Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

I use GHOST Ver. 7.5 for maintenance. I have Windows XP and have 2 problems-
 
1. If I backup one disk to another one (Disk to Disk) I use the flag -FDSP
and the image copying works fine. Problem is if I boot once from the new
disk (that works fine as a stand alone) but with the original disk plugged
in also, than it wont boot again if the original disk is disconnected.
 
2. I need to backup only the root partition ( with the boot sector ) but
this doesn't work - I must copy the whole disk to an image.
 
Thanks in advance. Any reference to my problems would be very appreciated.
 
Regards
 
Greg

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

From: "Greg" <greg@mot.com>
 
| I use GHOST Ver. 7.5 for maintenance. I have Windows XP and have 2 problems-
|
| 1. If I backup one disk to another one (Disk to Disk) I use the flag -FDSP
| and the image copying works fine. Problem is if I boot once from the new
| disk (that works fine as a stand alone) but with the original disk plugged
| in also, than it wont boot again if the original disk is disconnected.
|
| 2. I need to backup only the root partition ( with the boot sector ) but
| this doesn't work - I must copy the whole disk to an image.
|
| Thanks in advance. Any reference to my problems would be very appreciated.
|
| Regards
|
| Greg
|
 
And you couln't post in a Symantec News Group such as;  symantec.customerservice.general
 
Afterall Ghost is NOT a MS product, it is from Symantec.
 
#1 -- Disk-to-disk is not a backup and does not create an image.  It is a clone operation.
Only when creating a Ghost image to GHO/GHS files is it considered imaging and/or a backup.
Additionally, I don't know why you want tpo preserve the disk signature bytes on the
destination.  I have cloned and imaged numerous hard disks and I have never need this
command line switch (-FDSP).  Maybe this is causing you problems ?  You also must explain if
you change jumpers master/slave jumpers or put the drive on another IDE channel (assuming
they are IDE becuase you left out that data).
 
#2 -- So ?  Why is the disk partitioned in the first place.  All you need is one large "C:"
in WinXP.
 
--  
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

In article <#yaPwajsFHA.4036@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>,  
DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net says...
> #2 -- So ?  Why is the disk partitioned in the first place.  All you need is one large "C:"
> in WinXP.
 
Bad move - there are security reasons and/or maintenance reasons to  
consider. In all my years I've never just done one large partition for  
the OS drive when it was possible to have one for OS and one for DATA.
 
--  
 
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

From: "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan>
 
| In article <#yaPwajsFHA.4036@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>,
| DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net says...
>> #2 -- So ?  Why is the disk partitioned in the first place.  All you need is one large
>> "C:" in WinXP.
|
| Bad move - there are security reasons and/or maintenance reasons to
| consider. In all my years I've never just done one large partition for
| the OS drive when it was possible to have one for OS and one for DATA.
|
| --  
|
| spam999free@rrohio.com
| remove 999 in order to email me
 
That's a bad move as well  ;-)  If the Hard disk fails, which is inevitable with cheap
drives, then all partitions go.  I use a sparate drive.  One completely just for data (and
TEMP files and caches) and another for the OS.  The chances of both drives going at the same
time are extremely high.  Of course the data drive is backuped up reguarly to a DAT tape and
the system is backed up to DVD periodically.
 
BTW:  All my hard disks are SCSI (wide and narrow).  By using separate hard disks one can
take full advantage of multitasking disk read and writes.  This is always easy with SCSI but
if all hard disks are master drives on their one IDE channel it can be performed using IDE
drives.  There would be no advantage gain if there were two IDE hard disks and they are in a
master/slave relationship.
 
--  
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

In article <O9jqhsjsFHA.2748@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>,  
DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net says...
> From: "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan>
>  
> | In article <#yaPwajsFHA.4036@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>,
> | DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net says...
> >> #2 -- So ?  Why is the disk partitioned in the first place.  All you need is one large
> >> "C:" in WinXP.
> |
> | Bad move - there are security reasons and/or maintenance reasons to
> | consider. In all my years I've never just done one large partition for
> | the OS drive when it was possible to have one for OS and one for DATA.
> |
>  
> That's a bad move as well  ;-)  If the Hard disk fails, which is inevitable with cheap
> drives, then all partitions go.  I use a sparate drive.  One completely just for data (and
> TEMP files and caches) and another for the OS.  The chances of both drives going at the same
> time are extremely high.  Of course the data drive is backuped up reguarly to a DAT tape and
> the system is backed up to DVD periodically.
 
But we were not talking about more than one drive. And while we're at  
it, using a non-redundant drive to host the real data on is a bad move  
too. Most users only have access to simple methods of online storage -  
like purchasing a simple SATA/IDE RAID controller card and a second  
drive - with minimal effort it can be installed and up and running in  
under 30 minutes.
 
If you have two drives, not RAID, and use one for the OS and one for  
data, you have the same risk of a fault rendering either drive as a  
loss.
 
What you gain, talking about partitioning, is that you can setup secure  
areas that would be more difficult on a single partition, you can also  
wipe and reinstall the OS partition without impacting the data  
partition.
 
If you want redundancy, you need RAID.
 
> BTW:  All my hard disks are SCSI (wide and narrow).  By using separate hard disks one can
> take full advantage of multitasking disk read and writes.  This is always easy with SCSI but
> if all hard disks are master drives on their one IDE channel it can be performed using IDE
> drives.  There would be no advantage gain if there were two IDE hard disks and they are in a
> master/slave relationship.
 
We all know that IDE/EIDE is not as performance minded in a multi-
user/multi-task system, but there are significant advances that come  
very close to rivaling SCSI controllers.
 
The Promise SX6000 handles onboard CACHE, also has it's own controller  
to off-load CPU time, and handles 6 IDE drives in a hot-swappable mode.  
I've got more than a Dozen of these running on servers with 250GB EIDE  
drives attached in a single RAID-5 setup.
 
There are also some onboard IDE or SATA RAID controllers packaged with  
Motherboards that don't include their own CACHE memory and take CPU  
time, but, they are much more reliable than a soft-raid solution.  
 
So, we're talking two different things here:
 
Paritioning: 1 drive with 2 areas (OS and DATA) works well since you  
have more options when fixing things and also great for security
 
Redundancy: RAID - Two or more drives that act as one, so that if one  
fails there is no data loss.
 
--  
 
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

In article <u2UoXBksFHA.4036@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>,  
DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net says...
> Partitioning effectively only provides separation.
 
Which is a very good thing.
 
 
--  
 
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me