Hard Drive Partitioning

[Peter]

What you can do to avoid this is to ghost your system periodically

OK, but its still not relevant to include the OS and apps
in with the critical data volume wise, the space taken by
the OS and apps is irrelevant to the backup question.

It is relevant because I backup OS and aplications too.

And he doesnt have a volume problem anyway
with the second 160G drive so cheap.

He didn't say that he has a volume problem. He had question on how/if to
partition drive.

Basically its too risky to try to include just the critical data in
with the OS and apps,

It is not risky if properly backed up.

much safer to backup the data when
it changes and not attempt to work out what is critical data.

I grade my data (frequent backup set, seldom archive set, no backup or
archive set), because backing all frequently would take too much resources.

Or more strictly it makes a lot of sense backup all the
data you create yourself that way and say the stuff
you save off the net etc as less important to backup.

That is what I'm saying.

That's rather mangled too. The changes to the OS and apps due
to updates and fixes cant happen at any time unless you choose
to have automatic updates. So you only need to backup the OS
and apps partition whenever updates and fixes have been done.

I do chose to have automated updates. OS, antivirus, antispyware, etc. Is
that still "mangled" ?

Yes, like I said, you can make a case for having a separate
OS and apps partition to maximise the chance that you will
bother to back it up after each update or fix, but even thats
arguable if its an automated incremental backup that happens
when you arent around.

Too many problems with incremental backups. At least as of today.

Thats mad. Critical irreplaceable data is completely different. The
worst that can happen with the OS and apps is that you need to do
a clean install and then update that if the worst comes to the worst.

I said almost. I don't have irreplacable critical data which loss would cost
me thousand dollars. But others might.

Sure, but that doesnt mean that is almost as vital as irreplaceable
data. Its a convenience thing rather than an impossibility.

Right. Depends on personal situation.

No they dont, they only need to be resaved when they have changed.

You might call it "resaved". I never thought that way (backup as a
"resaver").

No comment here?

 

[Timothy Daniels]

[.........]
Frontloading the swapfile on a first partition of a
just as fast or faster hard drive is acceptable....

Is this because the partition numbering starts
with the outside cylinders (which contain the
fastest moving tracks)?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Rod Speed]

It is relevant because I backup OS and aplications too.

Nope. In spades with him because he
has loads of space to put backups into.

He didn't say that he has a volume problem.

He doesnt have a volume problem, he has
loads of space on the second 160G drive.

He had question on how/if to partition drive.

And you started discussing backup,
and I commented on what you said.

It is not risky if properly backed up.

Its risky trying to decide what is critical data and what
is not, because what is critical data may not get backed
up with the other critical data. THATS the risk.

I grade my data (frequent backup set, seldom
archive set, no backup or archive set),

And that is a risky approach, it isnt hard to forget about some
critical data and not include it in the frequent backup set.

because backing all frequently would take too much resources.

I never said that it should be backed up frequently, I clearly
said that its a lot safer to back up what changes instead.

That is what I'm saying.

But it isnt always easy to decide what you have created yourself
with stuff like digital certificates etc with that level of user.

I do chose to have automated updates. OS,
antivirus, antispyware, etc. Is that still "mangled" ?

Yes, because you didnt make it clear that that you were
talking about that approach, and that it isnt necessarily
the best approach if you arent using automated updates.

Too many problems with incremental backups. At least as of today.

Bullshit. In spades with automated incremental backups
that get done when the system isnt being used.

I said almost.

Nothing like almost.

I don't have irreplacable critical data which loss
would cost me thousand dollars. But others might.

Most do have data that would cost them more effort than
a clean install and updates applied in the worst case where
a virus etc does happen to infect the system since the last
OS and apps backup where there has been significant
reconfig since then that has not been backed up.

And that is easily avoided by doing another backup whenever
there has been a significant reconfig or update etc done.

Right. Depends on personal situation.

Its hardly ever almost as vital when the OS
and apps are backed up, just not daily etc.

You might call it "resaved". I never thought
that way (backup as a "resaver").

Corse it is.

No comment here?

I did, you deleted it from the quoting.

 

[Rod Speed]

Just give windows plenty of space for both the OS and any
applications. How much depends on what and how many
applications you intend to load. The partition should also
have freespace for "breathing room"

Frontloading the swapfile on a first partition of a just as fast
or faster hard drive is acceptable. Just let windows decide
the swapfile size. Am using a 4GB partition for that here.

You can divide your data between folders on one partition, or
partitions on a separate hard drive. Makes little difference.

Makes quite a bit of difference, actually. With separate partitions
for different types of data make it very hard to decide what is the
appropriate size for each of them, particularly over time, and the
free space gets split over the partitions. And its risky to change
partition sizes without full backup of the data in them. Doesnt
happen with a single data partition using folder trees.

 

[Iago]

I just purchased a new computer running XP that came with a 160GB HD,
and picked up a 2nd
160GB HD as it was only $39 (after rebates).
I have a few questions re partitioning -
I plan on dividing the second HD into seperate partitions for
Data/Downloads/Photos/Music/.
I was also thinking of making a small partition at the beginning of the
drive to use for swap/paging.

Good idea to keep paging on the second drive but not at the beginning.

Is it best to leave the primary drive intact, or make a seperate
partition for the OS, so if/when I need to do any maintenance, I only
need to deal with a 10GB drive.

A separate partition for OS and applications makes sense. I would
mirror this on the second drive, and keep copy of your data partitions
on drive 1.

In essence, both drives have the same structure, with an OS + apps
partition at the beginning, then a swap/paging partition followed by
one or more data only partitions.

Does it make sense to have a seperate drive for programs (install to
D:/program files instead of
C:/program files)?

I would say no, but if you browse the Web a lot moving temporary
internet files on drive 2 could be helpful. Just try, you can always
move them back.

 

[Arno Wagner]

And what about the benefit of having your data on a partition separate
from the system and apps?

That way, if you need to reinstall Windows or whatever, your data
partition need not be affected.

Makes sense to me.

I have used that setting with good success for years. Mostly for
games (since I do other stuff on Linux) and except for a few really
stupidly designed ones that put their savegames on the c:/ drive
instead of into the installation directories, no serious problems
so far. You might loose the entries in the start menu on
reinstallation of windows from scratch or backup, but the apps
should still run as intended.

Arno

 

[Lil' Dave]

Nice hearing from you.
Its first accessed there.
Think I'll scoot along now. You know who is tootin' his horn again.

[.........]
Frontloading the swapfile on a first partition of a
just as fast or faster hard drive is acceptable....

Is this because the partition numbering starts
with the outside cylinders (which contain the
fastest moving tracks)?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

So if you have a backup of a data volume, why do you care if data partition
is affected or not?

Because you can't have too many copies, and the HDD is more reliable than
most backup media.

 

[Peter]

So if you have a backup of a data volume, why do you care if data

partition

Because you can't have too many copies, and the HDD is more reliable than
most backup media.

That's right. Backup usually is a first copy of data. And it needs to be
verified to be sure it can be reliably read back.
Too many copies?
Yes, HDDs are often more reliable than most backup media. So what? They tend
to fail from time to time. And HDDs can be used as a backup media too.

 

[dagdabrona]

Hi,

Lost data can be recovered with Active@ Undelete tool. It has grand
restore methods, you should really experience it's power yourself!
http://www.active-undelete.com/