I misread. I thought he meant C: for Windows & apps.
OK, but its still not almost always even with that config.
Certainly more than hardly ever tho.
Yep.
We're talking ballpark figures here.
Still hard to decide what size the OS and apps
partition needs to be so it will be big enough for years.
Also the massive games & CD/DVD reference titles
& such probably don't belong on C: and in the System
images anyway. Too cumbersome. All those big maps,
screenshots, etc could also bee seen as "user data."
Thats messy and cumbersome and risky too.
That contains things very often to under 10 gigs.
Nothing like big enough on either of the main work machines here.
And they dont have any of those games at all.
But he has access to a computer now - so
that's all he needs to estimate & then tack
some extra space on there for good measure.
Thats hard for even someone like me
to do, impossible for someone like him.
If he outgrows it in a year or two, big woop. Easily fixed.
Not safely it isnt when you need an image of the entire 250G drive.
The old images would still be good.
Wrong.
That's rubbish.
Nope.
I'm talking about everything the user creates or downloads as well
as a script or .reg or whatever can accomplish what he tweaked.
I'm not talking about everything in the "C:\Documents and
Settings\User\" including "Application Data," "Local Settings" & the
like.
Thats what user data of every kind means.
Simple folder direction is like 90% of it.
Pity about the 10%
Well I'm not recommending that - but you're wrong anyway.
Nope.
The system image just has to be in step with the
installations & only in certain occurrence the updates also.
I was talking about your claim about back in minutes.
It's more clunkey when you install apps to a different
partition, & then restore only the OS, but still verydoable.
Bullshit. And takes more than minutes too.
Sure if things are pretty static with all 100% trusted apps.
That aint the only situation where that is an obscene waste of time.
It makes a lot more sense to just document quirks with particular apps.
But I doubt that is a case with someone asking about
RAID0 and partitioning. It's helpful elsewhere as well.
Nope, an obscene waste of time.
Right. Hence the history for troubleshooting & backtracking.
That aint the only way to handle that. It makes a
lot more sense to just document the quirks instead.
And to work out the complexitys with a canned OS install
on a test config instead of logging everything ever done.
Yep.
For best results the images should be clean & without
use - soley the result of installation & configuration.
Pity that just isnt feasible with a system thats used much.
It's often worth the time to rollback to
create a new, current, authoritative config.
Pity that just isnt feasible with a system thats used much.
It seems like a waste but it's really a time investment
that pays off when you end up bypassing many other
issues & troubleshooting sessions entirely.
Wrong again. It certainly makes sense to image the OS & apps
partition before an install of something you havent installed before,
or a significant update of that, so you can step back gracefully if it
all goes pear shaped and the restore point isnt enough, but when
it does go pear shaped, its much more efficient to work out why
it went pear shaped with a canned test install of the OS etc and
then install it allowing for the quirk on the restore OS & apps image
instead of trying to create a new, current, authoritative config.
In practice I don't usually do it exactly this way anymore.
Yeah, because its a very long winded pain in the arse of an
approach that only the most obsessively anal will ever persist with.
I'm a big fan or repackaging apps for automated distribution.
Often there is a core image of OS & drivers. (This can provide
a faster restore than RIS, etc.) Then everything gets installed
& updated on bootup. Still a compromise. & yes there's still a
paper trail - but not the tremendous manual task you're imagining.
Not even applicable to his situation.
Now I don't think he should attempt to undertake this now.
But if he's experimenting and pusing the limits of the machine
and/or his knowledge he needs to be diciplined in what he
does lest when things go wrong its overwheling or subject
to "superstition" rather than accurate analysis & repair.
That aint the only way to handle that, like I said.
Not if you install everything in C: like I'm proposing. Also not if
what's installed to D: didn't go through an update that affected both.
It's not complicated if the system is well
organized and the file backup is automatic
It never is with that level of user.
or you set reminders to do a predefined job and the image
procedure comes whenever you sit down to configure.
Nothing like what you were suggesting there.
Simple users aren't likely to do anything reliably. It's their
problem if they cannot fully utilize their system or failsafes.
Plenty of them can handle simple images fine.
But really these two approaches involve different compromises and
emphasize different strengths. One is easier on the onset, the other
involves a little more planning but is safer and is quicker to recover
& acknowledges & plans for the reality of how problems arise in the
real world as well as how lifecycle & upgrades work.
And is something no simple user ever bothers with.
If you don't have a lot of disposable time you need to
back up ANYTHING that would take time to replace.
