Jump to content

Advice on a 64bit system upgrade


Dave-H

Recommended Posts

 

My present system is recorded as an ACPI Multiprocessor PC in Device Manager, as expected, but it says it's using hal.dll, whereas the MS article seems to be saying that it should be using halmacpi.dll.

 

 

 

Which hal do you use currently? Name the real file name, not hal.dll.

:whistle:

 

Any "in use" HAL will have "hal.dll" filename (but if you check it's properties you will find out how it is a renamed file), see:

http://www.techsupportforum.com/forums/f10/solved-missing-hal-dll-issue-416851.html

and:

http://windowsitpro.com/windows/how-can-i-determine-which-hardware-abstraction-layer-hal-running-my-computer

 

haldllorigname.gif

 

jaclaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Ah, thanks yet again jaclaz!

I wondered what cdob meant by its "real" name!

I didn't realise that it got renamed.

It is indeed originally halmacpi.dll, version 5.1.2600.5512.

:yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It is indeed originally halmacpi.dll, version 5.1.2600.5512.

:yes:

Good. :)

 

JFYI, although a "RAW" image is preferred (as it will contain ALL information) if you are sure-sure that you have not any files that may need to be undeleted or recovered, you can get away with doing a WIM image (thanks to the wimlib library you don't even need a specific Windows version) which typically will compress to 1/3 or less than original/source.

A suitable app (freeware) is Clonedisk:

http://labalec.fr/erwan/?page_id=42

http://reboot.pro/index.php?showtopic=8480

 

jaclaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks again all.

CloneDisk looks pretty straightforward, and it looks as if I can use that to make a clone of the whole system disk, which contains the C: and D: partitions.

I have a 150GB FAT32 formatted plug-in IDE disk, which is at the moment only being used to back up some video files that are also backed up elsewhere, so I could use that as the destination. It won't be a real clone of course as the source and destination disks are a different size and type.

Would I need to delete all the video files from it first? The CloneDisk documentation doesn't say what happens to any existing files on the destination drive.

Presumably if the disk is re-partitioned (it's a single logical drive in an extended partition at the moment) it will all get zapped anyway.

 

My "new" quad core processors arrived today, I've fitted them to the motherboard and also fitted the 4GB of memory that came with it.

So, once the preparation is done, I'm now ready to physically swap the boards!

:unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOAH! That wasn't a suggestion, folks - that was -just- a JFYI (it said so right there). Give me a break (sometimes)...

 

FTR, I just changed the HAL/Kernel on my XP from Single-Core to Dual-Core by simply placing the corresponding filenames into the System32 and added an "extra line" in the Boot.ini specifying them, rebooted to it, "found new hardware", rebooted, then removed the "extra line" Also removed the "copied" files from System32, since the rename/overlay/hal+kernel-change had already occurred. It also automagically replaced the PAE Kernel module. :w00t: Wish I'd have done that on the "other" installed OS instead of the "repair install". :(

 

As stated above, you -should- be fine, but the backup is always a good idea. Keep following the suggestions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CloneDisk looks pretty straightforward, and it looks as if I can use that to make a clone of the whole system disk, which contains the C: and D: partitions.

I have a 150GB FAT32 formatted plug-in IDE disk, which is at the moment only being used to back up some video files that are also backed up elsewhere, so I could use that as the destination. It won't be a real clone of course as the source and destination disks are a different size and type.

Would I need to delete all the video files from it first? The CloneDisk documentation doesn't say what happens to any existing files on the destination drive.

Presumably if the disk is re-partitioned (it's a single logical drive in an extended partition at the moment) it will all get zapped anyway.

Hold your horses. :w00t:

  1. A clone is a clone.
  2. An image is an image.
  3. A compressed image is a compressed image.

A clone will occupy EXACTLY the same amount of sectors of the source AND will also occupy the SAME sectors on target (i.e. Sector 0 from source will be written to Sector 0 of target, Sector 1 to Sector 1, etc.) source and target are both "disks" (i.e. the WHOLE thing).

 

An image will occupy EXACTLY the same amount of sectors of the source BUT will occupy the corresponding sectors of a FILE (not of a disk). I.e. the target is NOT a disk, it is a FILE inside a volume's filesystem (in practice you need a NTFS volume for anything bigger than 4 Gb).

