 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, yesterday I had a wonderful time, because I had to downgrade a
perfectly working PC from Windows XP to Windows NT.
When XP first appeared, I regarded NT as lean, simple, fast and stable.
XP on the other hand was bloated, overcomplicated, buggy and slow.
Well, let us look at the Windows NT installation and setup process,
shall we?
First you boot from the installation CD. Nothing new there. After a
moment or two of thrashing the head of the CD drive, you enter a
text-mode setup program, not unlike the one for XP.
There are a few little gotchas though. Firstly, the setup program
doesn't comprehend harddrives larger than 8 GB. (!!) Yes, this OS
predates large HDs. This is from the era where some HDs had a special
"capacity limit" jumper so as not to confuse MS-DOS or other primitive OSes.
So you can only see 8GB right now. But that's rather moot. You see, you
can create a partition as large as you like, but you can only *format* a
partition that is 4 GB or smaller.
The reason? Well, after creating the partition, you select the
filesystem you want. If you select FAT, the partition is formatted as
FAT. If you select NTFS, the partition is *still* formatted as FAT and
then *converted* to NTFS half way through the installation process.
FAT only supports 4 GB partitions, so even though the installer can see
up to 8 GB of space, you can only use 4 GB of it.
Once formatting has finished (which, on the 80 GB drive I was using, is
surprisingly fast...), several bazillion tiny files are copied to the
new partition. The computer then reboots... and enters setup again.
Yes, that's right. You have to remember to remove the install CD or it
start the installation process again. The Windows XP CD checks whether
an OS is installed and *prompts* you whether to enter setup if an OS is
found (and enters immediately if there is no OS yet). But Windows NT
does not have this refinement; _you_ must remember to yank the CD out
before the machine reboots.
Once you do this, the machine appears to be booting Windows NT. (For
those that don't remember, you get a black NT DETECT screen, followed by
a blue screen that says something like "Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 build
387273562734 UniProcessor Free 256 MB RAM...") Then the harddrive is
converted from FAT to NTFS. And then the computer reboots again. (Woe to
he who put the CD back in already!)
So now the PC is booting *again*, and you get the same blue screen. But
now a graphical setup program starts up, and immediately demands to
access the install CD. (Windows XP does this also, but since you
probably haven't removed the CD in the first place...)
The graphical portion is running at something absurd like 640x480 in
16-colour mode. It's like a trip back to the Windows 3.11 days. It looks
nausiating. Each character of text is the size of a small house.
Here XP and NT show there common linage: They are both carefully
designed so that you *cannot* just answer the installer's questions and
then come back when it's all finished. Because the installer asks you a
few things, installs some stuff, and then asks you more questions, then
does that bit, then pops up more questions. This *forces* you to
actually stand over the PC for the entire duration of the install.
The very first question is the license key. So I go look that up,
because I don't remember the answer any more. Then it asks for a name
and company. (What does it *use* this for anyway??) After a while, we
get to the "interesting" questions.
For example... what brand of network card do you have?
Ah, maybe you had forgotten? XP is a fully PnP OS, but NT requires you
to *tell* it what driver to install. Better yet, the Windows NT CD I
have was pressed about 15 years ago, so just about any imaginable NIC
you can buy today didn't exist when this CD was pressed. In other words,
there's no way in hell the driver you need is on the CD.
Regardless, the installer insists on spending 3 minutes building a
driver list before allowing you to click the "have disk..." button. At
this point, I switch to a working PC to scour the face of the Internet
for Windows NT drivers for a VIA Technologies VT6102 Ethernet NIC.
Fortunately this PC used to have Windows NT on it originally, so drivers
do in fact exist. Unzipping the driver package comes to 2 MB - too large
for a single floppy. But reading one of the multiple text files tells me
which *.SYS, *.DLL and *.INF files I need to copy. So I manually make a
driver disk, and the NT installer seems happy with that.
(It's rather amusing that instead of selecting a network card, you can
configure a dialup modem at this point...)
After several more questions, the installer finally finishes what it's
doing. Getting to this point used to take at least an hour back when NT
was a popular OS. But on the 1.6 GHz AMD Duron I'm using, with it's 80
GB HD, it's actually pretty fast. Having finished installing, the
computer reboots *again*.
This time, we get the full Windows NT boot sequence. For some reason,
this includes a 30-second delay where I can select whether to boot
normally or in "VGA mode". Anyway, booting up gives me a very low
resolution login prompt, not unlike Windows XP.
