Skip to main content

SSD Partition Offset wrong

Thread needs solution
Beginner
Posts: 2
Comments: 3

Acronis True Image 2016 set the wrong Offset for the first partition. When using  a SSD, the offset should be 1024 KB

Also when the offset on the source right, Acronis True Image 2016 make on target again 17 KB Offset.

When Target smaller than source is no volume recovery possible, therefore i was unable to recover the efi-partition. Thats all really annoying, Acronis True Image 2016 copied all my SSD Drives wrong, and i have no idea how to make it right with a BIOS System with SATA2.

I tried to setup Win 10 to get right partitions on a SSD to make later a Volume Recovery, but Acronis True Image 2016 is not able to copy the efi partition, because target smaller. Windows Startup-Repair was unable to repair when only the main volume restored.

0 Users found this helpful
Beginner
Posts: 0
Comments: 8

I found this link is a good review of what the OP may be seeing and why there are extra partitions on some windows installs.

I have no idea about the error and hope a work around can help

I have to sometimes make one by one partition backups on my dual backup systems.

The Windows 10 info was all new to me.

http://superuser.com/questions/915238/what-is-this-recovery-partition-for-on-a-fresh-installation-of-windows-10

Beginner
Posts: 2
Comments: 3

It have nothing to do with Bios or UEFI. I tested it on a uefi-system. Same Problem. It is detectable that a SSD installed and Acronis make it wrong. I found on internet Acronis set the right offset when a SSD installed but thats not true.

I bought Version 2016 on 1605 and now i get no upgrade. thats also evil. But i believe 2017 have only more cloud computing integrated and the offset will with ATI 2017 also 17 instead of 1024. Therefore i dont go to buy it now.

Legend
Posts: 73
Comments: 16420

Matthias, rather than getting into a discussion about sector offsets, please provide details of how you have been using ATIH 2016 to clone or backup/restore to your SSD drive(s)?

At this point in time, I am not aware of any significant problems being caused by either using Acronis clone wizard or by doing a backup & restore when migrating to SSD drives.  The forums have lots of posts where users have been successful in doing this type of activity.

Please provide details of the steps you are following, what version of Windows OS is running, what exact version / build of ATIH 2016, what hardware components are involved in this process, i.e. HDD, SSD, NVMe, how connected (SATA, USB...)?  Are you using Acronis Rescue Media or working with the ATIH application from within Windows?

So far we have none of this information to start to understand what problem you are reporting here?

Forum Hero
Posts: 62
Comments: 7477

I think he's referencing the change with the MSR being moved to the 1st parition instead of the 3rd as it is in a default Windows install.  The offset is set to 17KB, but has no relevance to performance.  The MSR is a blank parition that has no data whatsoever.  It is designed to be used to take space from (if needed) especially when managing dynamic disks.  

However, yes, Acronis does move the MSR partition from the 3rd position and puts it in the 1st positions and also increases from the default 16Mb to 128Mb (the max size).  I'm not exactly sure why this is - I believe it was addressed by one of the support engineers in another thread, but I can't find it.  When this behavior was first introduced in Acronis 2015, it did cause issues because the paritions were not properly mapped and the recovery parition could not be booted as a result.  This is no longer an issue and has not been for quite some time.  In all honestly, the MSR parition has no impact on the OS - you can delete it and things will continue to work just fine.

As far as I know, the moving of the MSR partition does not occur during a clone process either - that's a one for 1 clone job - an exact clone  Only when doing a backup and restore and selecting a full disk recovery with the default settings, does this occur.  If one really had an issue with this (why though, I'm not sure - show me a real world case that applies to Acronis as it stands today with the recovery, bootaility, and ability to use the Windows recovery partition and I'll reconsider), they could create the parition scheme first (as described by Mustang in the sticky) using the WinPE and then restore the paritions one by one.

Attachment Size
387379-132964.jpg 20.22 KB
Beginner
Posts: 2
Comments: 3

Bobbo_3C0X1 wrote:
offset is set to 17KB, but has no relevance to performance

Thats not true. When the first partition have the wrong offset, are all other partitions wrong on a half block and then the lifetime of the ssd is 50% because the ssd write 2 blocks when only writing on one block needed. The data is then wrong writtn. Only solution is make a windows installation and a volume restore of the primary partition.

http://answers.microsoft.com/de-de/windows/wiki/windows_10-hardware/windows-und-ssd-konfiguration-und-optimierung/cf3bb519-28e0-439d-b06e-f3e793b32501

Its not matter using cloning or backup and restore. Always the same problem.

Edit: Maybe it have no relevance to performance because the second partition have the offset +1MB. This mean only the reserved first partition have the offset 17 KB the second partition start at 128MB+1MB=129 MB. This mean a empty space of 1007 KB is between the first and second partition, and the second partition seems to be at the right place. But this is not good, it confuse users which test the partition configuration with diskpart.

 

Forum Hero
Posts: 62
Comments: 7477

I can't read German so the article doesn't help me much. However, I've read similar articles and there is validity to what you're saying.  

BUT,  there is another way to check alignment too, and when I use this method, it divides evenly and shows alignment is correct.  

---------------------------------------------

Open up Msinfo32 >>> Components >>> Storage >>> Disks

Locate your SSD and find the Partition Starting Offset number.   Divide that number by 4096.

If it is a whole number (no decimals), your disk is alligned.  If there are decimals, it is not aligned.  Mine checks out as a whole number. 

472,907,776 / 4096 = 115,456 

---------------------------------------------

Most of these articles are from 2010/2011 when SSD's were just becoming mainstream.  This one statistic that you're hanging onto is like what they said about the life of plasma TV's only being something like 7 years (if you ran it 24/7), which is a terrible comparison, because almost no one runs there TV that long, and even if they did, they still work just fine. 

Realworld performance and usage also tells me I have nothing to worry about.  My 5 year old OCZ Vertex 4 SSD was my main OS drive for 3 years and has been imaged and reimaged with Acronis several times.  I still use it as a data drive today and it shows 98 percent health in Disk Sentinel and Speccy and SMART status is good in all tools I've checked it with.  It's lived well past the manufacturer warranty and shows no signs of slowing down.  Even if the disk was misaligned, which it's not, depsite that 17 showing up in diskpart, it's lived almost twice as long as the manufacturer warranty, and with only 2% degradation in that time, I think it will be useable for much longer.     

I'm not discredting what you're saying as misalignment can be a problem, but it's being overblown and using the 2nd test shows alignment is OK, disk life is still great with only 2% degradation in 5 years and I'm waaaaay beyond the manufacturer warranty with tons of life to go.  

Forum Hero
Posts: 62
Comments: 7477

Please use this SSD alignment tester

 

 

Attachment Size
387531-132979.jpg 49.88 KB
Beginner
Posts: 2
Comments: 3

Thanks alot. I found btw  another ssd benchmark program. This show left top that the alignment ok. Otherwise i can just using excel for calculating. The tip with the msinfo32 is very good.

http://www.alex-is.de/PHP/fusion/downloads.php?cat_id=4&download_id=9

 

Attachment Size
387558-132982.png 28.42 KB
Forum Hero
Posts: 62
Comments: 7477

Thanks for the additional link and glad we could come to agreement and find another way to detect the true alignment based off of the partition offset.  Always good to be able to validate information and provide it to others who might have the same questions.