Difference between revisions of "Talk:Rescue and Recovery"
(Pointless hack) |
|||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 14:52, 9 Oct 2005 (CEST) | --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 14:52, 9 Oct 2005 (CEST) | ||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| + | Another hack you might try is to "rebrand" your first partition to some Windows type (I guess you should choose NTFS) without any other change to the fs! (So in reality it's still an ext3 fs or whatever.) If R and R is _non_ destructive (I wouldn't know!) it would be interesting to see how deeply it really checks the first partition. (It shouldn't check too deeply, as it should be able to "rescue" a messed up Windows partition, shouldn't it?) | ||
| + | |||
| + | But chances are this is a pointless hack ... | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Pebolle|Paul Bolle]] 15:16, 9 Oct 2005 (CEST) | ||
---- | ---- | ||
Is that true? That would mean you'd have to keep the Windows installation for the R&R system to work. In that case the only way to go would be installing grub4dos on that windows installation. | Is that true? That would mean you'd have to keep the Windows installation for the R&R system to work. In that case the only way to go would be installing grub4dos on that windows installation. | ||
Revision as of 14:16, 9 October 2005
"It is not known how to invoke Rescue and Recovery once GRUB has been installed in the master boot record."
See ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/pc/pccbbs/thinkvantage_en/tvtrnr3_1027en.txt, Consideration 6:
The Master Boot Record (MBR) must be configured properly for the Rescue and Recovery application to function properly. When possible, the Rescue and Recovery application attempts to ensure the proper configuration of the MBR. This can only occur if the Rescue and Recovery application is installed after other applications that requires the MBR.
Apparently the R and R uses some very specific stuff in the MBR. Maybe Google will help you find some further info (has someone ever looked at the R and R enabled MBR in depth?)
Paul Bolle 13:43, 9 Oct 2005 (CEST)
Having special data in the MBR means less room for code, which may explain why the preinstalled MBR ignores the Active bit and (as far as I can tell) always boots the first partition. The latter means GRUB can't be installed in a partition boot sector either...
--Thinker 14:06, 9 Oct 2005 (CEST)
Why not? If the RnR-MBR always boots the first partition, just go back to the classical recommended partition layout (from the times that LILO didn't support LBA) and create a tiny first partition (that you can i.e. use as /boot partition, which has certain advantages). Install grub into that partition.
Wyrfel 14:44, 9 Oct 2005 (CEST)
I saw posts about the R&R software (or at least some versions thereof) assuming that the Windows partition is the first one.
--Thinker 14:52, 9 Oct 2005 (CEST)
Another hack you might try is to "rebrand" your first partition to some Windows type (I guess you should choose NTFS) without any other change to the fs! (So in reality it's still an ext3 fs or whatever.) If R and R is _non_ destructive (I wouldn't know!) it would be interesting to see how deeply it really checks the first partition. (It shouldn't check too deeply, as it should be able to "rescue" a messed up Windows partition, shouldn't it?)
But chances are this is a pointless hack ...
Paul Bolle 15:16, 9 Oct 2005 (CEST)
Is that true? That would mean you'd have to keep the Windows installation for the R&R system to work. In that case the only way to go would be installing grub4dos on that windows installation.
Wyrfel 14:56, 9 Oct 2005 (CEST)
Another idea/question. Shouldn't it be possible to copy an NT boot sector to a file via dd and chainload that file from GRUB? This way grub could go to the boot sector of the first partition and boot the NT boot sector that may then sit on a Linux filesystem, which in turn would boot the first partition.
Wyrfel 14:59, 9 Oct 2005 (CEST)