Logging in, the computer is a nightmare to operate. The NumLock is off
by default. Open a command prompt and it's wider than the entire screen.
(This makes closing the window "interesting".) But of course, my first
task is... to install Service Pack 6a, the last one made for this OS.
Once I eventually remember how to do this [I have the unpacked files on
one of my servers], it's a fairly simple matter.
[Amoung other things, the OS can now see all 80 GB of the harddrive.]
Having updated, I now want to install the graphics driver. I find the
Zip file on the server, and unpack it. (Remember, Windows XP can
automatically handle Zip files, but not NT.) I unpack the files onto the
machine, and look for a Setup.exe file...
...silly me! This is Windows NT. Under Windows XP, you install devices
by clicking on Setup.exe (or similar) and pressing [Next] a few times.
Under Windows NT, things are far more complicated. In this instance,
installing the device driver is as follows:
1. Open Display Properties.
2. Select Display Type.
3. Select Change Type...
4. Wait 3 minutes for the computer to build a list of obsolete graphics
cards.
5. Select Have Disk...
6. Point to the *.INF file in the unpacked folder.
7. A dialogue warns you that "This driver is provided by a third party.
It may or may not work with Windows NT. Your computer may become
unstable by installing this driver. Do you wish to proceed?" (Um, WTF?
YES!!)
8. The computer copies a few files, and then *insists* on rebooting.
When the computer boots back up, the NumLock is once again turned off,
but at least the login prompt is now in 256 colours. (I'm not
kidding...) Still the same spatial resolution though. But logging in,
I'm able to set it to true-colour and the resolution of my LCD. Now I
can turn on "smooth the edges of screen fonts" and "show icons using all
possible colours". (But you have to reboot for it to take effect.)
[Actually, a dialogue *claims* you must reboot. In reality, logging out
and back in is sufficient. Note that each time you log out, the screen
resolution changes back to what it was when the machine first booted. It
continues to do this until you reboot, where the new resolution becomes
permanent.]
At this point, I use a registry hack I know to permanently turn on the
NumLock key.
Ah, but what's this? Could it be...? Yes, it is. It's Internet Explorer
v1.0. In case you've never seen it, let be describe it. The default
colour scheme is black text on a 50% grey background. The font is
Tomahor, with no antialias. The buttons look like something from the
days of Windows 3 - which they probably *are*! It doesn't support CSS,
scripting, frames, images... It's an entire world of black text on grey
backgrouns. The only colour comes from nonstandard <FONT> tags and the
BGCOLOR attibute.
When you've finished scrubbing your eyeballs out, it's time to try to
figure out how the **** to update it. Surprisingly, Microsoft's website
does still host the download. You grab a 2MB file and run it, and it
proceeds to download a further 12MB of data and install it. (Depending
on what options you select. Some of them are quite comical. JavaScript
is *optional*??) So now it's IE 6 SP1. (But there's a slew of security
updates after that... which I can't be bothered with.)
Now it's time to install Office 97. This is a relatively simple
procedure. Having installed it, it needs updating to Service Release 2B.
To do this, you have to open Excel (or whatever) and look up a unique
serial number from the About box, and type that by hand into the update
tool. (WTF?) But after that it's quite simple. But you must, of course,
reboot.
Remember the Office Toolbar? Most buggy application launcher known to
mankind? Yeah. Great days...
Next it's time to install the device driver for the 8-port serial
adaptor. Oh great times! I put the CD in and click the "install driver"
button. It unpacks some files and then exists. Doesn't even tell me
where it put them. Hunting through the files it dropped, I eventually
find a README.TXT which tells me how to install the device driver:
1. Open Control Panel.
2. Select Network. (!!)
3. Go to the Adaptors tab.
4. Select Add Adaptor. (So... I'm adding a new network adaptor?!)
5. Select the *.INF file just unpacked.
6. The serial ports show up as a new network device. (WTF?!)
Installing the driver for the GPIB card is even more fun. An installer
does actually install the driver *for* you. (This is the very first
driver install that has been automatic.) However, after the driver is
installed, you must manually *tell* it how many GPIB interfaces you
have, and what their model numbers are. (!!)
