Have NTFS partitions on a 4GB IDE drive on NT 4.0 Server, spack 6a, that
need cloning for backup.

PowerQuest's DeployCenter 5.0 returns Error 128, as if to say the hard
drives were prepared with OnTrack or some other third party overlay-using
partitioning software. They weren't; the first partition was set up with
good ol' FDISK, & the second was made with NT's disk manager.

The last time this happened, yarons ago, it took special dinking with
Partition Magic to fix this. I've forgotten how.

Your kind assistance in resolving this without incurring usurious technical
support rates is _truly_ appreciated.

Thank you kindly
--
Nobody but a fool goes into a federal counterrorism operation without duct tape - Richard Preston, THE COBRA EVENT.

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Have NTFS partitions on a 4GB IDE drive on NT 4.0 Server, spack 6a, that
> need cloning for backup.
>
> PowerQuest's DeployCenter 5.0 returns Error 128, as if to say the hard
> drives were prepared with OnTrack or some other third party overlay-using
> partitioning software. They weren't; the first partition was set up with
> good ol' FDISK, & the second was made with NT's disk manager.
>
> The last time this happened, yarons ago, it took special dinking with
> Partition Magic to fix this. I've forgotten how.
>

Error 128 *may* be caused by drive overlay software but isn't by definition.
I have seen 2 times that NT partitioned disks assumed the disk geometry to
be xxxx cylinders - 256(!) heads - 63 sectors in the 3 years I worked for
PQ...

While 256 is technically correct it is normally avoided as MS-DOS (and all
that's build on top of it like Windows 9x/ME) can't cope with this, it will
crash. PQ tools flag the existance of partition table entries that imply a
256 heads geometry as an error. See if the NT version of partinfo indeed
shows 256 heads for disk geometry.

If so, then deleting partitions and recreating them is the only solution.

For fighting the disk manager and ez drive <> PQ errors:

If you are certain that you dind't install such software our free tool
MBRtool can help:

- use it to 'refresh' the MBR boot code
- use it to clear track 0 (apart from the MBR)

Before actually performing this you can backup the MBR (I advise to do so).

Kind regards,
Joep
--
D I Y D a t a R e c o v e r y . N L - Data & Disaster Recovery Tools

http://www.diydatarecovery.nl
http://www.diydatarecovery.com

Please include previous correspondence!

DiskPatch - MBR, Partition, boot sector repair and recovery.
iRecover - FAT, FAT32 and NTFS data recovery.
MBRtool - Freeware MBR backup and restore.

"Joep" <j o e p @ d i y d a t a r e c o v e r y . n l> wrote in message news:43e94$3f9ba4c4$3eddca68$(E-Mail Removed)
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Have NTFS partitions on a 4GB IDE drive on NT 4.0 Server, spack 6a, that
> > need cloning for backup.
> >
> > PowerQuest's DeployCenter 5.0 returns Error 128, as if to say the hard
> > drives were prepared with OnTrack or some other third party overlay-using
> > partitioning software. They weren't; the first partition was set up with
> > good ol' FDISK, & the second was made with NT's disk manager.
> >
> > The last time this happened, yarons ago, it took special dinking with
> > Partition Magic to fix this. I've forgotten how.
> >
>
> Error 128 *may* be caused by drive overlay software but isn't by definition.
> I have seen 2 times that NT partitioned disks assumed the disk geometry to
> be xxxx cylinders - 256(!) heads - 63 sectors in the 3 years I worked for PQ...
>
> While 256 is technically correct it is normally avoided as MS-DOS (and all
> that's build on top of it like Windows 9x/ME) can't cope with this, it will
> crash. PQ tools flag the existance of partition table entries that imply a
> 256 heads geometry as an error. See if the NT version of partinfo indeed
> shows 256 heads for disk geometry.
>

> If so, then deleting partitions and recreating them is the only solution.

Why?

>
> For fighting the disk manager and ez drive <> PQ errors:
>
> If you are certain that you dind't install such software our free tool
> MBRtool can help:
>
> - use it to 'refresh' the MBR boot code
> - use it to clear track 0 (apart from the MBR)
>
> Before actually performing this you can backup the MBR (I advise to do so).
>
> Kind regards,
> Joep

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bnhp2r$11dbfs$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > Error 128 *may* be caused by drive overlay software but isn't by
definition.
> > I have seen 2 times that NT partitioned disks assumed the disk geometry
to
> > be xxxx cylinders - 256(!) heads - 63 sectors in the 3 years I worked
for PQ...
> >
> > While 256 is technically correct it is normally avoided as MS-DOS (and
all
> > that's build on top of it like Windows 9x/ME) can't cope with this, it
will
> > crash. PQ tools flag the existance of partition table entries that imply
a
> > 256 heads geometry as an error. See if the NT version of partinfo indeed
> > shows 256 heads for disk geometry.
> >
>
> > If so, then deleting partitions and recreating them is the only
solution.
>
> Why?
>

Well, that is if you want to use PQ products with that drive. They'll simply
refuse to work is this condition exists.

