DD 10 fails to resize
I have a 285GB C partition on a Vista notebook.
I defragged the drive, then ran DD and requested that size be reduced to 80GB.
I clicked Commit, then Proceed, and rebooted, as instructed.
DD did something during reboot, but then was unable to reboot.
It was recommebded that I run StartUp Repair,currently still running.
What do i need to do?
I should be able to restore from a TRue Image backup, and start over, if necessary.
Note, that after running Startup Repair, tho I appeared to be dead in the water,
I tried a reboot and was successful, however a driver was installed for a "generic volume", which required another reboot.
What generic volume was added?
What did DD do to the MBR?
How to I get rid of the DD stuff in the MBR?
Is there a fixMBR in Vista?
I'm using the latest Disk Director 2239 & True Image 11.0 8053 from a Recover Media CD.
Upgraded from an 80GB IDE drive to a SATA 250GB drive.
Used True Image 11 Clone Disk to copy the old partition over to the new 250GB SATA.
I got an 80GB partition on the new disk. No problem I thought just boot the Recovery Media again, this time pick Disk Director.
It sees the 80GB partition & 170GB Unallocated Space, but it won't allow me to resize the partition saying something like:
"The partition is already at the maximum size"
Can't be exact word for word on that. Why can't I resize the partition ?
.
I'm using the latest Disk Director 2239 & True Image 11.0 8053 from a Recover Media CD.Upgraded from an 80GB IDE drive to a SATA 250GB drive.
Used True Image 11 Clone Disk to copy the old partition over to the new 250GB SATA.
I got an 80GB partition on the new disk. No problem I thought just boot the Recovery Media again, this time pick Disk Director.
It sees the 80GB partition & 170GB Unallocated Space, but it won't allow me to resize the partition saying something like:
"The partition is already at the maximum size"
Can't be exact word for word on that. Why can't I resize the partition ?
.
THis posting needs to be in a separate thread.
It has nothing to do with my posting.
Note, that after running Startup Repair, tho I appeared to be dead in the water, I tried a reboot and was successful, however a driver was installed for a "generic volume", which required another reboot. What generic volume was added? What did DD do to the MBR? How to I get rid of the DD stuff in the MBR? Is there a fixMBR in Vista?
Howard:
Nothing sinister took place. To understand what happened, remember that beginning with Vista, Microsoft adopted a new standard for partitioning hard disks. This was done in order to be prepared for the future, when hard disk manufacturers need to adopt a larger sector size than the current 512 byte standard. The new partitioning standard adopted by Microsoft was to create partitions on a multiple of 2048 sectors. Thus, the MBR begins (as before) at the first sector on the disk, and the first partition begins at sector 2048. As you know, the existing standard, which has been around for many years, is to create partitions on cylinder boundaries (multiples of 63 sectors), thus the first partition on the disk begins at sector 63.
The industry has not yet caught up with Microsoft. Virtually all partitioning software today still creates and modifies partitions to the older standard. I presume that your Vista notebook had its partitions created by the Vista installer, so it would have had the first partition start at sector 2048. If you made any changes to this partition with DD 10 then it would have realigned the starting sector of the partition to sector 63.
Once this realignment took place, the Vista boot manager would have failed to locate the partition (since it was moved), requiring a repair. When you did this, the next reboot succeeded but Vista would have detected a "new" generic volume (since it is in a new location now). Another reboot registers the new volume.
You should also check the settings for System Restore to see if there are two entries for the C: volume. Delete the old and leave the new.
To answer your other questions, DD 10 didn't do anything to the MBR other than modify the partition table. Yes, there is a fix MBR command in the Vista recovery environment but it would not have done any good because there was nothing wrong with your MBR. The problem was an invalid pointer in the Boot Configuration Database (BCD) which was fixed by startup repair (or you could have fixed it manually by editing the BCD).
If you are going to use third-party partitioning software then it is best to have all 63-sector offset partitions. Vista is perfectly happy working with a partition table that conforms to the existing standard. But if you do, avoid using Vista DiskPart or Vista Disk Management console to modify your partitions. Also, once your disk partitions are aligned to 63-sector offset, TI and DD will work without issue in the future.
Thanx.
The notebook had Vista installed by HP, I never modified the partitions.
I reduced Vista partition from 285GB to 80GB to make room for a Win 7 partition and a data partition.
Are the partitions still using MBR or were they converted to GPT?
How would that affect the HP Recovery partition on D?
When I create the partitions for Win 7 and another for Data, what do I have to do to avoid such issues?
How is this going to affect TI 11 backups?
Do I have to redo the TI backups?
When I install Win 7, I guess that I'll need to get a Win 7 compatible backup.
