Increasing Partition Size doesn't work

Discussion in 'Acronis Disk Director Suite' started by Volkmar, Dec 23, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Volkmar

    Volkmar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Posts:
    55
    Hi there,

    I tried to increase the size of the partition E: using space from partition F: (see my other post for a snapshot of the partitions).
    I used the assistent, ervything seemed to work well, rebooting etc.

    The only thing is: the size of the two partition haven't changed! No error message, nothing in the log file. I repeated the process - same result.

    Any ideas?

    Volkmar
     
  2. MudCrab

    MudCrab Imaging Specialist

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2006
    Posts:
    6,483
    Location:
    California
    If you only tried the procedure from Windows, boot to the DD CD and try it.

    If you did try from the DD CD, did you do all the operations at once or did you do each step manually and apply the changes between each step?
     
  3. Volkmar

    Volkmar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Posts:
    55
    I only tried it from Windows. Shouldn't that work or at least give me an indication if it failed? In 10 minutes the backup image for disk1 will be complete, than I will give it another try.
    Volkmar
     
  4. Volkmar

    Volkmar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Posts:
    55
    In the meantime I got rid of the first unlabeled partition successfully (new status attached).

    If I try to remove the remaining unlabeled partition on drive 1, drive 1 disappears in the list! So I guess I better don't do that.

    When I set up the steps for increasing the size of partition E using free space from F: and look at the summary as well as the picture before executing, it lists as the first step that the second unlabeled partition needs to be moved as well and the unallocated space at the end of the partition has disappeared as well, even though I didn't involve it at all (see second attachment).

    I guess that is the explanation why the size increase doesn't work. However not be able to chaneg the size of the other partitions I don't like either.

    Interesting, any ideas?

    Volkmar
     

    Attached Files:

  5. MudCrab

    MudCrab Imaging Specialist

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2006
    Posts:
    6,483
    Location:
    California
    Windows shouldn't normally need to reboot to make changes to non-system partitions. Do you have system files on any of the affected partitions?

    While in Windows, can you do the procedure one step at a time and get it to work? At what point does it say a reboot is required?

    For example:
    Resize F: smaller by dragging the left edge to the right. Apply the change.
    Resize E: larger by dragging the right edge to the right. Apply the change.

    I don't see why either of these changes would affect the FAT32 partition.
     
  6. Volkmar

    Volkmar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Posts:
    55
    Hi,

    this is exactly what I did. Decreasing F worked, than I created a new partion with the unallocated space. Then I merged the new partition with E:.
    In between one or two reboots where required (don't know exactly when). Right now I'm doing another full image of disk 1 so I can't repeat it.
    On F: I do have the Internet Temp Directory.

    I tried to use the unallocated space at the end of the disk, but it did't work.

    Volkmar
     
  7. K0LO

    K0LO Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Posts:
    2,591
    Location:
    State College, Pennsylvania
    The merge is probably the problem step. Don't create a new partition - after decreasing F: just leave unallocated space between E: and F:. Then resize E: to include the unallocated space.
     
  8. Volkmar

    Volkmar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Posts:
    55
    Mark,

    even though I had to reboot at the end it worked that way.

    Still the question remains why it wouldn't work via the assistent approach.

    So I'm ok right now.

    (It would be nice to get rid of the two strange areas at the end of disk 1, but this seems not be possible.)

    Volkmar
     
  9. K0LO

    K0LO Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Posts:
    2,591
    Location:
    State College, Pennsylvania
    Volkmar:

    I tend to avoid the "Merge" and "Split" functions in Disk Director; I think they are broken. Even if they worked properly they are somewhat dangerous to use since they first copy data from one partition to another and then perform the Resize operation. I would prefer to do the data copying myself to verify that the files were copied properly before attempting a resize operation. Also, many users of DD who really just want to enlarge or shrink a partition will attempt to use "Merge", when that is not the correct function to use. They instead need to do a "Resize" operation.

    Which areas on Disk 1 are you referring to? I only see a FAT32 partition in your graphic image. Is that what you want to eliminate or is it something else?
     
  10. Volkmar

    Volkmar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Posts:
    55
    Mark,

    I used this approach because the right click menu on th eunallocated space didn't show any other feasible option. Probably I should have selected partition E: and then simply increase it with the unallocated space.

