Acronis True Image Home 2010 corrupts MBR and neighbouring volumes
I am using TIH2010 with the plus pack, and trying to restore a single volume on a ThinkPad.
Using TI 8, this operation succeeds plainly and simply, without fuss or corruption. No MBR mess, no bogus changes to other volumes, no overwrite corruption of neighbouring volumes.
However, using TIH2010, the recovered volume is inaccessible, immediagely adjacent volumes on the disc may have some sectors overwritten, and the MBR is garbled (for example, a recovery OS partition has its type changed, and some of the other partitions change their 3D or linear parameters inexplicably).
I have been through their 'chat' help twice, and all the tech did was basically tell me to read the manual. The second time, he led me through each step, disconnecting before I could tell him that the restore failed and once again corrupted the MBR. Egad, I'm being led in circles by a script monkey, who runs off just before I can find out that I'm not getting anywhere.
When I do a simple restore, it wants to leave gaps around the volume being restored, even though it is restored to its original location on the drive. If I close the gaps manually, it fills in different bogus parameters on the MBR than it does if I leave the gaps, but in neither case will the restored partition work, and in both cases the recovery volume is rendered useless.
I think this may have to do with the ThinkPad preferring a different 3D translation for the drive parameters than most other (non-ThinkPad) machines. This is my guess because these are what it keeps corrupting in the MBR, and it keeps trying to place the recovered volume at what would be cylinder boundaries in whatever 3D translation it tries to use in a given run. I'm only restoring a single volume, not the whole disc, and the recovery files don't even have the MBR or other stuff -- just one volume each.
Please note Acronis True Image 8 works fine with the same TIB files and the same hardware. If I do a complete restore using the Acronis 8 bootable CD, everything is back where I expect it and it works.
When you're trying to restore with TI 2010, are you restoring a TI 2010 image file or a TI 8 image file?
Does the standard version of TI 2010 cause the same problem?
Okay, here's the result of testing the lot. To generate the TI8 image, I used the original configuration. To generate the TIH2010 and TIH2010PP images, I restored the TI8 image using TI8, booted it to be sure it worked properly, then took those images using those versions of the boot CDs. Then I started trying various combinations of restore to see what I got.
Test scenario: DOS FAT16 recovery volume (type 06) in first 2GiB of drive. This is just some diagnostic and maintenance utilities, since I have never encountered any such programs that work under Windows. There are no other partitions on the drive. Restore WinXP boot volume as primary active partition. Drive size under BIOS control claims 3D of 1024c*240h*63s, and linear of 78140160 sectors. WinXP volume is 32GiB, leaving about 3GiB free. Note that I am NOT restoring the DOS volume -- it is there already, but I am destroying the WinXP volume after each failed attempt (before the next try). The drive to which I am restoring is always in the boot position (primary onboard PATA controller, master). Acronis always detects it as the secondary drive despite the BIOS set up to see it as primary and the fact it is primary as far as I/O ports and IRQ and other conventions, though, taking the drive on master position of the PCI host in the dock as if it were the primary (this is the case for all -- TI8, TIH2010, TIH2010PP). The drive in the dock's bay is where I have stored the images.
TI8, TI8 image: successful restore
TI8, TI2010 image: invalid image
TI8, TI2010PP image: invalid image
TIH2010, TI8 image: failure
TIH2010, TIH2010 image, include MBR: failure
TIH2010, TIH2010 image, part only: failure
TIH2010, TIH2010PP image, include MBR: failure
TIH2010, TIH2010PP image, part only: failure
TIH2010PP, TI8 image: failure
TIH2010PP, TI8 image, universal restore: failure
TIH2010PP, TIH2010 image, include MBR: failure
TIH2010PP, TIH2010 image, part only: failure
TIH2010PP, TIH2010PP image, include MBR: failure
TIH2010PP, TIH2010PP image, part only: failure
TIH2010PP, TIH2010 image, include MBR, universal restore: failure
TIH2010PP, TIH2010 image, part only, universal restore: failure
TIH2010PP, TIH2010PP image, include MBR, universal restore: failure
TIH2010PP, TIH2010PP image, part only, universal restore: failure
Here 'successful restore' means that both the DOS and WinXP volumes are accessible and bootable.
Here, 'failure' does not indicate what Acronis claims. In all of these tests, Acronis has declared the recovery of the volume a success. However, the general class of failure for 'failure' is common -- changes DOS volume to type 0E, WinXP volume 3D parameters assume drive 3D size is 1024c*16h*63s, not sure about other corruption because correcting the MBR by hand only fixes the DOS volume; the WinXP volume will not boot even with corrected dimensions in the MBR. Probably needs BPB updated and maybe other corrections made in addition to MBR.
In more than once case, I have had the DOS volume far end corrupted, and there once was a volume past the WinXP volume, but that was also corrupted by an attempt at restoring the WinXP volume by TIH2010PP and so I just trashed it.
If the SafeMedia (Safe Mode) version of TI 2010 will see both drives, does it restore correctly? It uses the BIOS instead of Linux and may see them as the BIOS sees them.