Obviously I don't have this information to hand, so much guessing
ensues... Mercifully, a test facility as provided, so you can easily
determine when you've got it right. (I also love the way that you have
to open certain config windows and then close them without actually
doing anything, but it doesn't work otherwise...)
In summary... I hope I don't have to do this again in a hurry! Not my
idea of a fun time. :-P
In fairness, NT was quite a lot faster than XP. But that's about all it
had going for it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
> Well, yesterday I had a wonderful time, because I had to downgrade a
> perfectly working PC from Windows XP to Windows NT.
Oh! I thought you finally phoned the girl! XD
> When XP first appeared, I regarded NT as lean, simple, fast and stable.
> XP on the other hand was bloated, overcomplicated, buggy and slow.
Same as XP vs Vista! :)
> Well, let us look at the Windows NT installation and setup process,
> shall we?
>
> First you boot from the installation CD. Nothing new there. After a
> moment or two of thrashing the head of the CD drive, you enter a
> text-mode setup program, not unlike the one for XP.
Wow. And then you guys call Linux install complicated... :P
> So you can only see 8GB right now. But that's rather moot. You see, you
> can create a partition as large as you like, but you can only *format* a
> partition that is 4 GB or smaller.
Yes, that sounds fun. ;)
> In fairness, NT was quite a lot faster than XP. But that's about all it
> had going for it.
Yeah, shame you don't have source available to bump up those limits a
bit... :P
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
When you are finished, it would be wise to boot from a Knoppix CD
and connect an external USB HD (sdb) and do this in order to
backup your whole Win NT disk:
sudo su -
mkdir /mnt/sdb1
mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt/sdb1
dd if=/dev/sda of=/mnt/sdb1/WinNT_backup.img
Remember to first format sdb1 to a file system type that allows
for really big files. (E.g. ext3 or reiserfs)
Now, to restore your NT disk, you only have to do this:
sudo su -
mkdir /mnt/sdb1
mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt/sdb1
dd if=/mnt/sdb1/WinNT_backup.img of=/dev/sda
--
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
>
> When you are finished, it would be wise to boot from a Knoppix CD
> and connect an external USB HD (sdb) and do this in order to
> backup your whole Win NT disk:
>
> sudo su -
> mkdir /mnt/sdb1
> mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt/sdb1
> dd if=/dev/sda of=/mnt/sdb1/WinNT_backup.img
>
> Remember to first format sdb1 to a file system type that allows
> for really big files. (E.g. ext3 or reiserfs)
>
> Now, to restore your NT disk, you only have to do this:
>
> sudo su -
> mkdir /mnt/sdb1
> mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt/sdb1
> dd if=/mnt/sdb1/WinNT_backup.img of=/dev/sda
...or I could use Norton Ghost (which we have a commercial license for).
Trouble is, by the time I've set everything up, it's loaded with custom
device drivers and so forth. It would be so much work to get it going on
another machine that I might as well start from scratch.
But - more to the point - hopefully I will never, ever, have to do this
again! >_<
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Well, yesterday I had a wonderful time, because I had to downgrade a
>> perfectly working PC from Windows XP to Windows NT.
>
> Oh! I thought you finally phoned the girl! XD
Girls are obsolete technology??
(Surely it is *boys* who will shortly become obsolete...)
>> When XP first appeared, I regarded NT as lean, simple, fast and
>> stable. XP on the other hand was bloated, overcomplicated, buggy and
>> slow.
>
> Same as XP vs Vista! :)
Well... not really, no.
>> So you can only see 8GB right now. But that's rather moot. You see,
>> you can create a partition as large as you like, but you can only
>> *format* a partition that is 4 GB or smaller.
>
> Yes, that sounds fun. ;)
IIRC, at the BIOS level you need to use a different interrupt vector or
something to access larger disks. The original standard used fewer bits
or something, IDK. It's been such a long time since this was an issue -
rather like the whole "conventional RAM vs extended RAM" thing.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Well, yesterday I had a wonderful time, because I had to downgrade a
>>> perfectly working PC from Windows XP to Windows NT.
>>
>> Oh! I thought you finally phoned the girl! XD
>
> Girls are obsolete technology??
You said you had a wonderful time, but that was just sarcasm... :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
...
>> dd if=/dev/sda of=/mnt/sdb1/WinNT_backup.img
...
> ...or I could use Norton Ghost (which we have a commercial license for).
Hmmm... Why do companies want to use money on such programs ?