 

A compressed image will occupy a smaller amount of sectors than the source, BUT the target is still a FILE (not a disk). Still, in practice you need a NTFS volume to host the image file.

 

Partition Saving is a very good tool (I actually have used it) the point is that - since you have not "enough" space to make a "real" image, but you need to make a "compressed" image, and it is to be seen if the gzip compression that is used by that tool is "enough" to make an image that can fit in the space (on a NTFS volume) that you have available.

Generally speaking, the WIM compression (which now Clonedisk uses) is very, very tight, and it is IMHO likely to produce a smaller image.

 

Once again, remember that there is a different "level" of "possibility to go back" if what you have is a clone or a "dd like" image (plain or compressed) vs. an image of "used sectors only".

 

All in all, seen how (no offence intended :)) you are not (yet ;)) familiar with these procedures, the idea of buying a new hard disk drive to host this clone (or image) is IMHO to be preferred, as having more space than what strictly needed will give you more possibilities.

 

jaclaz 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks again jaclaz.

I did realise that I wouldn't be making a real clone as I said, as I know that's not possible unless the source and destination disks are physically identical, which isn't possible in this case.

 

CloneDisk has the option in its "Clone" menu to make a clone or an image, so which is better for my purposes?

 

If CloneDisk produces a single image file, the disk I'm intending to use as the destination would as you say have to be reformatted as NTFS as the image file even compressed would be much bigger than 4GB, but that obviously isn't a problem.

 

If I select "clone" on the CloneDisk menu, it can't actually make a real clone for the reason stated.

What will it actually do, will it still produce replicas of my C: and D: partitions on the new drive?

 

It that's the case that should be more useful than an image file, as presumably I could then boot from that copy and have my old system back if the worst came to the worst, just on a different physical disk, which I can then sort out later.

 

That presumably also wouldn't involve NTFS reformatting, which I don't want to do unless I have to as I don't want to possibly end up with the only copies of my Windows 98 system files on an NTFS drive.

:unsure:

Edited by Dave-H
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. :no:

A clone is a clone, but in this particular case (different BUS, SCSI vs. IDE) it won't boot "properly" (or at least it won't boot "as before").

Clones make sense on a very similar (or even "identical") device, they are much less "flexible" then images.

The clone can also be made on a different device as long as this device is same size or larger than the original, i.e. if the "clone" can contain ALL data of the source, but if you change the BUS through which the device is connected it won't boot properly without some modifications, that can be either very little or "relevant".

 

An image is an image.

You have an original, you make an image of it.

Then, if something goes wrong in the original you restore the image to the original device OR (let's say the original hard disk dies :ph34r:) you get a device identical (or similar) to the original and restore the image to this new device and the result is a clone, that since the device is similar (and is connected through the same bus) will boot EXACTLY as the original did.

 

As well you can make a clone to a different device (if big enough) and then re-clone back to the original device (i.e. you are using the clone as if it was an image (and then it would make more sense to make an image.

 

Practical example.

Case 1:

You setup a new machine and buy with it two identical disks + another disk to hold only "data". (besides some external storage for backups etc.)

You install to it your OS, any number of tools, whatever until you are satisfied.

Then you make a clone of this "System disk" to the second identical one, which you connect temporarily to the PC and otherwise store in a safe place).

This will take - say - 4 hours time.

You recreate the clone - say - once every three months.

The day your "system disk" fails :ph34r: (for whatever reasons) you:

  1. simply get the clone and replace the "system disk" with it

 

You are back to work in - say - 15 minutes.

 

Case 2:

 

You setup a new machine and buy with it a disk (for "system") + another disk to hold image(s) of the "system disk" + another disk to hold only "data". (besides some external storage for backups etc.)

You install to it your OS, any number of tools, whatever until you are satisfied.

Then you make an image of this "System disk" to the second one, which you connect temporarily to the PC and otherwise store in a safe place).

This will take - say - 4 hours time.

You recreate the clone - say - once every three months.

The day your "system disk" fails :ph34r: (for whatever reasons) you need to:

  1. procure yourself a disk similar to the "system disk" (same BUS, same size or larger, same sector size)
  2. once you get that, start restoring to it an image (that will take 4 hours time) 

 

You are back to work in - say - three days to get the new disk + 4 hours.