It sounds like the drive geometry is not being seen correctly by TI (Full Mode). I've had similar problems with another imaging program, but it had options to adjust those values. Before fixing it, Windows would not boot successfully even though all files "appeared" to be on the partition. I didn't check for any alignment problems.
If the SafeMedia (Safe Mode) version of TI 2010 will see both drives, does it restore correctly? It uses the BIOS instead of Linux and may see them as the BIOS sees them.It sounds like the drive geometry is not being seen correctly by TI (Full Mode). I've had similar problems with another imaging program, but it had options to adjust those values. Before fixing it, Windows would not boot successfully even though all files "appeared" to be on the partition. I didn't check for any alignment problems.
I don't see something specifically called safe mode in the list of 8 options that it offers during startup. I'll have to install the program and see if asking it to create the image instead of using the image I downloaded from Acronis makes a disc that offers a different menu set. I'll also tinker with the choices that these images do offer; maybe one or more is equivalent.
If the SafeMedia (Safe Mode) version of TI 2010 will see both drives, does it restore correctly? It uses the BIOS instead of Linux and may see them as the BIOS sees them.
It sounds like the drive geometry is not being seen correctly by TI (Full Mode).
The drive geometry is indeed being misread, based upon the MBR thrashing (even setting the type 06 FAT16 to be 0E FAT16LBA on a volume it is not otherwise touching is a giveaway). However, safe mode may be a different problem because one of the drives is 150GiB and the BIOS doesn't support LBA48.
The older TI8 does not suffer this peculiar malady. I've also noticed that some people are saying an older build of TIH2010 does not have this problem (mostly comments from other ThinkPad owners), so I'll try that as well.
I've had similar problems with another imaging program, but it had options to adjust those values. Before fixing it, Windows would not boot successfully even though all files "appeared" to be on the partition. I didn't check for any alignment problems.
If I could get to the Linux kernel command line, I could *tell* it the drive dimensions... just adding 'hde=5167,240,63' should do it, since it seems to see the master drive on 0x01F0/0x03F6 as hde (still lost about why this happens, since it should be hda)...
I agree that it's a geometry problem. As a fellow ThinkPad user, I know it's important that the BIOS "sees" the disk as having 240 heads, and apparently that's not happening for you like it should (except when using TI 8).
You're doing the restore procedure correctly by having the destination disk installed internally. When I've done restores on my ThinkPads they have worked correctly using the "Safe" mode version of TI, the "Full" mode (Linux-based) version, and when booting to BartPE or VistaPE to run the Windows version of TI. However, two things are different in my case. First difference is that I've only used TI 9 and TI 10 (not 2010). Second difference is that I don't have an Ultrabay. If I recall correctly, a disk in the Ultrabay is "seen" as having the standard 255-head geometry, as is an external USB disk.
Your statement that the disk is recognized as the secondary disk by TI is peculiar. I am wondering what would happen if you got the Ultrabay disk out of the picture? Can you move your image to another location (i.e. on another PC on the network or to an external USB disk) and then remove the disk from the Ultrabay to see if your results are any different?
The SafeMedia (Safe Mode) version of TI 2010 is a separate download from your Acronis account. It has to be installed and then you can create a TI CD that includes it. It sounds like you're currently using the TI ISO download (it does not include the SafeMedia version).
I agree that it's a geometry problem. As a fellow ThinkPad user, I know it's important that the BIOS "sees" the disk as having 240 heads, and apparently that's not happening for you like it should (except when using TI 8).
I've noticed by going to the 'nonquiet' selection in the bootloader on the CD that I can rummage what it sees, and append arguments to the kernel command line. Unhappily, those same arguments do not seem to have any effect on the other selections (which run the app).
The hard discs should detect as primary=hda, ultraBay-DVD=hdc,dockUltraBay-hd=hde. Based upon that, I need to specify 3D dimensions:
hda=5168,240,63
hde=17753,240,63
You're doing the restore procedure correctly by having the destination disk installed internally. When I've done restores on my ThinkPads they have worked correctly using the "Safe" mode version of TI, the "Full" mode (Linux-based) version, and when booting to BartPE or VistaPE to run the Windows version of TI.
TI8 has worked well for me on this front. I don't restore TO an external device unless that's where I want it permanently due to long experience (with similar apps).
Your statement that the disk is recognized as the secondary disk by TI is peculiar.
Perversely, it is recognised like this in the GUI:
internal hdd = hde
ultrabay DVD = hdg
dock ultrabay hdd = hda
But it looks like this from the command line:
internal hdd = hda
ultrabay DVD = hdc
dock ultrabay hdd = hde
If I recall correctly, a disk in the Ultrabay is "seen" as having the standard 255-head geometry, as is an external USB disk.
My experince with ThinkPads as far back as A20 and as current as T50, as well as the docks that have ultrabay slots, is that the ultrabay hard discs are also 240h*63s. The only place I have seen any difference is if you add a PCI/PCIe SCSI or IDE or SATA host to the dock's PCI/PCIe slot, and that card provides its own disc BIOS extensions.
