Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I've read that you cannot boot from the VHD backups that Vista Ultimate / Server 2008 creates. However you can mount them with vhdmount.

So if you can't boot it then what good is the VHD backup over a regular compressed file backup and system restore?

share|improve this question
up vote 2 down vote accepted

Microsoft uses a technology called Volume Shadow Copy to make these backups. It's a very clever approach because it allows full volume sector-by-sector backups (like a Ghost image) that can be stored incrementally. If you backup every day, each additional copy only consumes the space required to store the changes, yet still looks like a full stand-alone image.

The combination of VHD (a convenient pre-existing disk image format) and Volume Shadow Copy makes it trivial to restore to any point in time (that you have a backup of).

Why are these image (or sector-based) backups useful?

1) Sector-based backups are orders of magnitude faster than file-based ones. In a sector-based backup the disk heads are moving sequentially whereas in a file-based backup the heads are moving randomly. In many cases this means the difference between backups being able to complete overnight or not.

2) You can do a complete system restore simply by booting from the Vista/Windows 7 DVD and going through the option of recovering your system. This covers scenarios like failed hardware or malware damaging your OS.

3) They are very space-efficient. Think of a 100 MB database file. If you do incremental file-based backups, every new backup will consume 100 MB. On the other hand, a sector-based incremental backup will only consume the space necessary to store the changes to the 100 MB file, which could be as small as a single sector.

Microsoft's use of the VHD format was a logical choice that saved them creating a new format -- a laudable approach in my opinion (the less "standards" the better). Think about it; with VHDMount I can now mount full-disk backups AND Virtual PC/Hyper-V virtual disks -- what's not to like? Nowhere in all that is the implication that an image of a computer will boot on completely different hardware (which is what Virtual PC/Hyper-V are equivalent to).

share|improve this answer
Thanks for the explanation. All of those are very solid reasons, I have to admit however that I was disappointed when I found that I couldn't simply run the VM from the VHD. It seems at the least I ought to be able to do a system restore to VirtualPC or different hardware. Is that possible? – Martin Murphy Nov 15 '09 at 17:17

I think the idea behind it is that if using Hyper-V, you can quickly move it to another Hyper-V server and mount it to another Virtual server.

share|improve this answer
I can see how that would make sense in a enterprise environment with Server 2008 machines but why on Vista? Maybe it's just one of those things that Microsoft does that doesn't make sense. But I was hoping for something more convenient for the non-enterprise user. – Martin Murphy Oct 27 '09 at 21:15
Looks like Windows 7 support booting these and mounting them.… – ITGuy24 Oct 28 '09 at 4:34
This works if you set it up that way from scratch but you cannot do this from a VHD produced from a backup of a physical machine. – Martin Murphy Mar 17 '10 at 14:47

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.