--
Joep

"Joep" <j o e p @ d i y d a t a r e c o v e r y . n l> wrote in message news:46e57$3f9ce307$3eddca68$(E-Mail Removed)
> "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:bnhp2r$11dbfs$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > >
> > > Error 128 *may* be caused by drive overlay software but isn't by definition.
> > > I have seen 2 times that NT partitioned disks assumed the disk geometry to
> > > be xxxx cylinders - 256(!) heads - 63 sectors in the 3 years I worked for PQ...
> > >
> > > While 256 is technically correct it is normally avoided as MS-DOS (and all
> > > that's build on top of it like Windows 9x/ME) can't cope with this, it will
> > > crash. PQ tools flag the existance of partition table entries that imply a
> > > 256 heads geometry as an error. See if the NT version of partinfo indeed
> > > shows 256 heads for disk geometry.
> > >
> >
> > > If so, then deleting partitions and recreating them is the only solution.
> >
> > Why?
> >
>
> Well, that is if you want to use PQ products with that drive. They'll simply
> refuse to work is this condition exists.

So what's wrong with changing that number from 255 to 254 wih PTEDIT?
What program still clones a drive using CHS, especially with drives over 8GB now?

Btw, does NTboot still use Int13 (CHS)?

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bnpdb7$13l3ea$(E-Mail Removed)...

> > > Why?
> > >
> >
> > Well, that is if you want to use PQ products with that drive. They'll
simply
> > refuse to work is this condition exists.
>
> So what's wrong with changing that number from 255 to 254 wih PTEDIT?

Ah, yes. Then it will start generating geometry errors instead probably. It
will always compare chs vs. LBA values. BTW the DOS executables can be
forced to ignore geometry errors by starting them with the /ipe switch.

Also, I don't know PQ Deploy, it was released after I left PQ. If it runs
from NT natively, NT will return 256 heads anyway when querying NT API for
diskgeometry. I myself have only seen this maybe 2 or 3 times and I never
understood why NT would decide to use 256 heads.

> What program still clones a drive using CHS, especially with drives over
8GB now?

None I'd guess ... One would assume that PQ tools like DriveImage 7 stop
making these chs <> lba comparisons as it seems pretty useles when running
natively in NT/2000/XP all the time.

>
> Btw, does NTboot still use Int13 (CHS)?

Good one, I don't know ...

--
Joep

> "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >
> > Btw, does NTboot still use Int13 (CHS)?
>
> Good one, I don't know ...
>

I guess not actually (2000/XP).

--
Joep

"Joep" <j o e p @ d i y d a t a r e c o v e r y . n l> wrote in message
news:20324$3fa04212$3eddca68$(E-Mail Removed)...
| > "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
| > >
| > > Btw, does NTboot still use Int13 (CHS)?
| >
| > Good one, I don't know ...
|
| I guess not actually (2000/XP).
|
The MBR and FAT boot sectors have both CHS and LBA Int13 code, switching on
the partition type.

Most boot managers just do an Int13 extented installation check and use it if
available.

"Eric Gisin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Joep" <j o e p @ d i y d a t a r e c o v e r y . n l> wrote in message news:20324$3fa04212$3eddca68$(E-Mail Removed)...
> | > "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> | > >
> | > > Btw, does NTboot still use Int13 (CHS)?
> | >
> | > Good one, I don't know ...
> |
> | I guess not actually (2000/XP).
> |
>
> The MBR and FAT boot sectors have both

> CHS and LBA Int13 code,

code?

> switching on the partition type.

Sorry, that doesn't compute for me either.
Could you run that again for me, please?

>
> Most boot managers just do an Int13 extented installation check and use
> it if available.
>
>

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bnroag$15gp5d$(E-Mail Removed)...
|
| "Eric Gisin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
| >
| > The MBR and FAT boot sectors have both
|
| > CHS and LBA Int13 code,
|
| code?
|
| > switching on the partition type.
|
| Sorry, that doesn't compute for me either.
| Could you run that again for me, please?
|
Here is the Win2K+ MBR: http://home.att.net/~rayknights/pc_boot/w2k_mbr.htm

I was mistaken about checking partition type, what it does it attempt to load
the backup boot sector for an FAT32 partition if the first boot sector was
unreadable.

To load the partition boot sector it first compares its LBA with C*H*S. If
less than, then it uses Int13 CHS, otherwise it uses Int13x LBA.