No you dont. You can also decide what is at so low a risk of losing
that it warrants that extra time in the unlikely event it gets lost.
Not just the stuff you'd "slash your wrists" if you lost. But look
who I'm talking to. The guy with all the time in the world.
Who knows that while some things would take some time to recover,
that the risk of losing it is very low with the way they do their system.
Perhaps. It's personal preference.
I like
A: 1st Floppy
C: 1st HDD
E: 1st optical
Because that's the way it was years ago
and the letters make a musical triad.
Figures. You aint called stupid for nothing, stupid.
Lately I find myself often making R: 1st recordable drive,
V: 1st virtual cdrom, etc. So even I'm moving away from
that myself. But it's only the basic idea of establishing
personal conventions I'm selling to him.
And I was just pointing out that it makes more
sense to have the optical drives start higher than E
Maybe I was unclear.
Nope.
I don't mean he should further partition for organizational purposes.
I wasnt commenting on that at all there.
I just meant that proper volume labels make
a lot more sense the drive letters for most work.
But when you mount the volume you have to calll it something.
Yes, but it doesnt have to be as meaning free as a single letter.
Sometimes there's value in using a letter other than
what's next and leaving it labeled "New Volume."
Even you should be able to manage better than that.
It's a minor point, though,
No it isnt.
that probably doesn't warrant all this discussion.
Fraid so.
Nope. Bet you wouldnt even be able
to pick it in a proper double blind trial.
To not needing to bother with that.
So I guess load balancing for networks is obsolete as well?
Never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.
Fact.
All the time with common disk intensive tasks i.e.
archiving, archive testing, slipstreaming, mainting
virtual disks, repackaging, usenet warzing, etc.etc.etc
Bet you wouldnt even be able to pick it in a proper
double blind trial without being allowed to use a stopwatch.
It's doable but barely minimalistic.
God knows what you 'think' thats supposed to mean.
It's not what I use for personal use either.
Tell us Rod, if "Tape has passed its useby date"
how do you handle these backup HDDs.?
I backup over the lan to drives on other PCs.
I mean I know you copy stuff to other computers on your
home LAN but how to you take copies offline for safekeeping?
I only bother to do that with the stuff I'll slash my wrists if I lose,
because I now that its impossible to flood my house, extremely
unlikely that it will ever go up in flames, and no burglar will be
able to steal all drives before the cops show up.
I basically write DVDs with the stuff I'll slash my wrists if I lose
and accept the fact that if my house does have a plane crash
into it or something, that I'll have to replace all my toys and
the house and that its no big deal to do clean installs on the
new toys and then just run in the stuff that I'd slash my wrists
if I lost them off the DVDs that are offsite. That includes my
notes on the apps I use.
Has nothing to do with media rotation
You dont need media rotation if you only use the image
when the restore point doesnt do what you need.
& doesn't fully address the needs of a robust backup scheme.
I dont need that. The chance of needing that is so remote
that I'm happy that it will take some time. But then so
would the replacement of the house and all my toys too.
Frankly I wouldn't trust my data to SR.
I dont. Its just the first level of backup with two
more levels past that for when it isnt adequate.
Much too limiting & minimalistic.
Having fun thrashing that straw man are you ?
Fact.
Organization, backup systems, media rotation, load balancing
& general planning are concepts that are separate from
specific storage interface, spindle speed, etc.
Nope. The reason I only bother with DVD for the stuff
I'll slash my wrists if I lose is because the speed and
operational stuff is too awkward to bother with for
full hard drive images with modern 300G+ drives.
They are only connected when the planning includes
tiered storage, but even then the principles are the
same regardeless of specific products.
Mindless pig ignorant waffle.
There are no hard & fast rules here.
You just said there were.
Only basic principles & alternate solutions for
him to reflect on and decide what works for him.
And what is practical does indeed
vary with the workstation storage type.
Fact.
It's true though I still have limited faith in overly complex OS's with
insufficently protected design, that have not yet evolved enough.
And you havent adjusted your backup strategy to allow
for restore points that do work fine much of the time.
They are still too vulnerable to too much which
too easily compromises their "capabilities".
I never said he shouldn't use SR - or that I never so.
You didnt even mention them. You should have and are only
waffling now when your nose has been rubbed in that dinosauring.
But, since you bring it up, it is overly limiting
& foolhardy to have a primary reliance on IMHO.
Pity no one ever said that it should be primarily relied on.
