On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 16:50:35 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote: > On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 11:30:38 -0400 (EDT), Camaleón wrote: >> ... >> But regardless the option the user select at install time (do not >> install any bootloader, install it in a partition or another place or >> just putting it into MBR), it would be nice the installer makes a copy >> of the original MBR and leaves it under "/boot". > > Sometimes restoring a backup copy of the master boot record can be even > more dangerous than wiping it out. The master boot record contains the > master boot record boot program, but it also contains the partition > table. If any partition changes were made during installation > (partitions were created, deleted, moved, resized, etc.) then simply > replacing the master boot record with an older copy will not only > restore the old master boot record boot program but will also restore > the old partition table. This can lead to permanent data loss. One > must be very careful about how one goes about restoration in such cases. > In most cases, one doesn't want to restore the entire 512-byte sector, > but only a portion of it: up to, but not including, the partition table.
If you add encryption to the equation things can be even worst. While I agree that "playing" (backing and restoring) with MBR can be dangerous I also think that having no previous copy is equally bad. I'm not aware of any data loss for just making a backup of the MBR at install time. Restoring is another thing but if you have a copy of the original MBR at least you have something to test (or to compare) with. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.08.01.11.06...@gmail.com