    The current snapshot is the first in the post that has two (in the meantime the size of E and F have changed but the backup is still running so I can't take another one).

    At the end of disk 1 you can see a hidden unlabeled partition and an unallocated area.
    When I try to delete the partition, the disk 1 will disappear from the graphics entirely (it starts then with disk 2). So I figured I better don't continue.
    When I try to create a partition out of the unallocated area and then merge it with e.g. F. it will do the reboot and after that nothing has changed.

    Volkmar
     
  11. K0LO

    K0LO Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Posts:
    2,591
    Location:
    State College, Pennsylvania
    My first inclination to eliminate the unallocated space would be to resize the FAT32 partition. However, it is very strange that your disk would disappear when you attempt to delete the FAT32 partition. So without knowing what this partition is and what it does I would probably just leave things alone. Can you explore the FAT32 partition by using Disk Director? Double-click on it and see what kinds of files are in there. Is this a recovery partition? 2.75 GB seems a little small for a Windows XP recovery partition; they are usually closer to 5 GB.
     
  12. Volkmar

    Volkmar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Posts:
    55
    Mark,

    it shows a partition C: with some folder (which are different from the visible drive c of course).

    I attached the info pop-up window.
    I appreciate your help.
    Volkmar
     

    Attached Files:

  13. K0LO

    K0LO Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Posts:
    2,591
    Location:
    State College, Pennsylvania
    Volkmar:

    Right-click on the partition and choose "Explore" to see the file contents as shown below:

    Explore.png

    Perhaps the contents of the partition will give us a clue about its function.
     
  14. Volkmar

    Volkmar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Posts:
    55
    here you go,
    I opened all folders.
    Volkmar
     

    Attached Files:

    • neu.jpg
      neu.jpg
      File size:
      77.4 KB
      Views:
      2
  15. K0LO

    K0LO Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Posts:
    2,591
    Location:
    State College, Pennsylvania
    Volkmar:

    That appears to be a Dell Recovery partition that can be used to restore your PC to factory state. If you back it up with True Image then you should be able to delete it, assuming that you want to gain use of the disk space.

    Is there a BIOS setting that locks the partition? On my Lenovo laptop there are settings for the recovery partition to make it 1)Locked and protected or 2) Visible and reclaimable. Do you have similar settings?

    Now that you have readjusted the other partitions, does the entire disk still vanish if you try to delete the recovery partition?

    **Edit: Here is additional information about the Dell recovery partition.
     
  16. Volkmar

    Volkmar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Posts:
    55
    Mark,

    how would you know it works now? In fact it did, I could get rid of this strange partition without loosing my disk and I could also recover the unallocated space.

    Now the disk looks clean and easy.
    Thanks a lot!
    Volkmar

    PS. Any idea what the purpose of the unallocated space at the beginning of disk3 (an USB drive) might be?
     

    Attached Files:

    • new.jpg
      new.jpg
      File size:
      166.1 KB
      Views:
      3
  17. K0LO

    K0LO Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Posts:
    2,591
    Location:
    State College, Pennsylvania
    Yes, it's a placeholder for a future primary partition. Since you have no primary partitions on the drive, this space is reserved for one.
     
  18. Volkmar

    Volkmar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Posts:
    55
    ok,

    last question please: it is a good idea to have a primary partition on drive 3? Any advantages or disadvantages?

    Thanks again and Merry Christmas

    Volkmar
     
  19. K0LO

    K0LO Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Posts:
    2,591
    Location:
    State College, Pennsylvania
    Volkmar:

    It really doesn't matter too much for storing data. Operating systems need to be installed in primary partitions unless a boot manager is used.

    There is a small advantage to having primary partitions. If a disk gets corrupted and a partition goes missing then you know where to look for the partition because it's listed in the partition table. Logical partitions may be harder to find - the first one is listed in the partition table but each logical partition holds the address of the next in a continuous chain of links. If one of these "links" gets broken it makes recovery more difficult.

    However, if things are working normally then there are no great advantages one way or the other.
     
  20. Volkmar

    Volkmar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Posts:
    55
    Thanks Mark!

    Volkmar
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.