I do not, and never will, use System Restore.
Thanx.
The notebook had Vista installed by HP, I never modified the partitions.
I reduced Vista partition from 285GB to 80GB to make room for a Win 7 partition and a data partition.
Are the partitions still using MBR or were they converted to GPT?
How would that affect the HP Recovery partition on D?
When I create the partitions for Win 7 and another for Data, what do I have to do to avoid such issues?
How is this going to affect TI 11 backups?
Do I have to redo the TI backups?
When I install Win 7, I guess that I'll need to get a Win 7 compatible backup.
They should still be MBR partitions.
If you didn't move the HP recovery partition then there should not be any effect. If your partition operations moved the recovery partition then you may need to check to see if it still works. Depending on how HP boots to this partition, you may have to fix the BCD to link to it in its new location if it was moved.
If you create your Win7 partitions with DD then they will be created with the existing 63-sector offset standard, so TI, DD, and Win7 will be happy. You need to be aware of one potential problem, however. After creating a partition with DD, let the Win7 installer format the partition when installing. DD formats XP-style and it has been reported to create problems if you then install Vista or Win7 to a DD-formatted partition.
You should make a new TI backup now that your Vista partition has been moved to a new location. If you restore one of the older backups you will need to repeat the recovery steps done previously, but it will then work.
If you didn't move the HP recovery partition then there should not be any effect. If your partition operations moved the recovery partition then you may need to check to see if it still works. Depending on how HP boots to this partition, you may have to fix the BCD to link to it in its new location if it was moved.
I did not touch the recovery partition.
If you create your Win7 partitions with DD then they will be created with the existing 63-sector offset standard, so TI, DD, and Win7 will be happy. You need to be aware of one potential problem, however. After creating a partition with DD, let the Win7 installer format the partition when installing. DD formats XP-style and it has been reported to create problems if you then install Vista or Win7 to a DD-formatted partition.
If I can find the Win 7 install option to format a partition, then I'll create the partition with DD and tell Win 7 to format during the install.
Or, may be to allow the Win 7 install to create a new partition from unused space, and to format the critter itself.
You should make a new TI backup now that your Vista partition has been moved to a new location. If you restore one of the older backups you will need to repeat the recovery steps done previously, but it will then work.
As we speak, I just started a full backup.
After that is completed, I'll do the same to another external drive.
If I can find the Win 7 install option to format a partition, then I'll create the partition with DD and tell Win 7 to format during the install. Or, may be to allow the Win 7 install to create a new partition from unused space, and to format the critter itself.
If you let the Win 7 installer create the partition then it will have the new 2048-sector offset and you'll run into the same issue all over again the first time you restore the partition with TI. Better to create partitions with DD and then format them with Win 7 installer.
If I can find the Win 7 install option to format a partition, then I'll create the partition with DD and tell Win 7 to format during the install. Or, may be to allow the Win 7 install to create a new partition from unused space, and to format the critter itself.If you let the Win 7 installer create the partition then it will have the new 2048-sector offset and you'll run into the same issue all over again the first time you restore the partition with TI. Better to create partitions with DD and then format them with Win 7 installer.
Does Win 7 have an option for formatting during the install?
I ordered a Win 7 book. Itwas delivered in an opened package with no book.
I wuz robbed! A replacement has been shipped.
Does not TI 2010 know how to deal with the 2048 sector offset?
Howard:
Yes; you can access the formatting screen by choosing "Advanced Options" during the install. See steps 6 and 7 in this tutorial for screenshots showing what to expect.
TI 2010 still uses the existing partitioning standard and will realign a 2048-sector offset partition to 63-sector offset during the restoration.
Note, that after running Startup Repair, tho I appeared to be dead in the water, I tried a reboot and was successful, however a driver was installed for a "generic volume", which required another reboot. What generic volume was added? What did DD do to the MBR? How to I get rid of the DD stuff in the MBR? Is there a fixMBR in Vista?Howard:
Nothing sinister took place. To understand what happened, remember that beginning with Vista, Microsoft adopted a new standard for partitioning hard disks. This was done in order to be prepared for the future, when hard disk manufacturers need to adopt a larger sector size than the current 512 byte standard. The new partitioning standard adopted by Microsoft was to create partitions on a multiple of 2048 sectors. Thus, the MBR begins (as before) at the first sector on the disk, and the first partition begins at sector 2048. As you know, the existing standard, which has been around for many years, is to create partitions on cylinder boundaries (multiples of 63 sectors), thus the first partition on the disk begins at sector 63.
