Restore image backup(FAT32) into NTFS partition

[minion]

Hi,

I wanna use a drive imaging tool (Ghost, DriveImage) to backup my Win2k partition(Drive C, FAT32, 10GB).
Supposely I format this partition as NTFS, can I restore my backup image(made under FAT32)
to drive C(now NTFS) without problems? Will Win2k run normally after being restored?
Thanks.

[kef999]

Snap! I happen to have a copy of Drive Image to hand, with manual, but haven't installed it yet. I'm waiting for M$ to come up with SP3 and then I'll do a complete overhaul of my partitions, including the installation of Drive Image.

The way that Drive Image works is that you tell it which partition you want to create the image in and then it first of all formats the destination partition before placing the image in it. The image is represented by a single file. When you restore that image (say, to your C partition), from either outside of Windows or within Windows, it formats the destination partition (now C) and then copies the image back. When you perform the imaging, you can set a level of compression, including none, if you want to save disk space.

As far as I'm aware, Drive Image can perform all of this between NTFS and FAT32. In other words, I think it leaves the original file systems of each partition untouched. I'll double-check for you, though, by consulting the manual. I need to clarify this for myself as well.

If you're lucky, some good-hearted soul with prior experience of Drive Image, used with Win2K, will advise you in the meantime.

[kef999]

I've had a look at my Drive Image manual (DI v5.0) and, as far as answering your question's concerned, it doesn't make it clear. The implication, though, is that an image will be made or restored to a partition, leaving that partition unchanged as far as file system is concerned. I wouldn't rely on my guesswork, though; I'd wait and see if an experienced Drive Image user will answer. In the meantime, I'll take a look at Powerquest's website and see if this query is covered at all in a FAQ section.

[kef999]

I've found nothing at Powerquest's website that helps, on this point. I've sent Powerquest an e-mail instead.

I don't know much about Symantec's Ghost but I think it works in a similar way to Drive Image. Powerquest has recently released Drive Image 2002, which it's claimed gives an easier user interface, being more Windows-centred.

[kef999]

Minion,

Have you seen the chapter on file systems at:

www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/TechNet/prodtechnol/windows2000pro/reskit/part3/proch17.asp.

?

Near the start of it, it says:

"For small volumes, FAT16 or FAT32 might provide nominally faster access to files than NTFS, because:

The FAT structure is simpler.
The FAT folder size is smaller for an equal number of files.
FAT has no controls regulating whether a user can access a file or folder; therefore, the system does not have to check that a user has access permissions to a file or folder. This advantage is minimal, however, because Windows 2000 still must determine whether the file is read-only or whether the file is on a FAT or NTFS volume".

Later on, it says:

"You can back up and restore data on FAT and NTFS volumes. However, if you back up data from an NTFS volume and then restore it to a FAT volume, you lose security settings and other file information specific to NTFS".

Whether this still applies when using Drive Image or Ghost is as much your guess as mine.

Setting up a FAT32 and an NTFS volume (partition) so as to compare their operations is not as straightforward as it first looks, is it?

[minion]

On that MS document, I found this line:
-----------------------------------------------------------
FAT32 volumes are not directly accessible from operating systems other than Windows 95 OSR2 and Windows 98.
------------------------------------------------------------

What does it mean by directly ?
If I have win2k on drive C(NTFS), personal files on drive D(FAT32), can win2k access drive D(read/write)?

[rexregum]

Sounds like it's an old document, pre win2k. Winnt could not directly access fat32 volumes. But win2k/me/xp can access fat32 directly.

[kef999]

Minion,

I've received an answer from Powerquest, concerning the imaging of a partition between FAT32 and NTFS (using Drive Image). They say:

"When an image is created, it is stored as a file on whatever file system it's directed to (be it FAT32 or NTFS). When an image is restored, however, it will delete the existing partition and restore the file system that the image was created on, along with everything else".

By "existing" partition, I presume they mean "original" partition.