> Trouble is, by the time I've set everything up, it's loaded with custom
> device drivers and so forth. It would be so much work to get it going on
> another machine that I might as well start from scratch.
...
But what if the HD breaks ?
--
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> ...
>>> dd if=/dev/sda of=/mnt/sdb1/WinNT_backup.img
> ...
>> ...or I could use Norton Ghost (which we have a commercial license for).
>
> Hmmm... Why do companies want to use money on such programs ?
>
>
>> Trouble is, by the time I've set everything up, it's loaded with
>> custom device drivers and so forth. It would be so much work to get it
>> going on another machine that I might as well start from scratch.
> ...
>
> But what if the HD breaks ?
- or if the PC is rooted ?
- or if the installation is messed up by a virus or an employee ?
--
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tor Olav Kristensen <tor### [at] toberemovedgmail com> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> > Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> ...
> >> dd if=/dev/sda of=/mnt/sdb1/WinNT_backup.img
> ...
> > ...or I could use Norton Ghost (which we have a commercial license for).
> Hmmm... Why do companies want to use money on such programs ?
If the program breaks, they have someone to call to. No such luck with
free software.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Tor Olav Kristensen <tor### [at] toberemovedgmailcom> wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
>> ...
>>>> dd if=/dev/sda of=/mnt/sdb1/WinNT_backup.img
>> ...
>>> ...or I could use Norton Ghost (which we have a commercial license for).
>
>> Hmmm... Why do companies want to use money on such programs ?
>
> If the program breaks, they have someone to call to. No such luck with
> free software.
So you are saying that their chances of having the problem fixed in time
is better if they have paid money for the program ?
--
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Tor Olav Kristensen <tor### [at] toberemovedgmailcom> wrote:
>>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> dd if=/dev/sda of=/mnt/sdb1/WinNT_backup.img
>>> ...
>>>> ...or I could use Norton Ghost (which we have a commercial license
>>>> for).
>>
>>> Hmmm... Why do companies want to use money on such programs ?
>>
>> If the program breaks, they have someone to call to. No such luck with
>> free software.
>
> So you are saying that their chances of having the problem fixed in time
> is better if they have paid money for the program ?
Sure. If Norton Ghost dies they can spend hours on the phone or in
email exchanges to both act all bossy customer and demand a new copy or
a fix, rather than spending a few minutes getting Knoppix to boot and
then typing those 4 lines.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> You said you had a wonderful time, but that was just sarcasm... :P
"What, do I need to hold up a sign saying 'sarcasm' every time?"
"You have a sign like that?"
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> When you are finished, it would be wise to boot from a Knoppix CD
> and connect an external USB HD (sdb) and do this in order to
> backup your whole Win NT disk:
Or you could use the free DriveXML that walks you thru the process, saving
only the space occupied by files, compressing and/or splitting the result,
and restores just as easily. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> ...
>>> dd if=/dev/sda of=/mnt/sdb1/WinNT_backup.img
> ...
>> ...or I could use Norton Ghost (which we have a commercial license for).
>
> Hmmm... Why do companies want to use money on such programs ?
Because they work better.
> But what if the HD breaks ?
What if the HD breaks, and you can only now buy a larger one than you had
when you made the image backup? You're SOL.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> You said you had a wonderful time, but that was just sarcasm... :P
>
> "What, do I need to hold up a sign saying 'sarcasm' every time?"
> "You have a sign like that?"
I understood it was sarcasm, but couldn't let the joke go... :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> What if the HD breaks, and you can only now buy a larger one than you had
> when you made the image backup? You're SOL.
At least on the unix side "cp -ax" is useful to create an exact mirror
of the *contents* (ie. at the file level, rather than the raw sector level)
of a disk, to be restored later, or transferred to another disk (even if
that another disk has a different size).
Of course being just a copy of the files means that it won't restore
any partition info, etc. but at least you don't have to worry about the
disk changing size.
I don't know how well this could be used to back up an NTFS partition,
though.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> You said you had a wonderful time, but that was just sarcasm... :P
>>
>> "What, do I need to hold up a sign saying 'sarcasm' every time?"
>> "You have a sign like that?"
>
> I understood it was sarcasm, but couldn't let the joke go... :P
/me holds up sign reading "Sarcasm".
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I don't know how well this could be used to back up an NTFS partition,
> though.