 

While the "hypothetical" 4 hours time are the same (roughly) for a "clone" or for making or restoring a "forensic sound" or "dd like" image, if you use one of the programs that only image used sectors, the time for both taking the "image" and for restoring it will be reduced proportionally to the amount of used space on disk, but what you are using is not anymore a "clone" and not even properly an "image", it is a "backup".

 

I hope that now it is more clear.

 

The matter has been already discussed with more detail here:

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/157634-hard-disk-cloningimaging-from-inside-windows/

 

jaclaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've now used the "clone" option on CloneDisk to copy my SCSI system disk (C: and D: drives) across to the removable IDE disk.

It took ages but said it had completed and the disk then said it wasn't formatted in Windows XP Explorer.

 

I then tried changing the BIOS settings and booting from the IDE disk.

It booted fine (although rather slowly) to XP, and I then found that the IDE disk now had a copy of the original C: drive, (now labelled F:), and a copy of the D: drive, (now labelled I:) on it. (There is already an E: drive BTW which is a separate SCSI data disk which didn't change.)

 

Checking with Disk Manager reported that F: was indeed now the system drive, and I: was the boot drive.

C: and D: were still there as well of course.

Presumably that's why it was happy, because all the references to drive C: and drive D: in the system were still OK, as those drives still existed.

I assume that the only way I can test whether the IDE disk is now a viable full system backup is to disconnect the SCSI system disk completely.

What I hope would happen then is that the drives on the IDE disk would be configured as C: and D: and everything will still work just using the new disk.

That means taking the machine apart though, so I'll try that later!

 

Windows 98SE also booted OK BTW and it did seem to be using the IDE disk as the C: drive, which was good.

So, have I wasted my time here or is this something that has a chance of working?!

:)

Edited by Dave-H
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, by now, the booted system will most probably have "recorded" the drive letter assignments, and thus the volumes on the IDE disks will keep the "wrong" drive lettering (and won't boot anymore without the "support" form the contents of the SCSI disk).

Additionally since you booted a system with two disks with the SAME disk signature, one of the two will have been changed by the OS.

Since the C: and D: were still there it is likely that the one on the IDE disk has been modified.

I.e. the IDE disk is not anymore a clone AND you booted a "mixed system". :ph34r:

This is about the most dangerous thing that you can do :w00t: as there are concrete risks that (besides botching the "clone" status of the IDE disk) some changes have been made to the actual SCSI disk contents.

:(

jaclaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear, all rather worrying!

:(

I'm glad to say that after returning the system to normal it still all seems to be working fine, in XP and 98, so I don't think any irrevocable damage has been done to the original installation. If anything was changed on the SCSI disk, it seems to have recovered OK.

Whether the clone disk I made is still any good as a system backup remains to be seen of course.

I'll take the system apart later, and disconnect the SCSI system disk, put the clone disk into the IDE cradle, and see if the system will still boot from it.

If it won't work (and it may never have worked without the C: and D: drives still there of course) then I hopefully won't have actually lost anything, I'll just put the SCSI disk back and scratch my (and your) head again!

:)

Edited by Dave-H
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were I you (whom I clearly am not), I'd clone the disk again (and just after cloning, remove it from the system). Then I'd reboot the normal system to make sure everything is OK. Then I'd remove the SCSI controller and HDDs, add the IDE containing the clone stand-alone and try to boot the system again, this time using the IDE (which should be the only HDD on the machine at that point). All going well, you can say you've mastered the cloning part of the process. Them we should agree on a procedure for the board exchange, before you actually attempt it. What we're trying to do is to have you avoid the pitfalls we know are potentially there. Prevention is always better than recovery, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's pretty much what I was intending to do anyway, but without re-cloning the disk first.

As it does seem possible that it may have become damaged by being used alongside the original disk, I will now certainly do that!

Why would I need to remove the SCSI controller card, won't just removing the physical connection to the SCSI disks be enough?

:)

 

EDIT: Just to add that I've now deleted the partitions on the IDE disk, I thought it safest to do that rather than just let CloneDisk overwrite the previous clone.

I'll do the actual cloning tomorrow morning now as it takes ages!

Edited by Dave-H
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would I need to remove the SCSI controller card, won't just removing the physical connection to the SCSI disks be enough?

Yes! I was thinking abour removing the card with the HDDs still connected to it. But disconnecting the drives has the same effect, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...