To partition or not partition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dave
  • Start date Start date
D

Dave

Hi All,

I am in a situation where through experience and training
(Windows courses) I have always installed W2k on a minimum
4GB partition. The remainder, after installation, was
converted/formated into a D partition. I now find myself
having to justify why 2 partitions are necessary. The
obviouse reasons of keeping the OS seperate from your data
is not good enough. I need official Microsoft documents
recommending this. Any help in pointing me to the links
from Microsoft that outline the partitioning of Windows
and most preferrably "why" would be most appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
 
It really recommended for recovery options. I don't think there is an
'official' MS document on it. It mostly comes from experience. I always
create partitions but that is because it is easier to recover the system if
it crashes and will give a way to fix the original install. What I mean is
that if you crash you could install a parallel install of NT to the next
partition without affecting the original install and then use that new
install to attempt to fix the original install. If you did not have
partitions and attempted to reinstall you would break the original install
more by reintsalling. That's just my $0.02!
 
Thanks Scott. It is nice to be in agreement on this.
Anyone else have anything they can add?
 
I agree with Scott. More info:

Classical partitioning schemes seek to isolate the OS, applications, and
data in separate partitions, even on different hard drives.
Benefits include:
- relatively simple and non-destructive reinstallation of the OS.
Operating systems fail from time to time.
- relatively simple and smaller (hence faster) backups of data. This
makes frequent backups more attractive.
- relatively speedier access, especially when more than one HDD is
involved. OS and app performance can be greatly improved.
- ditto the above for pagefile placement.
- relatively simpler recovery from any file/index structure corruption.
- relatively simple solutions (sometimes via 3rd party utilities) when
it's time to add drives or modify partition sizes.

The list goes on. The old mother-wit about putting all your eggs in one
basket really applies in the world of storage configuration strategy.
When something goes wrong, the right partitioning and file distribution
strategy can really limit your pain. Time to recovery translates
directly into cost of lost services, and cost of analgesics.
 
Dave said:
Hi All,

I am in a situation where through experience and training
(Windows courses) I have always installed W2k on a minimum
4GB partition. The remainder, after installation, was
converted/formated into a D partition. I now find myself
having to justify why 2 partitions are necessary. The
obviouse reasons of keeping the OS seperate from your data
is not good enough. I need official Microsoft documents
recommending this. Any help in pointing me to the links
from Microsoft that outline the partitioning of Windows
and most preferrably "why" would be most appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

You'll be hardpressed to find an MS document recommending seperate
partitions. This is an unfortunate situation since the benefits to such a
scheme are numerous. Other than backup recovery and better organization: one
can argue standardization, compatibility and security as well.

Perhaps detailing a situation where a single partitioned installation is
guarenteed to fail will have you asking them for justification.

Motherboard bios doesn't support 48 LBA, hard drive is > 137 Gigs.
 
Back
Top