ntfsclone vs bad sectors

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

ntfsclone vs bad sectors

Nick Snijder
sysrescue 2.3.0
ntfsclone 2.0.0
Gparted 0.9.0
Partimage 0.6.9

Dear Sirs,

I am a bit confused regarding ntfsclone.

Trying to preserve an 500GB NTFS disk before it dies. In the past I
used Partimage for that, but now it exits with an error
"can't read block xyz".

GParted indicated 6 bad sectors and advised chkdsk, ntfsclone, ntfsresize. I
did a msdos chkdsk, this repaired some bad blocks and used ntfsclone
with --rescue. Managed to create a 97GB special image.
Then I did  the same without --rescue and ntfsclone also finished
successfully. (I have not done a restore so I am not 100% sure it was
definitely successful, but the filesize more or less matches the amount
of data on the disk so I guess it is OK).

Since ntfsclone worked without --rescue I tried partimage again, but
this failed again at the same block.

Could you explain why ntfsclone works both with and without --rescue
and partimage always exits with error? Do I have a reliable image now?
Wich of the two would be best, with or without --rescue ?

BTW, ntfsresize -n --bad-sectors /dev/sda1 recommends doing nothing "Nothing
to do: NTFS volume size is already OK." What about the (repaired) bad sectors?

Thanks in advance for your help and best regards,

Nick Snijder

Special Offer -- Download ArcSight Logger for FREE!
Finally, a world-class log management solution at an even better
price-free! And you'll get a free "Love Thy Logs" t-shirt when you
download Logger. Secure your free ArcSight Logger TODAY!
Linux-NTFS-Dev mailing list
[hidden email]