I am building some dual-boot Windows XP SP2 PRO and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 WS PCs. Each PC has two hard drives: one drive has XP2 installed (/dev/sda) and the other has RHEL4 (/dev/sdb).
I am using Ghost Solution Suite 2.0.1.
I can successfully clone the XP2 drive, but when I try to clone the RHEL4 drive the clone task always fails with the following error message:
Error Number: (40020)
Message: Virtual Partition System Data overlaps with critical data in the destination partitions
Version: 11.0.2.1573 (Nov 14 2007, Build=1573)
OS Version: DOS v7.10
Command line arguments: -ia -nolilo -clone,dst=2,mode=restore,src=@MCCASTORpush256 -batch -sgt
[I'll post the full text of the error log in a follow-on message...]
FWIW, GSS does not emit any error / warning messages when I perform the “Image Create” task to pull the disk image from the RHEL4 drive onto the server. That step seems to work okay.
FWIW2, if I drastically reduce the partition sizes on the RHEL4 disk and then perform a “minimal” RHEL4 installation,
/dev/sdb1 /boot 100 MB
/dev/sdb2 / 1500 MB
/dev/sdb3 <swap> 1024 MB
then I can successfully clone the RHEL4 disk using GSS. But if I wipe the disk and reinstall RHEL4 onto a relatively large root file system (/) partition, e.g., 60 GB, the clone task always fails with the error message shown above. [n.b. The RHEL4 disk has a capacity of 160 GB and I'm only using about 62 GB total in the three primary partitions I've created. There is one unused primary partition, and there should be plenty of unused disk space available for the cloning operation.]
If I clone the partitions individually (versus cloning the entire disk), the 100 MB “/boot” partition always clones correctly, but the 60GB “/” partition always fails with the error message shown above. I’ve tried everything I can think of to make this work, but no luck.
FWIW3: In the error log I noticed something odd:
# Ord Boot Id Ext First Num Last Used NTFS
0 0 1 83 No 63 208782 208845 208782 No
1 1 0 83 No 208845 122881185 123090030 122881185 No
2 2 0 82 No 123090030 2104515 125194545 2104515 No
Note that the last block(?) on sector #0 is listed as the first block on sector #1. Likewise, the last block of sector #1 is listed as the first block of sector #2. Is this an off-by-one error? IOW, how can two different partitions share the same block (208845, or 123090030)?
Jim