TI10 Clones, with a hitch

[frank_f]

I recently cloned a friend's hard disk using TI10 (build 4942). The job went smoothly but there was a weird "burp" at the end. I thought I'd pass it on in case anybody has a similar problem.

The computer was running XP Pro with three disk drives: internal C: and D: and USB external E:. The C drive was old and small so we were cloning it to a new larger drive.

We removed the D drive, connected the new C to that cable, booted up and ran the clone. When it was over (about 20 minutes) we powered down, re-connected the D drive and rebooted.

XP started to boot and a blue character-mode screen flashed up briefly with some messages that we couldn't read. Then XP rebooted into the original desktop. Everything looked great and we were about to congratulate ourselves on a job well done when I noticed something...My Computer showed only the C drive. The other two drives were missing.

The drives were jumpered and connected correctly and they were visible in the BIOS. The only problem was that Windows couldn't see them.

After several false starts I finally did what I should've done in the first place: checked Disk Management (Control Panel / Administrative Tools / Computer Management). All the disks were there, but the second and third disks were designated only as Disk 1 and Disk 2 - no drive letters. So I right-clicked on each drive and assigned the letters D and E.

Now My Computer could see the disks - but we couldn't congratulate ourselves yet. According to the Open File dialog in applications there were no files on the D drive! The dialog could see the drive and all its folders, but all folders were empty. No matter what filename mask we used we couldn't find any files.

Panic was beginning to set in so we did the only thing we could think of: we rebooted. When XP came up everything was back to normal.

I've never heard of this problem before and have no idea what happened. Isn't Windows supposed to assign a letter to every drive that shows up in the BIOS?

Frank

[Brian K]

frank_f,

Just to get this straight in my mind. You removed the "slave" HD and installed the new HD in its place. The external HD remained in place for the whole procedure. You performed the cloning process and shutdown. What did you do from this point with the hard drives? I'm not clear which HD was removed. Try and avoid using drive letters in your discussion as drive letters really exist only in the mind of the OS.

If you don't remove the old HD and boot with both HDs in place then it's normal for the new HD to have no drive letter.

[frank_f]

Brian -

More detail:

1. The system consisted of a master internal, slave internal and external. Before the cloning started I removed the slave temporarily and installed the new, blank unformatted HD on its cable. The jumpers on this new drive were set to the slave position. The system now consisted of the old master containing Windows, the new blank slave drive and the external drive.

2. the external HD remained in place for the whole procedure.

3. I booted off the master (not the CD) and started the cloning process. At the end I shut down completely. I was very careful *not* to boot with both OS-drives in place. I've read on this forum about all the trouble that can cause.

4. while the computer was off I removed the old master since it was no longer needed. Next I changed the jumpers on the new clone to the master position. Then I reinstalled the slave HD which I'd removed in step 1.

The system now consisted of the newly-cloned drive as master and the old slave. The old master had been pulled and was never re-installed.

5. Then I rebooted.

After posting this morning I started thinking about this a bit more...the system that was cloned onto the new drive saw the old master (the clone source), the unformatted drive (the clone target - did it get a letter?) and, most likely, the external. Maybe Windows got confused when I rebooted off the new drive?

Hope this is clear.
Frank

[Brian K]

Frank, thanks, very clear now. I've done many tests trying to make the TI clone process fail but I didn't think to try your scenario.

After posting this morning I started thinking about this a bit more...the system that was cloned onto the new drive saw the old master (the clone source), the unformatted drive (the clone target - did it get a letter?) and, most likely, the external. Maybe Windows got confused when I rebooted off the new drive?

I think there is merit in this assessment. TI has ways to protect itself from unusual cloning methods. Not assigning drive letters is one way. I've seen that. This quote from Dan Goodell is interesting.

For a long time now, "cloning" programs haven't been making true clones. But that's okay, because most of the time you don't really care if it's a true clone, you just want the end result to boot properly.

A true clone of a partition is an exact copy of the source partition--every sector, every fragmented file, every deleted file, the drive parameter block in the boot sector, the volume ID, the same boot.ini, DiskID, and registry [MountedDevices] key. However, almost always one or more of these items must be changed for the copy to boot properly. A few, like the drive parameter block and DiskID, are not directly up to you. The assorted cloning programs draw the line at different places as to how much of this they will modify ... "on your behalf", as it were.

IME, Terabyte's products, BootIt-NG and Image for DOS, are the most conservative programs (amongst those that are still viable on modern disks). You cannot even resize a partition when it is copied, it must be exactly the same size as the source. It tinkers the least with the copy, which makes for an extremely predictable and reliable result, but potentially leaves the most for the user to touch up.

Drive Image 2002 is almost as conservative--fragmented files are left fragmented, and boot.ini and the registry are untouched. It's not quite an exact clone because certain files aren't copied (such as the paging file and deleted files), and if you copy/restore to a different sized partition, it will obligingly adjust the boot sector and drive parameter block.

Ghost 2003 goes a step further. As normally used, files are copied instead of sectors (which means the copy ends up defragged in the process). It also attempts to adjust the boot.ini file, guessing at what will be needed to make the OS boot properly. But it still doesn't touch the registry.

AFAIK, Casper XP was first on the block to try adjusting the registry. That was soon followed by True Image (not sure which version--9, I think) and Ghost 10. (I don't think v9 tinkered with the registry.) I don't use all of these versions, so don't take my word for which versions do what, but the point is that increasing intelligence is being added (since Ghost 2003) to try and cover as many bumps in the road as possible, so hopefully the user doesn't have to do any touching up.

The caveat, though, is just how good they are with their guesswork. And it is still guesswork, despite what the marketing brochures would like you to believe--no program can be 100% sure what touchups are needed unless the program sees the copy installed in the exact spot it will need to boot from, and that's seldom the case. If you don't throw a scenario that is too complex at the program, they seem to guess quite reliably.

So, the general rules I've been propounding for the last several years are just that: generalizations. Different programs try to achieve different levels of sophistication, and the more intelligent they are the less touching up there may be left for you to do. But just because the program guesses right in some scenarios doesn't mean it will always guess right in other scenarios. My general rules will still help reduce the risk of you getting bit in the backside, but the more sophisticated the program, the looser you can be about following those rules.

For the first boot, the new HD should be the only HD attached. On subsequent boots, drive letters will be assigned to extra HDs.

[frank_f]

Originally Posted by Brian K

For the first boot, the new HD should be the only HD attached. On subsequent boots, drive letters will be assigned to extra HDs.

Bingo - I'm sure that had something to do with it. Very interesting passage from Dan Goodell. If I had to do it all over again I'd reboot with only the new drive attached.

TI does seem quite bullet-proof. I wouldn't call my episode a "failure." The most important thing to me was that the new disk mirrored the old one, and it was bootable.

Thanx

Frank

[Brian K]

Originally Posted by frank_f

TI does seem quite bullet-proof.

I agree. TI cloning is surprisingly robust. I deliberately broke both of Dan Goodell's rules and the TI clone worked.

http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/partsigs.htm