I am wondering what would happen if you got the Ultrabay disk out of the picture? Can you move your image to another location (i.e. on another PC on the network or to an external USB disk) and then remove the disk from the Ultrabay to see if your results are any different?
To run safe mode I will have to put the dock's ultrabay hard disc into something else -- it is 150GiB and the PC does not have an LBA48 aware BIOS. But then, the safe mode would not be able to see my USB disc bay, so I'm a bit lost about how to handle it. Acronis non-safe mode does not like the USB controller on this PC for some reason, but I think I have a cardbus USB2 host somewhere, though that also precludes safe mode.
Zac:
I see. You are in a real quandary with safe mode since it will not see a network nor will it see USB disks, and from what you are saying about lack of BIOS support for LBA48, it would not be able to read all of the disk that your image is stored on. As I see it then, you have only three options with TI:
1. Continue using TI 8
2. Build a PE-based disk with TI 2010 installed, like BartPE, VistaPE, MustangPE, or the new Acronis Plus Pack so that TI runs in Windows and uses Windows-based drivers and, I would expect, be using LBA disk addressing (I'm not positive about this).
3. Contact Acronis Support about the issue with their Linux-based full-mode recovery environment on the TI 2010 boot CD.
Is there a newer BIOS version for this PC?
Then again, there may be other imaging products that will work. Have you tried Clonezilla?
I've tried passing the hda=5168,240,63 several different ways to the first 'without quiet' option on my bootable CDs, and none of them work. The drive is always detected as 16384,16,63 for both BIOS and physical. If I override ('echo "bios_cyl:5168 bios_head:240 bios_sect:64" > /proc/ide/hda/settings' then the linux fdisk tool accepts the 5168c*240h*63s dimensions and works correctly, as do some other things (all still on the boot CD), but the Acronis 'product' executable refuses to take it, still adamantly claiming that the disc needs to be 16384c*16h*63s. This is even if I set up all of the partitions first using linux fdisk before I run the Acronis product, all in the same session!
The default Acronis setup doesn't usually allow the full normal set of Linux kernel parameters.
You may have better success if you extract the files (kernel.dat and ramdisk.dat) and then run them with SYSLINUX or Grub4DOS instead of using the Acronis loader. (See here for a SYSLINUX example.)
This type of method was needed prior to TI 2010 just to be able to change the screen resolution. (See here for an example.)
Thanks for the help and suggestions!
MudCrab: I may try your suggestions to see if I can coerce the current version into working by changing kernel arguments, but I hold out little hope since it refused to accept the kernel parameters after boot when fdisk et al did accept them.
K0LO: Newest BIOS and other machine specifics. FWIW, ThinkPads with SATA hardware also default drives to 240h*63s 3D parameters (at least my new W700 does).
An older version of TIH2010 seems to work on my machine -- it sees the correct disc layout and can back up and restore just fine, and does not corrupt the neighbouring volumes. The working build number is 5055. I stumbled across a link to it in this forum, but don't remember exactly where. If I have some time I may search for it again. I'll probably also look for a 5055 build version of the plus pack, so I have the complete package that I purchased that will work on my ThinkPad. Do not let 5055 auto-update as or after you install -- you may end up with the broken version anyway.
Acronis tech support was useless, both chat and email. In the chat case, the tech basically hung up on me twice, telling me to RTFM. Each time, he had almost walked me through a restore that would fail as I finished it (exactly following a procedure that I had already tried), but he abandoned the conversation just before or just as I started the actual restore. Same tech responded to my email request for tech support and sent me to a different file that also did not work. No response after a week when I tried to contact support afterward to indicate continued failure.
Thanks, K0LO and MudCrab for your ideas and suggestions! Hopefully Acronis will fix this in a future build -- and leave it fixed.
I had to restore to a point prior to trying TIH2010 5055 to do this, since I was unable to uninstall TIH2010 build 5055, or to upgrade it to the current build, but that's done. I need to install TIH in order to make the CD ISO I need to back up my system, but I need to back up my system before I install TIH? Whee...
The current build, 6053, also works on my ThinkPad, but only if I use a bootable CD created by the application instead of the one you can download from Acronis. I would refer other similarly frustrated users to http://forum.acronis.com/content/8134 and to forum.acronis.com/content/4831, which at least explain the situation (if not the reasoning behind it).
I think the observation that I was not using the application-created medium was on the right track, but it didn't make sense to me why. Maybe the tech people should also ask this question, and back it up with the fact that the media behave in quite different manners on some hardware.
Zac:
The advice in the KB 8134 article is a gem:
Cause
Acronis Loader Bootable Media receives disk geometry information directly from BIOS. Hence, the product always has the correct information.
ISOLINUX Bootable Media, on the contrary, detects disk geometry on its own, not from BIOS. Hence, in some cases, the product may assign incorrect disk geometry, and as a result the restored system will be unbootable.
This explains a few of the cases posted here recently where people with Lenovo or Compaq 240-head BIOS geometry were left with unbootable systems. I'll have to remember this...