One advantage Linux would have here is that Windows wouldn't be running and
accessing the disk and such. Also, Windows goes out of its way to keep you
from doing things like reading and writing the security files, for obvious
reasons. You can get around it under Windows, but it's not as trivial as
copying things in Linux is - you kind of have to say "make a snapshot so I
can copy it for backup purposes".
On the other hand, if you make a backup without understanding it, you have
to restore it to the same place. As a trivial example, restoring the
free-space bitmap file is going to cause troubles if you don't. Obviously
you'd have to know what files you're copying and skip the ones that should
be skipped. (Unlike traditional Unix file systems, all the NTFS data on a
disk is actually in files, including the MFT (aka i-nodes), the free space
bitmaps, etc.) I seem to have 80 unmovable files on my system drive (which
seems very high to me) and 20 on my media drive (that's just data). It looks
like about half of those are related to shadow copies, and a lot of the
system tables don't get to move, but otherwise it still seems like a high
number. </ramble>
I'm pretty sure the Linux tools for NTFS don't make precise file-level
copies, to the point where you could restore things to a blank disk and
expect to be able to boot it and have it run. They don't do encryption, they
don't handle alternate data streams (as far as I know), they don't handle
the system-level streams (like security, escrow keys, reparse points (aka
sym links), etc), and so on. Not bad for backing up your data, but I
wouldn't want to try to restore *just* the data and (for example) none of
the security descriptors.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
>> When you are finished, it would be wise to boot from a Knoppix CD
>> and connect an external USB HD (sdb) and do this in order to
>> backup your whole Win NT disk:
>
> Or you could use the free DriveXML that walks you thru the process, saving
> only the space occupied by files, compressing and/or splitting the result,
> and restores just as easily. :-)
Does it dump your disk metadata into XML? Ie. do you need a disk 10x bigger
to save the backup? :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Does it dump your disk metadata into XML?
Yes, but only the metadata. The actual sectors are saved as binary, but the
directory structures letting you restore individual files (for example) are
in XML, so as to make it easier to recover your files in the event you don't
have the tool available. Hence the name.
> Ie. do you need a disk 10x bigger
> to save the backup? :P
No. My 22G backup winds up with 26M of metadata in XML. And the tags for
individual files are all one character, so the author was a bit cognizant of
the problem.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>>>> dd if=/dev/sda of=/mnt/sdb1/WinNT_backup.img
>>>> ...
>>>>> ...or I could use Norton Ghost (which we have a commercial license
>>>>> for).
>>>
>>>> Hmmm... Why do companies want to use money on such programs ?
>>>
>>> If the program breaks, they have someone to call to. No such luck with
>>> free software.
>>
>> So you are saying that their chances of having the problem fixed in
>> time is better if they have paid money for the program ?
>
> Sure. If Norton Ghost dies they can spend hours on the phone or in
> email exchanges to both act all bossy customer and demand a new copy or
> a fix, rather than spending a few minutes getting Knoppix to boot and
> then typing those 4 lines.
In fairness, Ghost does much, much more than dd does. In particular,
Ghost comprehends NTFS, so you can do things like restore to a partition
of a different size, backup only the "used" sectors, etc. It also has
the ability to backup and restore over the network using compression and
so forth. And you can browse and modify the backup image on the server
without having to restore it first. And...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> ...or I could use Norton Ghost (which we have a commercial license for).
>>
>> Hmmm... Why do companies want to use money on such programs ?
Because it has useful functionallity that saves us money?
>> But what if the HD breaks ?
>
> - or if the PC is rooted ?
> - or if the installation is messed up by a virus or an employee ?
Well, let us hope that doesn't happen in the next 3 weeks then, eh?
After that, the machine I just spent all this time setting up is going
to be decommissioned anyway. (GAH! >_< That was *so* worth it...)
The new machines are going to be set up from a Ghost image, so if one
breaks it'll be much faster to fix.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
...
