OT: Cloning windows XP with dd

[Kurt Granroth]

On Oct 8, 2005, at 6:45 AM, Vaughn Treude wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 20:09, Kurt Granroth wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 2005, at 6:10 PM, Vaughn Treude wrote:
>>>     A while back I posted a question about cloning a Windows XP
>>> drive using
>>> a Linux live CD such as Knoppix.  The suggestion to use "dd" was a
>>> good
>>> one.  I googled this command and found detailed instructions on
>>> www.nilbus.com for doing this.  In short, they said to:
>>>     Use fdisk to create partitions on the new drive identical to
>>> those on
>>> the old drive (using the -u option to display sectors rather than
>>> cylinders, which ensure that they'll be the same.)
>>>     Use dd to copy the 440 bytes of the boot partition.
>>>     Use dd to copy the contents of the other partitions.
>>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Heh, what a coincidence.  I cloned a WinXP partition using dd on
>> Wednesday for the first.  It worked like a charm.
>>
>> The one thing I did different was in copying the MBR.  Instead of
>> copying parts of the boot partition (is there such a thing with
>> Windows?), I copied the entire 512 bytes of the MBR.
[snip]
> Hmmm, that's interesting.  The instructions said to copy only 440  
> bytes
> because the partition table lived in the rest.  Since you did that  
> last,
> I'm surprised it didn't mess something up.  Though the partitions were
> the same, I don't know if the actual contents of the table could  
> differ
> at all due to disk geometry.  If not, no problem.  I will try copying
> the MBR again, at least those first 440 bytes.

Well, the instructions that said 440 bytes are definitely wrong.   
Basically,
the 512 bytes includes 446 bytes of the MBR and the rest is the  
partition
table.  Or better yet, rather than rely on my memory (which can be  
horribly
faulty), here is a reference page:

http://www.ntfs.com/mbr-damaged.htm

So at minimum, you'll have to copy over the first 446 bytes.

HOWEVER, I would recommend copying it all.  Remember that you created  
the
partitions on the new drive to be identical to the old one so the
partition table should be identical.  FWIW, when I was doing my own  
research
last Wednesday, every site I went to recommended the entire 512.

> More likely though, it's something to do with that darned hidden
> partition.  It appears the system you cloned didn't have one.  I have
> been researching this issue and have found some venomous comments  
> about
> Compaq/HP's weird setup.  The hidden partition contains not only
> recovery info but it has files necessary for the boot.  I know  
> that's a
> common thing in the Linux world, but at least for us, everything's
> documented.  I haven't yet found much useful info on this "feature".

Hmm.. you're right that this system didn't have a recovery partition
(although it was a Compaq/HP).  As long as you replicate that exactly on
the new drive as well, why would it be a problem?

Good luck!
Kurt