usually*
> work with two removable drives (a configuration I strongly recommend by
the
> way), so that one of the removable drives is ordinarily disconnected
except
> during the actual cloning operation. So, if feasible, consider equipping
> your desktop computer with at least one removable HD.
> Anna
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Copied HD boot problem
    ... > I have been successfully cloning my Master HD ... > (disconnecting the Slave HD from the computer at the completion of each ... > Symantec Tech Support advised me to purchase Symantec System Works 2005 ... > which has Ghost 9.0 that gets around this problem. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Copied HD boot problem
    ... is that Ghost 3.0 won't let me clone my HD because ... >>> After that defragging, I was unable to clone my Master Hd, receiving ... >>> Symantec Tech Support advised me to purchase Symantec System Works 2005 ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Cloned my HD successfully but the 2nd. attempt was a failure
    ... (THE BASIC ISSUE IS THAT USING THE GHOST 2003 PROGRAM, ... UNABLE TO CLONE THE CONTENTS OF ONE HD TO ANOTHER HD. ... NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE SAMSUNG HD IS DEFECTIVE AND THAT'S WHAT CAUSING THE ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Differences between cloned drive and original
    ... I have Ghost 9. ... to the clone also whenever the files are updated). ... some day soon swap the drives around, make the 250GB the primary and the ... >> I've been using Ghost 2003 to make a clone of my Master ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics)
  • Re: Casper XPs a winner
    ... what Drive Image 7.03 (virtually Ghost 9.0) used to do in 4 minutes. ... So its useless for cloning a drive or partition for safety ... With a bootable clone, ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage)