XOSL2 and WinPE on logical partition

[vyruz]

I hope this is the right forum to post this in, please move my post if not.

I have the following drive partitioning in place:

- 23GB Primary partition (NTFS) --> WinXP 1

- 23GB Primary partition (NTFS) --> WinXP 2

- 23GB Primary partition (NTFS) --> WinXP 3

- Extended partition:

--- 517MB Logical partition (NTFS) --> D: drive for 1st WinXP system

--- 517MB Logical partition (NTFS) --> D: drive for 2nd WinXP system

--- 517MB Logical partition (NTFS) --> D: drive for 3rd WinXP system

--- 1GB Logical partition (FAT32) --> WinPE 2.0 (from windows AIK)

--- 9GB Logical partition (FAT32) --> shared space for all WinXP systems

--- 100MB Logical partition (XOSL FS) --> XOSL2

The intention of this setup is to have 2 seperate windows XP system next to eachother, for testing different software versions.

When loading one WinXP system, all partitions except that systems primary partition, the according D: drive and the shared space should be hidden. That's why I want to use XOSL2, because it can hide partitions based on what you are booting.

Now loading these different WinXP systems works fine, it's loading the WinPE system that is causing me trouble.

I used to have FreeDOS installed instead of WinPE, which worked just fine being loaded from XOSL from a logical partition. but due to newer systems not having driver support for FreeDOS I decided to switch to WinPE. Note that when booting this partition, none of the other partitions are visible.

I tried on the same system with just 2 primary partitions (one for XOSL, and the 2nd for WinPE), and that worked perfectly, so I decided that the issue is located around the fact that I'm trying to boot WinPE from a logical partition.

XOSL starts up fine, but when I try to boot the WinPE partition I just get a black screen with 'XOSL2.1.1.6' and that's it PC locked up.

Any help would be very much appreciated!

[jaclaz]

Well, with all due respect , if it 's NOT a multi-boot CD/DVD and is NOT Unattended, this is hardly the "right" place:

MSFN Forums> Unattended Windows Discussion & Support> Multi-Boot CD/DVDs

If I get it right and the problem/question is "how can I boot from a logical partition?", the answer is here:

http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/index.htm

http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/ptedit.htm

If the question, on the other hand is "What would be the easiest method to boot a setup like this?", most probably the answer is "using grub4dos instead of XOSL2, as grub4dos can directly chainload the loaders bypassing bootsectors and needs not a dedicated partition".

jaclaz

[vyruz]

Well, with all due respect , if it 's NOT a multi-boot CD/DVD and is NOT Unattended, this is hardly the "right" place:

MSFN Forums> Unattended Windows Discussion & Support> Multi-Boot CD/DVDs

If I get it right and the problem/question is "how can I boot from a logical partition?", the answer is here:

http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/index.htm

http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/ptedit.htm

If the question, on the other hand is "What would be the easiest method to boot a setup like this?", most probably the answer is "using grub4dos instead of XOSL2, as grub4dos can directly chainload the loaders bypassing bootsectors and needs not a dedicated partition".

jaclaz

Well this is the only forum which I could see was related to multi-booting (CD/DVD although). It was what I saw best fit for this topic.

In any case, thanks for the links you provided me with, but I think they're not what I'm looking for.

Since XOSL is working fine, except for the WinPE booting part.

My guess is that something in the BCD configuration of the WinPE install is wrong, and the links you provided don't talk about the bootmgr bootloader.

Like I said it works flawlessly when I put FreeDOS in place, it's only WinPE which is causing trouble.

[jaclaz]

Well, of course the freedos bootsector has different CODE from the WIN PE one, so it is well possible that the problem of the wrong "sectors before" doesn't affect the one, but does affect the other.

I don't see what you have to lose in trying corrrecting the "sectors before" in the PBR.

If it works, you have solved your problem, if it doesn't it's something else, and we can find an alternate solution (already hinted - grub4dos).

JFYI, if there is a problem in the BCD, you woulld get a BOOTMGR error (BSOD), not XOSL re-loading or whatever.

jaclaz

Edited March 31, 2010 by jaclaz

[cluberti]

Moved to XP - not sure this is specifically a WinPE issue, so moving to XP.

[jaclaz]

Moved to XP - not sure this is specifically a WinPE issue, so moving to XP.

To be fair, it's about PE 2.0, then it should be VISTA related.

jaclaz

[Tripredacus]

You should be able to boot a WinPE 2.0 partition with just the boot.ini and not have to worry about BCD. However, I am wondering why your PE is running as FAT32 and not NTFS... Anyways the only other problem might be that the WinPE partition would need to be marked as Active in order for it to boot. I believe I ran into this problem a few years ago, however I was using Terrabyte Lab's MBR programs to unhide a WinPE partition, mark it active and then boot to it. And then later, after rebooting from the WinPE partition, you need to mark it as inactive and mark a different volume as active. At least that is how I did it, but also only with 2 partitions.

[jaclaz]

Anyways the only other problem might be that the WinPE partition would need to be marked as Active in order for it to boot.

It would be interesting to know how you would make a logical volume inside extended Active....

Quick sum up:

• the Active flag is used by "standard" MBR code to choose WHICH partition among the 4 (four) entries in the MBR Partition Table to boot from
  
• a logical volume inside extended it is NOT in one of the entries in the MBR partition table
  
• you need a kind of bootmanager to chainload the bootsector of a logical volume inside extended
  
• the "standard" code in the bootsector or PBR won't normally work unless you fix the "sectors before" parameter in the BPB of the bootsector (see already given link)
  
• the alternative is bypassing the bootsector and directly chainloading the system file (grub4dos can do this)
  

Normal boot sequence:

BIOS->MBR->PBR or bootsector of Active Primary partition->Systemfile invoked by bootsector (IO.SYS or NTLDR or BOOTMGR, etc.)

Boot sequence with most bootmanagers:

BIOS->MBR->Bootmanager->PBR or bootsector of ANY partition->(FAIL if BPB is wrong)->Systemfile invoked by bootsector

Possible bootsequence with grub4dos (I think newish syslinux/isolinux can do the same):

BIOS->MBR->grub4dos->Systemfile on ANY partition

jaclaz

[vyruz]

I fixed it!!

Apparently the black screen with 'XOSL' on it meant that the bootloader of WinPE (BCD) couldn't start, so I started reading the 2 links that Jaclaz provided in the beginning, and indeed that 'hidden sectors' number was way too low. Funny thing is that Grub4DOS didn't care about this and worked just fine. Guess this means XOSL is not as stable as Grub4dos.

After fixing that at least BCD was starting but not booting WinPE due to some minor issues in the BCD config.

Just want to point out that while I do prefer Grub4DOS over XOSL in a technical way, XOSL is a lot more user friendly. The image I'm making here is intended to be used on development/testing machines to provide people the ability to easily load differen't OS's and environments (currently they're just swapping disks to achieve this). So XOSL is a lot easier for them to rename their boot options etc.

So thanks to Jaclaz for providing me those links!

[jaclaz]

So thanks to Jaclaz for providing me those links!

You are welcome.

As you can see from my previous post, it is not that XOSL is in any way "not as stable as grub4dos".

XOSL simply relies on bootsectors.

grub4dos can, besides relying on them, BYPASS them.

In other words, grub4dos can use BOTH (example):

title WinPE on (hd0,7) BOOTMGR
hide (hd0,0)
hide (hd0,1)
hide (hd0,2)
hide (hd0,4)
hide (hd0,5)
hide (hd0,6)
root (hd0,7)
chainloader /bootmgr

And:

title WinPE on (hd0,7) bootsector
hide (hd0,0)
hide (hd0,1)
hide (hd0,2)
hide (hd0,4)
hide (hd0,5)
hide (hd0,6)
root (hd0,7)
chainloader +1

The latter (unless you correct the sectors before) won't work exactly as XOSL won't, the first simply ignores the BPB of the bootsector and directly loads the Systemfile.

jaclaz

[Ponch]

Edited. Never mind. (was just going to say that there were only a few months between WinPE2.0 and the last version of XOSL2 in January 2007).

Edited April 1, 2010 by Ponch

[vyruz]

next problem

So I had the setup working inside a virtual machine.

I then made a ghost of the virtual disk, and restored the ghost onto a 'real' hardware platform.

After that however, XOSL wouldn't start...

I've tried reinstalling XOSL but that didn't help one bit...

I did try all 3 imaging 'modes' of Ghost, with one of them specifically stating that the MBR should be backed up as well, howeve the result remains the same: system tries to boot from HD0 and screen remains at a blinking cursor.

I'm currently looking at the drive with ptedit but when I go to the 100MB extended partition I'm using for XOSL, the 'Boot Record' button gets disabled so I can't check the 'hidden sectors' value.

Also, when booting from my Grub4DOS-equiped USB drive, I can perfectly boot all the partitions, including the extended WinPE partition.

Anyone got any clever ideas?

[jaclaz]

Also, when booting from my Grub4DOS-equiped USB drive, I can perfectly boot all the partitions, including the extended WinPE partition.

.....with the chainloader /bootmgr, YES, with the chainloader +1, NO.

Anyone got any clever ideas?

YES.

http://homepages.tesco.net/J.deBoynePollard/FGA/questions-with-yes-or-no-answers.html

You won't like them though.

HOW did you try re-installing XOSL?

HOW did you "ghost" the VM drive?

I don't care about GHOST and the switches you used, most probably some parts were skipped nonetheless, or you resized something, or whatever else.

The only way to image a disk (virtual or real) when any "delicate" mechanism, like XOSL and it's dedicated partition are used, it is to use a "forensic like" utility, such as dsfo/dsfi or a similar "plain" or if you prefere "dumb" utility.

It is also perfectly possible that hardware does make a difference (like drive in the VM being a "standard IDE" one and the "real" disk being SATA).

In other words, you are using a tool that has not been developed actively since three years in a BETA release, and not that much has anyway changed since the previous "stable" version since what? 2001?

It is very likely that you will find hiccups in it.

HOW big are the virtual and real disks?

jaclaz

[Ponch]

system tries to boot from HD0 and screen remains at a blinking cursor.

That's usually the result of no active partition.

[jaclaz]

That's usually the result of no active partition.

In my experience it is very often a problem in the boot sector, namely a problem in the partition table unbalanced between CHS and LBA or having different geometry detected by BIOS that gets "hooked" by the bootsector BPB and CODE.

This latter is typical when "migrating" from a VM to real hardware or viceversa, since this is what vyruz did, it seems to me more probable a cause than GHOST "automagically" resetting the Active partition entry in the MBR.

Example (#1):

http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=21049&st=8

Of course each bootsector code has it's own story, JFYI the FAT32 and NTFS "windows NT" one have additional checks, as another example (#2) :

http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=23408

http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=21702&st=129

http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=8528&st=21

jaclaz