Unfixable in CHKDSK - Volume Bitmap error after using Acronis..

Discussion in 'Acronis True Image Product Line' started by davexl, Aug 18, 2006.

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

    davexl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    7
    Hi Guys,

    got a tough one - new workstation, also upgraded from Acronis 8 to 9.

    Doing my usual backup of C: drive as I build a new machine.

    I used Ti to move my C drive off its original SATA drive and on to an older EIDE drive* (Which I did via a backup and restore, not disk clone.)

    I noticed using O&O defrag that I has a CHKDSK error - Error - File system is damaged. chkdsk commandline shows volume bitmap error - something along the line of free space marked as used. (I wish I had written it down!)

    chkdsk while rebooting does not fix
    chkdsk /r from XP recovery console does not fix
    fixing mbr from XP recovery console does not fix
    restoring partition and resizing it using Ti does not fix
    deleting, reformatting C:from XP recovery console, then restoring with resizing partition does not fix
    tried extracting my c: backup as files to a new partition on the same disk (E:), then backing that up as a partition to another drive (R:), but Acronis wont let me restore that archive to my C: drive...

    Stumped... ideas?

    I am quite worried that no matter what I do, my method of using Acronis to save a restore a day old installation of XP results in file system errors... something I never saw on the previous machine using V8 despite many restores... V8 on my old machine was bulletproof.

    * so that I could use the original SATA drive as part of a RAID5 array. I notice that right now RAID5 arrays are not supported on this chipset - another showstopper - this was not using the RAID drives, but it might be pertinent - I don't know.

    ** why do I not bite the bullet and reformat and reinstall the lot? Registration problems with certain dumb applications.

    Asus P5w Dh deluxe
     
  2. tachyon42

    tachyon42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Posts:
    455
    I believe you might need the Universal Restore feature.
     
  3. davexl

    davexl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    7
    Thanks for the suggestion - but I feel a little stupid - what would it do for me exactly?

    It looks to me to be a method for cloning my old machine - which is not what I want to do - this is a new machine, and it seems that restoring any of it's backups will result in a messed up file system. (I just tried restoring my very first backup of my fresh install as a test - same errors)
     
  4. tachyon42

    tachyon42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Posts:
    455
    Basically, TrueImage Home works for a specific configuration.
    If you change the motherboard model or get a new machine then the Home version can't handle it.
    The Universal Restore feature addresses this issue.
    Unfortunately, it's not available for the Home version.
    You would need to upgrade to the Workstation or Enterprise version and also purchase the Universal Restore option.

    Take a look at this:
    http://www.acronis.com/enterprise/
    and
    http://www.acronis.com/enterprise/products/ATICW/universal-restore.html
     
  5. davexl

    davexl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    7
    Ok, really getting confused here...

    - I am using Workstation
    - I am NOT restoring an image made on another machine.

    One machine, restoring images made a few days ago, only config change swapping out a HDD => but filesystem errors.

    I still fail to see how Universal restore might help me. :blink:

     
  6. tachyon42

    tachyon42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Posts:
    455
    OK, I'm confused now.
    I interpreted the above quote to mean that you were building a new machine and trying to restore a TrueImage archive (created on old machine) to new machine.
     
  7. davexl

    davexl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    7
    ok, I just had a thought - are you saying that even if I am merely swapping a hard drive I need to get universal restore? o_O
     
  8. davexl

    davexl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    7
    Too much messing with computers late at night makes for imprecise language ;)
     
  9. tachyon42

    tachyon42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Posts:
    455
    Not usually.
    As I said above I thought you were building a new machine.
    If it's just a disk swap then have a look at this post:
    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=816823&postcount=6
    In particular, carefully read the section on IDE to SATA in the link:
    this article
     
  10. davexl

    davexl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    7
    Update for those following along later:

    Seems it is not an Acronis Issue at all - I had bad memory - which seems a likely cause of disk errors. It is a bit more complicated than that, but FYI it is not an Acronis bug.
     
  11. Mac25

    Mac25 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2006
    Posts:
    125
    Location:
    Ms Gulfcoast

    For what its worth to anyone reading this thread !

    Test your [NEW] hardware dont just install it and take for granted its OK because it new!
     
  12. seekforever

    seekforever Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Posts:
    4,751
    Absolutely! I recently bought 2 matched sticks of good quality RAM, not the generic stuff, and ran Memtest86+ on it as soon as I installed it. After a couple of passes it got an error. Got it replaced and life was good again.

    When I buy a new disk, I don't just dump an image back on it. As a bit of a test, I use the XP install disk to setup the partitions and do a full format on all the partitions which gives me a bit of confidence that it is working as intended. Yes, I know the file structure gets overwritten but it makes feel better. It also puts the MBR on it which is fine since I don't run dual-boot, GoBack, ASR, etc.
     
  13. davexl

    davexl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    7
    I got bitten for sure. I did a very short test, and quickly moved into the how high can you go overclock phase - found it completely stable in 24hrs plus memtest and prime95, then got down to work and took it back from overclocked to stock - assuming if it was stable at 3.3GHz it would be fine at 2.1GHz.

    Mistake. My RAM needs 2.0+V to be stable, so in this case, factory defaults were less stable than a 158% overclock!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.