On 05/19/2013 05:29 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: >> On Mi, 2013-05-15 at 19:03 +0200, Linux-Fan wrote: >>> As far as I know, bs could only improve performace but is not strictly >>> necessary. The problem is: To restore the backup you need the exactly >>> same partition-layout and (important for Windows) the Hardware (or even >>> AHCI vs. IDE mode with SATA drives) may not be changed. If you plan to >>> restore on the same hardware (except for the hard drive) and connect the >>> hard drive to the same port having restored the partition layout it >>> should be > > I tried to restore a backup made with partimage to restore in VBox. I > tried all kinds of partition layouts, restored the MBR, or just the > bootstrap code area, set the boot flag (when needed), recovered with > sfdsk, repaired etc.pp., but no chance, I can't boot the restored backup > with VBox. > > The only difference is, that the real XP is installed on sdb1, but it > was installed with sda disconnected, so when doing the install, sdb1 > quasi was sda1 and the GRUB chainloader fakes that drive 2 is drive 1. > > For the restored backup there is no GRUB and just one drive, so it's on > sda1, but IMO this shouldn't matter.
When you say that the system can not boot, what does it do instead? Does it give a bootloader-error or a Windows Bluescreen? I would expect it to show a Bluescreen because that is what Windows usually does when a lot of hardware (real -> vbox => all hardware) has changed. I once tried to do the opposite: Make a real Windows out of a virtual one and it failed with a Bluescreen which I expected. I wanted to use the Windows-Setup CD to "repair" the installation but unfortunately the setup did not recognize the hard drive. You might also try what happens when you use a Windows-Setup CD in "repair" mode. HTH Linux-Fan -- http://masysma.ohost.de/ _______________________________________________ D-community-offtopic mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
