Recovering the contents of NTFS partitions after an O/S change

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Alan Howard, Dec 4, 2003.

  1. Alan Howard

    Alan Howard Guest

    Just wondering if I'll be able to recover the contents of 'other' NTFS
    partitions after formatting my system partition to remove Windows 2003
    Server to replace it with Windows 2000 Server. When 2000 Server starts will
    it/I be able to access the contents of the other NTFS partitions on the disk
    or will I get caught out by the completely different SIDs and ACLs (or
    something else)?

    Thanks,

    Alan
     
    Alan Howard, Dec 4, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Alan Howard

    AD. Guest

    On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:22:28 +1300, Alan Howard wrote:

    > Just wondering if I'll be able to recover the contents of 'other' NTFS
    > partitions after formatting my system partition to remove Windows 2003
    > Server to replace it with Windows 2000 Server. When 2000 Server starts
    > will it/I be able to access the contents of the other NTFS partitions on
    > the disk or will I get caught out by the completely different SIDs and
    > ACLs (or something else)?


    Nope it should all work fine, I've done it plenty of times.

    But (the gotcha), going from 2003 back to 2000 might mean that the
    partition has a newer version of NTFS than 2000 supported natively.

    This happened with NT4 (pre SP4 I think) and 2000 - 2000 would upgrade the
    NTFS of the NT 4 partition to the point where NT 4 couldn't read it. It
    was a non issue once NT4 had SP4 (or SP5?) installed.

    I would think that a fully patched up 2000 should be able to read 2003
    partitions though.

    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Dec 4, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Alan Howard

    Martin Guest

    "AD." <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:22:28 +1300, Alan Howard wrote:
    >
    > > Just wondering if I'll be able to recover the contents of 'other' NTFS
    > > partitions after formatting my system partition to remove Windows 2003
    > > Server to replace it with Windows 2000 Server. When 2000 Server starts
    > > will it/I be able to access the contents of the other NTFS partitions on
    > > the disk or will I get caught out by the completely different SIDs and
    > > ACLs (or something else)?

    >
    > Nope it should all work fine, I've done it plenty of times.
    >
    > But (the gotcha), going from 2003 back to 2000 might mean that the
    > partition has a newer version of NTFS than 2000 supported natively.
    >

    the other small gotcha can be if encryption has been used on the 2003
    partitions then accessing them will be a problem...
     
    Martin, Dec 4, 2003
    #3
  4. Martin wrote:
    > "AD." <> wrote in message
    > news:p...
    >
    >>On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:22:28 +1300, Alan Howard wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Just wondering if I'll be able to recover the contents of 'other' NTFS
    >>>partitions after formatting my system partition to remove Windows 2003
    >>>Server to replace it with Windows 2000 Server. When 2000 Server starts
    >>>will it/I be able to access the contents of the other NTFS partitions on
    >>>the disk or will I get caught out by the completely different SIDs and
    >>>ACLs (or something else)?

    >>
    >>Nope it should all work fine, I've done it plenty of times.
    >>
    >>But (the gotcha), going from 2003 back to 2000 might mean that the
    >>partition has a newer version of NTFS than 2000 supported natively.
    >>

    >
    > the other small gotcha can be if encryption has been used on the 2003
    > partitions then accessing them will be a problem...


    And you will most likely have to add all the users, and then go through
    the whole fs setting ownerships and permissions etc..

    Its certainly no "apt-get upgrade", but I guess if your using windows
    rather than linux on a server you must be an enthusiast that enjoys
    mucking around and spending extra time doing things that you shouldnt
    have to than with a more "just-get-the-job-done" Server OS like linux.
     
    Kurt Häusler, Dec 4, 2003
    #4
  5. Alan Howard

    Steven H Guest

    In article <bqmnqd$gkn$02$-online.com>,
    says...
    > Martin wrote:
    > > "AD." <> wrote in message
    > > news:p...
    > >
    > >>On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:22:28 +1300, Alan Howard wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>Just wondering if I'll be able to recover the contents of 'other' NTFS
    > >>>partitions after formatting my system partition to remove Windows 2003
    > >>>Server to replace it with Windows 2000 Server. When 2000 Server starts
    > >>>will it/I be able to access the contents of the other NTFS partitions on
    > >>>the disk or will I get caught out by the completely different SIDs and
    > >>>ACLs (or something else)?
    > >>
    > >>Nope it should all work fine, I've done it plenty of times.
    > >>
    > >>But (the gotcha), going from 2003 back to 2000 might mean that the
    > >>partition has a newer version of NTFS than 2000 supported natively.
    > >>

    > >
    > > the other small gotcha can be if encryption has been used on the 2003
    > > partitions then accessing them will be a problem...

    >
    > And you will most likely have to add all the users, and then go through
    > the whole fs setting ownerships and permissions etc..
    >
    > Its certainly no "apt-get upgrade", but I guess if your using windows
    > rather than linux on a server you must be an enthusiast that enjoys
    > mucking around and spending extra time doing things that you shouldnt
    > have to than with a more "just-get-the-job-done" Server OS like linux.


    wtf are you talking about

    admins ... take ownership - done!

    --
    ===================================================
    Steven H
     
    Steven H, Dec 4, 2003
    #5
  6. Steven H wrote:
    > In article <bqmnqd$gkn$02$-online.com>,
    > says...


