Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Help: Recovery of Norton Ghost 2003 disk image with one mi..

Last response: in Storage
Share
May 15, 2004 3:41:36 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Greetings!

Ladies and gentlemen, I dearly need your help.. I have just
discovered that I was a victim of a Norton Ghost 2003 design flaw.

I have two drives that I backed up into disk images. The disk images
were called Laptopdrive1 (my main drive in the laptop) and laptop2
(second drive, the original shipping drive in my laptop)

Laptopdrive1.gho crated lapto001.ghs...lapto015.ghs files 2gb in size
each.

Laptop2.ghs came in just barely over 2gb.. giving me laptop2.ghs
and... lapto001.ghs! The lapto001.ghs from the original backup set
was overwritten.

This is lousy design on the part of Symantec.. it should warn you if
files created would overwrite existing files.. Most file compression
utilities use the original archive name, followed by some numerical
designation to make spanned archives, so why the switch to 8.3 naming
convention on the SUBSEQUENT span files?

My question:
Is there any way to force Ghost to recover the other 14 volumes of my
drive? I can hope that what was hit was either the Windows install,
or data files for applications that I can reinstall. There isn't much
on my laptop (I keep important stuff on my desktop machine), but it
will hurt to lose what I did have there..

Optimistically: does Ghost "back up" a file before unceremoniously
overwriting it? I searched for 2gb files on my desktop and couldn't
find any more than what was in the Ghost directory.

The disk backed up was a non-dynamic, regular, NTFS volume. Any help
will be appreciated.


Yours,

Alex Derevin
May 15, 2004 6:44:44 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Alex" <odeen@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:b2dd4f08.0405142241.5d4f311f@posting.google.com...
>
> This is lousy design on the part of Symantec.. it should warn you if
> files created would overwrite existing files.. Most file compression
> utilities use the original archive name, followed by some numerical
> designation to make spanned archives, so why the switch to 8.3 naming
> convention on the SUBSEQUENT span files?
>

Cause you need that when restoring from DOS. Plus, Ghost images are also
created in DOS mode if they didn't change that recently.

> My question:
> Is there any way to force Ghost to recover the other 14 volumes of my
> drive?

No.

>
> Optimistically: does Ghost "back up" a file before unceremoniously
> overwriting it?

No.

--
Joep
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 15, 2004 7:13:22 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On 14 May 2004 23:41:36 -0700, odeen@comcast.net (Alex) wrote:

>I have two drives that I backed up into disk images. The disk images
>were called Laptopdrive1 (my main drive in the laptop) and laptop2
>(second drive, the original shipping drive in my laptop)

What happened to the original? Maybe the files could be recovered from
there?
--
Svend Olaf
May 15, 2004 7:36:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

svolaf@inet.uni2.dk (Svend Olaf Mikkelsen) wrote in message news:<40a73332.2105364@dtext.news.tele.dk>...
> On 14 May 2004 23:41:36 -0700, odeen@comcast.net (Alex) wrote:
>
> >I have two drives that I backed up into disk images. The disk images
> >were called Laptopdrive1 (my main drive in the laptop) and laptop2
> >(second drive, the original shipping drive in my laptop)
>
> What happened to the original? Maybe the files could be recovered from
> there?

Unfortunately, the original drive was wiped with zeroes and returned
to the retailer.. It was slightly defective, so I didn't want to take
my chances with it - as you can see, THAT was a great strategy on my
part.
!