The industry has not yet caught up with Microsoft. Virtually all partitioning software today still creates and modifies partitions to the older standard. I presume that your Vista notebook had its partitions created by the Vista installer, so it would have had the first partition start at sector 2048. If you made any changes to this partition with DD 10 then it would have realigned the starting sector of the partition to sector 63.
Once this realignment took place, the Vista boot manager would have failed to locate the partition (since it was moved), requiring a repair. When you did this, the next reboot succeeded but Vista would have detected a "new" generic volume (since it is in a new location now). Another reboot registers the new volume.
You should also check the settings for System Restore to see if there are two entries for the C: volume. Delete the old and leave the new.
To answer your other questions, DD 10 didn't do anything to the MBR other than modify the partition table. Yes, there is a fix MBR command in the Vista recovery environment but it would not have done any good because there was nothing wrong with your MBR. The problem was an invalid pointer in the Boot Configuration Database (BCD) which was fixed by startup repair (or you could have fixed it manually by editing the BCD).
If you are going to use third-party partitioning software then it is best to have all 63-sector offset partitions. Vista is perfectly happy working with a partition table that conforms to the existing standard. But if you do, avoid using Vista DiskPart or Vista Disk Management console to modify your partitions. Also, once your disk partitions are aligned to 63-sector offset, TI and DD will work without issue in the future.
Mark,
Oh man! this one post has answered a LOT of questions for me. Thank you!
Looking over the Release Notes for the new DD 10 build 2239 (www.acronis.com/my/products/changes.html), do you know whether this new build now uses the "new" 2048 sector partitioning style? If it does, that could explain some of the fixed issues listed. My problem is that, while W7 allows me to install DD 10 build 2160, it blocks build 2239 (various compatability combinations don't help). Any ideas on getting it to install?
Thanks again.
Looking over the Release Notes for the new DD 10 build 2239 (www.acronis.com/my/products/changes.html), do you know whether this new build now uses the "new" 2048 sector partitioning style? If it does, that could explain some of the fixed issues listed.
Tom:
No, build 2239 does not use 2048-sector partitioning; it still conforms to the existing partitioning standard. However, there are a few interesting issues described in the Release Notes, and quite a few omissions from the "Known Issues". First, I've been using build 2160 for years on Lenovo laptops and have never run into the problems described under "Fixed Issues", so it makes me wonder what these issues were.
My problem is that, while W7 allows me to install DD 10 build 2160, it blocks build 2239 (various compatability combinations don't help). Any ideas on getting it to install?
You won't be able to install build 2239 on Windows 7, nor would you want to. I would avoid build 2239 like the plague until Acronis fixes it; there are some major issues that they created with this build that caused some of us to immediately stop using it. See this thread. If you still have build 2160, then hang onto it for now. If you do not, then this post describes how to obtain it; see reply #50.
Over the years, my DD usage pattern has changed. When I was running Windows XP, DD build 2160 used to be fine, even when modifying the system partition from the Windows version of DD. When I switched to Vista, the Windows version of DD was OK for modifying non-system partitions, but it would not reboot correctly on its own to make changes to the Vista system partition, so I got used to doing partition operations from the boot CD. Now with Windows 7, I didn't even bother to install the Windows version of DD. Instead, I do everything from the boot CD. To their credit, Acronis has made this easier now that they post an ISO image of the recovery environment for download. The last release of build 2160 ISO works pretty well, if you can get a copy. Send Acronis a private message requesting one if you can't download it.
Mark,
Thanks again.
Yup, I've got build 2160, I'm a pack rat....
My DD usage (and TI to some extent) follows yours in that I use the bootable media most of the time now, too.
TI bugs me with the unnecessary services running and disabling one or more have caused problems so I generally use bootable when I need to do a backup or restore and don't install it anymore (except on one W7 installation I boot-to for running specific tasks).
I purchased the Plus Pack the other day and am disappointed that it doesn't allow integrating DD into the WinPE. Do you know of anyone who has done this? I would love having one flash drive I could boot for all my chores; TI backups, DD partition work, flashing SSD firmware, all sorts of things that now require a handful a flash drives.
Tom:
I prefer the PE environments also and have a custom PE environment from an older project called VistaPE, but unfortunately it has fallen into a state of neglect. However, the build that I created has both TI 10 and DD 10 installed, and they still work fine. Here are two current options:
Forum user Mustang has come out with his own PE-builder environment, and has plugins available for both TI and DD. Check out MustangPE.
For non-PE environments you could use Grub4Dos on your flash drive as a boot manager. One of its advantages is that it can directly boot ISO image files, so you could load up your flash drive with ISOs of all of your favorite bootable programs and then manage the boot process with Grub4Dos. Forum member MudCrab has posted instructions on his web site. Skip section 2 and use section 3 instructions for directly booting ISO files.