    >>Its certainly no "apt-get upgrade", but I guess if your using windows
    >>rather than linux on a server you must be an enthusiast that enjoys
    >>mucking around and spending extra time doing things that you shouldnt
    >>have to than with a more "just-get-the-job-done" Server OS like linux.

    >
    >
    > wtf are you talking about


    Sorry should have punctuated it up a bit more. I meant, its good that
    this is only a experimental computer enthusiasts server, and not an
    actual production server, because in the real world, fucking around and
    trying to fix up ownerships and permissions after what should be a
    simple downgrade from 2003 to 2000, would not be tolerated.

    I was comparing this to an actual real world scenario where such fucking
    around would not be tolerated, and not even be required, as the sensible
    admins would be using a real server OS like unix in the first place,
    which doesnt require resetting all ownerships and permissions after
    switching kernel or OS release versions.

    > admins ... take ownership - done!


    wtf are you talking about?
     
    Kurt Häusler, Dec 4, 2003
    #6
  7. On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:33:14 +0100, Kurt Häusler wrote:

    > Steven H wrote:
    >> In article <bqmnqd$gkn$02$-online.com>,
    >> says...

    >
    >>>Its certainly no "apt-get upgrade", but I guess if your using windows
    >>>rather than linux on a server you must be an enthusiast that enjoys
    >>>mucking around and spending extra time doing things that you shouldnt
    >>>have to than with a more "just-get-the-job-done" Server OS like linux.

    >>
    >>
    >> wtf are you talking about

    >
    > Sorry should have punctuated it up a bit more. I meant, its good that this
    > is only a experimental computer enthusiasts server, and not an actual
    > production server, because in the real world, fucking around and trying to
    > fix up ownerships and permissions after what should be a simple downgrade
    > from 2003 to 2000, would not be tolerated.


    Then again a production server would've been fully tested before the
    upgrade, so that the likelihood of a necessary downgrade would be near
    zero.

    The server would also be likely be on a domain, so unless it was the one
    and only DC the SIDs would stay the same and the ACLs wouldn't need
    changing.

    If the server was backed up before being upgraded, the restore of the old
    one wouldn't cause a problem because both installs would've used the same
    set of SIDs.

    etc etc

    I do admit that NT/W2K's etc tendency to use not very editable GUIDs for
    everything makes it harder to hack around with stuff, but the same issue
    could happen in a Unix downgrade if the default UIDs and GIDs changed
    between releases. Unix just makes it easier to hack the user and group IDs
    to suit.

    And yes, I do prefer Linux/BSD to NT but you're worrying about non issues.

    Cheers
    Anton
     
    Gregory Parker, Dec 5, 2003
    #7
  8. Alan Howard

    AD. Guest

    On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 14:52:40 +1300, Gregory Parker wrote:

    > Cheers
    > Anton


    Doh, I'm not used to this split personality lark!

    Won't happen again - I promise!
     
    AD., Dec 5, 2003
    #8
  9. Alan Howard

    Gavin Tunney Guest

    On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 08:30:21 +0100, Kurt Häusler <>
    wrote:

    >Martin wrote:
    >> "AD." <> wrote in message
    >> news:p...
    >>
    >>>On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:22:28 +1300, Alan Howard wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Just wondering if I'll be able to recover the contents of 'other' NTFS
    >>>>partitions after formatting my system partition to remove Windows 2003
    >>>>Server to replace it with Windows 2000 Server. When 2000 Server starts
    >>>>will it/I be able to access the contents of the other NTFS partitions on
    >>>>the disk or will I get caught out by the completely different SIDs and
    >>>>ACLs (or something else)?
    >>>
    >>>Nope it should all work fine, I've done it plenty of times.
    >>>
    >>>But (the gotcha), going from 2003 back to 2000 might mean that the
    >>>partition has a newer version of NTFS than 2000 supported natively.
    >>>

    >>
    >> the other small gotcha can be if encryption has been used on the 2003
    >> partitions then accessing them will be a problem...

    >
    >And you will most likely have to add all the users, and then go through
    >the whole fs setting ownerships and permissions etc..
    >
    >Its certainly no "apt-get upgrade", but I guess if your using windows
    >rather than linux on a server you must be an enthusiast that enjoys
    >mucking around and spending extra time doing things that you shouldnt
    >have to than with a more "just-get-the-job-done" Server OS like linux.


    You neglected to put "IMO" in your post there Kurt. It pays to let
    people know you're just giving your own personal opinion... else some
    might get the idea you're a windows hating linux troll... and we don't
    want any misunderstandings do we ;-)

    Just IMO of course.

    Gavin
     
    Gavin Tunney, Dec 7, 2003
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Steve

    XP problem with Win 2K NTFS partitions

    Steve, Dec 7, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    537
    Steve
    Dec 7, 2003
  2. Tech
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    716
    Plato
    Apr 6, 2004
  3. Joeseph

    after installing SP2 cant read ftp contents

    Joeseph, Oct 1, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    518
    Joeseph
    Oct 3, 2004
  4. Tony Neville
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,624
    steve
    Sep 22, 2006
  5. Gloria
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    460
Loading...

Share This Page