Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage > #2329

Re: Does shrinking a partition lop off content at top of partition?

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

GMAN wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> GMAN wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> GMAN wrote
>>>>> AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>>> I was talking to tech support about cloning all 4 partitions in
>>>>>> my Toshiba Satellite A660 laptop to a smaller auxiliary HDD (not
>>>>>> creating an image, but a clone -- recoverable image may be in the
>>>>>> plans in the future).  If the laptop HDD suffers a hardware
>>>>>> failure, I can drop the clone into the laptop, be up and running
>>>>>> (and source down a new HDD). Alternatively, the newer (faster)
>>>>>> HDD can displace the current HDD.

>>>>>> From asking in forums, partition 1 is for booting, partition 2 is
>>>>>> the C-drive, and partitions 3 & 4 are for various recovery
>>>>>> operations and content.  According to experienced posters,
>>>>>> Acronis True Image and Norton Ghost will both adjust partition 2
>>>>>> in the cloning process so that all partititions fit in the
>>>>>> target HDD, without requiring the partitions to be resized in
>>>>>> the source HDD. I find it reassuring that I don't have to mess
>>>>>> with the partitions on the source HDD until I've confirmed the
>>>>>> integrity & full functionality of all partitions in the target HDD.

>>>>>> However, one Toshiba forum poster said that shrinking partition 2
>>>>>> causes partitions 3 & 4 to start at lower locations, and he found
>>>>>> that the recovery functionality was lost.  I didn't ask for
>>>>>> further details but there are two functions he could be
>>>>>> referring to: (1) the creationg of recovery discs using a
>>>>>> dedicated Toshiba app and (2) restoring to factory state
>>>>>> (Toshiba's are designed to do this by pressing 0 during power
>>>>>> up).  I want to retain both functions (1) and (2) in the clone.

>>>>> The second you booted that laptop out of the box new, you should
>>>>> have proceeded to create those recovery DVD's using the built in app.

>>>> No need to do it that urgently when it will be replaced under
>>>> warranty if it fails very early before its been used for anything much.

>>> Most the time, the warranty doesnt cover when someone messes up
>>> their pc due to a software issue.

>> You dont need the recovery disks for that, thats what the diskless recovery is for.

> True, but if that is messed up also then its handy to have
> the disks to boot from and run the recovery from.

If you're that much of a technklutz, it makes a hell of a lot more
sense to clone the entire physical drive to an external drive.

Thats much quicker to do and much quicker to use than
either recovery system and recovers what you have done
config wise before you perpertrated that abortion.

You need full backups anyway, it makes no sense to be wasting
all that time making dozens of copys of the restore media which
you will never use because you use the backups instead and dont
lose what you have done since it was factory fresh either.

>>> Like if someone went and manually deleted a critical
>>> windows DLL , the pc manufacturer would just tell the
>>> customer to resintall from their recover disks or partition.

>> And since that doesnt affect the recovery partition, you dont need the recovery disks.

> Its always SMART to create them immediately when you first setup the PC.

Wrong.

> Why wait till something happens?

It makes a lot more sense to have a full backup of the drive instead.

>>> Maybe its different there in Australia, but here in the
>>> US software issues are not covered under warranty.

>> Thats just plain wrong if the software is faulty as supplied.

> Sure, if it gets shipped messed up, then they would of course warrant it.

And if it never works properly, its still covered by the warranty too.

> But if you or I went and deleted the system folder, stuff like that is not covered.

Thats nothing like your original claim.

>>>> The reason its desirable to ensure that they can be created
>>>> anytime is because it isnt hard to mislay the recovery disks
>>>> after they have been created.

>>> Agreed, but most pc makers ony allow the creation of
>>> 1 set of disks and then the software wont create anymore.

>> He says that that isnt true with that Toshiba.

>>> I always copy the disks after i have made the
>>> recovery set and keep them at a relatives house.

>> I dont bother, because they are buyable in the unlikely event
>> that your house burns down or is washed away by a flood etc.

> I guess if you want to risk years down the line
> that HP or DELL will have the disks still available.

There is no risk, I have more than one full image of the drive.

Its only in the extremely unlikely event that a state wide catastrophe
wipes out the system, and all the full images, and all other backups,
and it turns out to be possible to washout the original system and
reuse it again, but not the original drive, that I would ever need the
recovery media, and that aint gunna happen.

> I for one dont want to be withput a PC for 2 weeks while waiting for them to be shipped.

I never ever have just one PC and if the whole house burns
down etc I would have to buy replacements anyway.

> Plus why not be smart and make then yourself?

Because I have full images of the drive as part of the backup process
that allows me to restore a lot more than just the original factory config.

The only time the original factory config is any use to me is if I am
planning to discard that machine and want to restore it to the original
config for whoever I choose to give it to. And that is available from
the full images anyway.

You're both only considering a small part of the real problem.

Which is why no one is actually silly enough to employ you to do this sort of thing.

>> If I need to use them after an event like that, the laptop is normally history too. 

Back to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Does shrinking a partition lop off content at top of partition? AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-05 16:31 -0800
  Re: Does shrinking a partition lop off content at top of partition? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-06 17:57 +1100
  Re: Does shrinking a partition lop off content at top of partition? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-06 09:46 +0000
    Re: Does shrinking a partition lop off content at top of partition? "john james" <jj@jj.com> - 2012-01-07 08:02 +1100
    Re: Does shrinking a partition lop off content at top of partition? AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-06 21:55 -0800
      Re: Does shrinking a partition lop off content at top of partition? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-07 14:15 +0000
        Re: Does shrinking a partition lop off content at top of partition? AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-07 13:12 -0800
          Re: Does shrinking a partition lop off content at top of partition? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-07 22:50 +0000
            Re: Does shrinking a partition lop off content at top of partition? AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-08 16:27 -0800
  Re: Does shrinking a partition lop off content at top of partition? Winniethepooh@100acrewoods.net (GMAN) - 2012-01-06 16:39 +0000
    Re: Does shrinking a partition lop off content at top of partition? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-07 08:14 +1100
      Re: Does shrinking a partition lop off content at top of partition? Winniethepooh@100acrewoods.net (GMAN) - 2012-01-06 21:35 +0000
        Re: Does shrinking a partition lop off content at top of partition? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-07 14:46 +1100
          Re: Does shrinking a partition lop off content at top of partition? AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-06 22:07 -0800
            Re: Does shrinking a partition lop off content at top of partition? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-07 14:19 +0000
              Re: Does shrinking a partition lop off content at top of partition? "john james" <jj@jj.com> - 2012-01-08 06:28 +1100
                Re: Does shrinking a partition lop off content at top of partition? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-07 22:51 +0000
            Re: Does shrinking a partition lop off content at top of partition? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-08 07:33 +1100
              Re: Does shrinking a partition lop off content at top of partition? AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-07 13:31 -0800
          Re: Does shrinking a partition lop off content at top of partition? Winniethepooh@100acrewoods.net (GMAN) - 2012-01-07 15:44 +0000
            Re: Does shrinking a partition lop off content at top of partition? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-08 07:09 +1100
        Re: Does shrinking a partition lop off content at top of partition? Krypsis <krypsis@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-01-08 01:40 +1100
          Re: Does shrinking a partition lop off content at top of partition? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-08 06:54 +1100
          Re: Does shrinking a partition lop off content at top of partition? AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-07 13:19 -0800
          Re: Does shrinking a partition lop off content at top of partition? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-07 22:56 +0000

csiph-web