> In fairness, Ghost does much, much more than dd does. In particular,
> Ghost comprehends NTFS, so you can do things like restore to a partition
> of a different size, backup only the "used" sectors, etc. It also has
> the ability to backup and restore over the network using compression and
> so forth.
knoppix@Knoppix:~$ konqueror man:dd man:ssh man:gzip &
knoppix@Knoppix:~$ sudo su -
root@Knoppix:~# dd if=/dev/sda bs=1k conv=sync,noerror | gzip -c | ssh
-c blowfish andrew@linuxbox "dd of=sda.img.gz bs=1k"
Also see:
http://wiki.egee-see.org/index.php/SEE-GRID_Guide_on_WN_replication
> And you can browse and modify the backup image on the server
> without having to restore it first.
andrew@linuxbox ~ $ gunzip sda.img.gz
andrew@linuxbox ~ $ /sbin/sfdisk -l -uS sda.img
andrew@linuxbox ~ $ konqueror man:mount
(Look for loop and offset)
Also see:
http://www.andremiller.net/content/mounting-hard-disk-image-including-partitions-using-linux
> And...
knoppix@Knoppix:~$ konqueror man:man man:info &
--
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> ...
>> In fairness, Ghost does much, much more than dd does. In particular,
>> Ghost comprehends NTFS, so you can do things like restore to a
>> partition of a different size, backup only the "used" sectors, etc. It
>> also has the ability to backup and restore over the network using
>> compression and so forth.
>
> knoppix@Knoppix:~$ konqueror man:dd man:ssh man:gzip &
> knoppix@Knoppix:~$ sudo su -
> root@Knoppix:~# dd if=/dev/sda bs=1k conv=sync,noerror | gzip -c | ssh
> -c blowfish andrew@linuxbox "dd of=sda.img.gz bs=1k"
None of this lets you restore to a partition of a different size or backup
only the used sectors, or browse the files in the backup over the network
without decompressing them.
It also doesn't let you clone a new Windows machine from an old one.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> In fairness, Ghost does much, much more than dd does. In particular,
> Ghost comprehends NTFS, so you can do things like restore to a partition
> of a different size, backup only the "used" sectors, etc.
Like the many ntfstools? I'm sure there's one that can skip free blocks.
> It also has
> the ability to backup and restore over the network using compression and
> so forth.
According to Unix philosophy, no backup tool should have compression
built-in. If you need it, you use a pipe and an external compression tool.
> And you can browse and modify the backup image on the server
> without having to restore it first.
Mount it with a loop device.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Like the many ntfstools? I'm sure there's one that can skip free blocks.
Yes, but what's the point in adding a UNIX dependency when there are free
ghosting tools that work just fine entirely under Windows and without you
even having to quiesce the file system before you ghost it?
If you really want to know why someone would pay money for the product, look
at the page on wikipedia to see the list of features it would be a PITA to
put together under Linux. For *some* people, time is money. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> In fairness, Ghost does much, much more than dd does. In particular,
>> Ghost comprehends NTFS, so you can do things like restore to a partition
>> of a different size, backup only the "used" sectors, etc.
>
> Like the many ntfstools? I'm sure there's one that can skip free blocks.
Are there any that aren't alpha? Every system I've seen for reading NTFS
from Linux is either read-only or has a big flashing red disclaimer on
it. Ghost was written by people who's signed the NDA and seen the spec
for the NTFS filesystem.
>> And you can browse and modify the backup image on the server
>> without having to restore it first.
>
> Mount it with a loop device.
Random, but... why the hell do you need a loopback "device" in the first
place? Why can't you just mount (say) an ISO image directly? Requiring a
loopback device means that
1. there are only a finite number of them available,
2. before you can mount anything loopback, you have to determine which
device numbers (if any) are free.
It just seems unecessarily complicated...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> In fairness, Ghost does much, much more than dd does. In particular,
>>> Ghost comprehends NTFS, so you can do things like restore to a partition
>>> of a different size, backup only the "used" sectors, etc.
>>
>> Like the many ntfstools? I'm sure there's one that can skip free blocks.
>
> Are there any that aren't alpha? Every system I've seen for reading NTFS
> from Linux is either read-only or has a big flashing red disclaimer on
> it. Ghost was written by people who's signed the NDA and seen the spec
> for the NTFS filesystem.
>
>>> And you can browse and modify the backup image on the server without
>>> having to restore it first.
>>
>> Mount it with a loop device.
>
> Random, but... why the hell do you need a loopback "device" in the first
> place? Why can't you just mount (say) an ISO image directly? Requiring a
> loopback device means that
>
> 1. there are only a finite number of them available,
Have a look at this document:
http://www.slax.org/documentation_loop_mount.php
Here's how I understand the situation:
Linux kernels earlier than v. 2.6.23 had 8 loop devices, unless you specified more
Linux kernel v. 2.6.23 had 256 loop devices
Linux kernel v. 2.6.24 and later does not have these limitations
> 2. before you can mount anything loopback, you have to determine which
> device numbers (if any) are free.