Minion, you started off with the proposition that you had two identical partitions, one a FAT32 and the other NTFS. My interpretation of Powerquest's answer is that, when you make an image of the FAT32 partition into the NTFS partition, the NTFS partition will remain as such. However, when you restore the image to the first partition, the file system will remain as NTFS. In other words, you'll end up with two NTFS partitions. Do you, or anyone else, disagree with this interpretation?

[minion]

ptneale, thanksalot for taking the trouble to mail Powerquest support. Their reply was crisp & clear.

Here's my interpretation of their answer & how it nails my original question:

At first, I have 2 partitions on my system, both FAT32.
C: = Win2k and D: = my personal files

Then I make image of C:\ and place image somewhere in D:\
After that, I format C:\ fs:NTFS. So C is now NTFS.

Next I restore image back to C:\.

Now, according to PQuest's reply, my NTFS c:\ will be deleted & overridden with FAT32 system because the image was created while C:\ is still FAT32. In the end, my C:\ will go back to FAT32.

Of course, I could still be mistaken cause this is pretty confusing I admit. But I welcome comments on this topic.

[kef999]

Minion,

I'm no expert but it seems to me that you've got to be very careful about one or two things. For instance, if you put the image of C: into D, your existing files in D: will unfortunately be deleted. You see, when you call upon Drive Image to copy a partition, basically all that you're required to do is to specify the source and destination partitions. (If you happen to have only one partition and there's enough spare capacity on the drive, Drive Image will, in the course of making the image, create a destination partition for you). Drive Image will then get on and do it for you. One of the first things it does is to either delete or format the destination partition (I can't remember which). Having done that, it then writes the complete backup (image file) of the source partition into the destination partition. That means that any existing files in the destination partition are lost.

Now, I get the impression that you want to learn all about this because (like me) you'd like to set up an NTFS and a FAT32 partition, each using Win2K, in order to compare them for speed. Well, there again, I'd say be careful because, if you use anything that transforms a FAT32 into NTFS (or vice versa) and which uses the Convert function, you may well start off with one partition which has inadvertently been slowed down, to start with! It seems to me that, if you want to make that sort of comparison, it's best to forget about Drive Image (or Ghost) and Partition Magic and instead use FDISK and/or do FORMAT. The reason for the slowness caused by CONVERT is all to do with the Master File Table and how that gets distributed over the partition.

As I remarked before, I don't think it's easy to set up two Win2K partitions, to compare them for speed. In fact, I'd like to know how jwl812 did it, originally, but he/she doesn't seem to correspond any more. So, if you manage to do it, do please let me and others who contribute to or browse these postings know the result. Certainly, it seems that one or two contributors who are unfashionably truthful about their observations have reported that FAT32 is definitely faster.

[minion]

Actually, I'm not really interested in comparing NTFS & FAT32 performance because I feel that FAT32 is faster(only slightly,depends) due to less overhead. This has been mentioned in the MS document & by numerous users. My neighbor did a fair comparison some months ago and he concurred that FAT32 seems faster indeed. But he says on today's high-end systems NTFS does not seem so slow.

But here's something new to me:
--------------------------------------------------
For instance, if you put the image of C: into D, your existing files in D: will unfortunately be deleted.
----------------------------------------------------

I'm not concerned about files on D being deleted as I backup on CD-R regularly. I've never use any of these drive imaging tools, but I've always thought that the image will be created as a .ISO/.BIN/.whatever file on destination partition.
Looks like I've to read up a little on how Ghost, Driveimage,etc work.

[kef999]

So, Minion, what have you done? Have you left your patitions as FAT32s?

One or two individuals replying to this thread seem to think that the slowness of NTFS can be offset by using a faster CPU and memory. I would think that a faster hard drive's likely to have a considerable influence also. I'm finding it difficult to judge where that breakpoint in CPU/memory/HD speed is. I'd personally prefer to switch to NTFS but not if it's going to slow down my machine from what it's like now.

[minion]

I think my Win2k is messy right now. Plan to reinstall it next month maybe when I have time. I may try NTFS & if I do, i'll post here my findings on how slow NTFS may be.