Just try this:
mount -o loop,offset=somenumberofbytes ~/sda.img /mnt/sda1
From the mount manual:
"If no explicit loop device is mentioned (but just an option ‘-o loop’ is given),
then
mount will try to find some unused loop device and use that."
--
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Mount it with a loop device.
>>
>> Random, but... why the hell do you need a loopback "device" in the
>> first place? Why can't you just mount (say) an ISO image directly?
>> Requiring a loopback device means that
>>
>> 1. there are only a finite number of them available,
>
> Have a look at this document:
> http://www.slax.org/documentation_loop_mount.php
>
> Here's how I understand the situation:
>
> Linux kernels earlier than v. 2.6.23 had 8 loop devices, unless you
> specified more
> Linux kernel v. 2.6.23 had 256 loop devices
> Linux kernel v. 2.6.24 and later does not have these limitations
The device files still have to exist in the filesystem though. (That's a
fairly bizare concept in itself...)
>> 2. before you can mount anything loopback, you have to determine which
>> device numbers (if any) are free.
>
> Just try this:
>
> mount -o loop,offset=somenumberofbytes ~/sda.img /mnt/sda1
>
> From the mount manual:
> "If no explicit loop device is mentioned (but just an option ‘-o loop’
> is given), then mount will try to find some unused loop device and use
> that."
So somebody wrote the code to automatically select a free device. The
fact is, you still need there to be a free device. I still don't get why
you can't just mount the file itself...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>>> Mount it with a loop device.
>>>
>>> Random, but... why the hell do you need a loopback "device" in the
>>> first place? Why can't you just mount (say) an ISO image directly?
>>> Requiring a loopback device means that
>>>
>>> 1. there are only a finite number of them available,
>>
>> Have a look at this document:
>> http://www.slax.org/documentation_loop_mount.php
>>
>> Here's how I understand the situation:
>>
>> Linux kernels earlier than v. 2.6.23 had 8 loop devices, unless you
>> specified more
>> Linux kernel v. 2.6.23 had 256 loop devices
>> Linux kernel v. 2.6.24 and later does not have these limitations
>
> The device files still have to exist in the filesystem though. (That's a
> fairly bizare concept in itself...)
>
>>> 2. before you can mount anything loopback, you have to determine
>>> which device numbers (if any) are free.
>>
>> Just try this:
>>
>> mount -o loop,offset=somenumberofbytes ~/sda.img /mnt/sda1
>>
>> From the mount manual:
>> "If no explicit loop device is mentioned (but just an option ‘-o
>> loop’ is given), then mount will try to find some unused loop device
>> and use that."
>
> So somebody wrote the code to automatically select a free device. The
> fact is, you still need there to be a free device.
If your kernel is of a newer version there will always be a free loop device,
I.e. you don't have to worry about that.
> fact is, you still need there to be a free device. I still don't get why
> you can't just mount the file itself...
Because the file is not a block device.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_device
--
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I still don't get why you can't just mount the file itself...
>
> Because the file is not a block device.
I thought the whole idea of the "device file" abstraction is that
accessing an entire device is no different from accessing a regular
file. And, if that's the case, you'd expect storing a filesystem inside
a file to be no different than storing a filesystem on a device.
And yet, it *is* different - one automatically works, the other requires
you to jump through hoops. Or, loops, in this case...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> The device files still have to exist in the filesystem though. (That's a
> fairly bizare concept in itself...)
It's legacy.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> If you really want to know why someone would pay money for the product,
> look at the page on wikipedia to see the list of features it would be a
> PITA to put together under Linux. For *some* people, time is money. :-)
I guess I currently have more time than money :D
That's a reason why teenagers pirate too. They have more time to try
multiple super-complicated DRM-cracking programs till they get it to work
than they have money to buy a genuine copy.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> 2. before you can mount anything loopback, you have to determine which
> device numbers (if any) are free.
Uh, no.
mount -o loop file.iso mountpoint
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> That's a reason why teenagers pirate too. They have more time to try
> multiple super-complicated DRM-cracking programs till they get it to work
> than they have money to buy a genuine copy.
Oh... really? I thought it was because teenagers think they have a
*right* to get whatever they want. (Or possibly becuase they have no
money.) Guess I was wrong... again.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> The device files still have to exist in the filesystem though. (That's
>> a fairly bizare concept in itself...)
>
> It's legacy.
I'll say...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> None of this lets you restore to a partition of a different size or
> backup only the used sectors, or browse the files in the backup over the
> network without decompressing them.
>
> It also doesn't let you clone a new Windows machine from an old one.
Hmmm... Do many companies put themselves in situations that demands such
features ?
--
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
>> When you are finished, it would be wise to boot from a Knoppix CD
>> and connect an external USB HD (sdb) and do this in order to
>> backup your whole Win NT disk:
>
> Or you could use the free DriveXML that walks you thru the process,
> saving only the space occupied by files, compressing and/or splitting
> the result, and restores just as easily. :-)
Ok, but what is the procedure then for using DriveXML to restore a
system that will not boot ?
--
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> None of this lets you restore to a partition of a different size or
>> backup only the used sectors, or browse the files in the backup over
>> the network without decompressing them.
>>
>> It also doesn't let you clone a new Windows machine from an old one.
>
> Hmmm... Do many companies put themselves in situations that demands such
> features ?
Sure. When you have 5,000 Windows machines to deploy to your employees, or
if you want to restore the backup to a bigger drive because the old one
failed...
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> Ok, but what is the procedure then for using DriveXML to restore a
> system that will not boot ?
BartPE. Boot into a Windows LiveCD, partition and format the disk, and
start up DriveXML and click "restore". Pretty much like Linux.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
>> Ok, but what is the procedure then for using DriveXML to restore a
>> system that will not boot ?
>
> BartPE. Boot into a Windows LiveCD, partition and format the disk, and
> start up DriveXML and click "restore". Pretty much like Linux.
So one would have had to make a BartPE CD prior to the restoration ?
- And for it to be legal one would have to either have made the CD
from the Windows installation that one are about to restore or from
a Windows installation that has been deleted after the BartPE CD
was made ?
I.e. each BartPE CD must have it's own license ?
--
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> None of this lets you restore to a partition of a different size or
>>> backup only the used sectors, or browse the files in the backup over
>>> the network without decompressing them.
>>>
>>> It also doesn't let you clone a new Windows machine from an old one.
>>
>> Hmmm... Do many companies put themselves in situations that demands
>> such features ?
>
> Sure. When you have 5,000 Windows machines to deploy to your employees,
> or if you want to restore the backup to a bigger drive because the old
> one failed...
Does Windows refuse to run if the HD has grown bigger than the partitions
it holds ?
--
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> Does Windows refuse to run if the HD has grown bigger than the partitions
> it holds ?
No (or, rather, not that I know of...), but it makes it rather difficult to
use the extra space. Especially if there are multiple partitions on the
disk. It's possible there are MBR formats on the newer machines that know
how big the disk is and such, but the original MBR doesn't, assuming you use
LBA, which most everyone does nowadays.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> So one would have had to make a BartPE CD prior to the restoration ?
Yes.
> - And for it to be legal one would have to either have made the CD
> from the Windows installation that one are about to restore or from
> a Windows installation that has been deleted after the BartPE CD
> was made ?
One would assume so, yes. I *think* it may be that you can run only the
BartPE or the Windows installation you have a license for, but not both at
once. So if I understand it properly, you could make the BartPE disk before
you screw up your Windows and just leave it sit, legally. IANAL, YMMV, etc.
> I.e. each BartPE CD must have it's own license ?
Basically, I think it goes that you can only run one Windows per license. If
you boot the BartPE disk on the machine that has the Windows that has a
license, you're running Windows off the CD and not the HD, so there ya go.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> So one would have had to make a BartPE CD prior to the restoration ?
Of course, you could install enough Windows to get DriveXML running and
restore over top of the partition, I imagine.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Of course, you could install enough Windows to get DriveXML running and
> restore over top of the partition, I imagine.
Or just buy a copy of Ghost and image your disk into a file that'll run in a
VM on some other machine... :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:38:43 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Are there any that aren't alpha?
ntfs-3g is not alpha.
That doesn't mean there aren't disclaimers, Microsoft does have a habit
of making changes and not advertising them to the world.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:09:56 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> The device files still have to exist in the filesystem though. (That's
>> a fairly bizare concept in itself...)
>
> It's legacy.
But it is still heavily used, even by software in current development.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
