Which partition for recording changes?

[Terry Pinnell]

I'm trying to understand how and where my system records all the many
changes that are made during a typical working session.

I have a multi-boot environment. For this discussion, let's stick to
just two (although I actually have three at present). Both are XP
Home. Two days ago I copied the OS (with Drive Image > Copy Drive)
from the original partition C on Disk 0 to partition H on Disk 1. I
booted into H and have been working in it today.

I expected to find that C would now be ignored, getting steadily out
of date (although still offering me security in an emergency), and
that all the new changes would now be recorded in H. But in fact, from
a simple search, it's clear they are in BOTH C and H.

Changes to my Mailwasher logs, Firefox bookmarks, etc, are being
recorded in places like these:
C:\Documents and Settings\Terry Pinnell\Application Data

Changes from Symantec LiveUpdate, ntuser.dat, shortcuts to Recent
Files, etc, are being recorded in places like these:
H:\Documents and Settings\Terry Pinnell\Recent
H:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\Symantec

Is that normal? Is it down to each application (or XP program/process)
to decide whether it records automatically in the currently booted
partition, or to some previously fixed location? If so, presumably
*both* of these partitions must be present for that application to
work properly in future? So if I removed one, to get greater
simplicity, some applications would be screwed up?

Any clear insights into this would be appreciated please.

 

[Peter]

Your findings are very correct. Various programs will obey system variables
to locate neccessary directories, while other will use registry values,
recorded when applications were setup. You may also scan your registry for
something like "C:", and you will be surprised.
If you now install some apps (or reinstall), there might be also references
to H: .

So the answer is Yes, you need both drives C; and H: from now on, unless you
reinstall those apps on H: drive.
You may want to fix registry values, to change from C: to H: but I do NOT
recommend that.

 

[Terry Pinnell]

Your findings are very correct. Various programs will obey system variables
to locate neccessary directories, while other will use registry values,
recorded when applications were setup. You may also scan your registry for
something like "C:", and you will be surprised.
If you now install some apps (or reinstall), there might be also references
to H: .

So the answer is Yes, you need both drives C; and H: from now on, unless you
reinstall those apps on H: drive.
You may want to fix registry values, to change from C: to H: but I do NOT
recommend that.

Thanks, very helpful. If/when I can figure out a way to do it safely
(after 3 days slog I've failed so far), I aim to get rid of C. It's on
a 60GB disk, and I want to get down to just my two 200GB disks. So
another 'tidy up' project would then become necessary.

But if necessary, I'll just have to live with 3 drives, and the rather
messy files that become apparent when you look under the surface!

 

[Rod Speed]

Thanks, very helpful. If/when I can figure out a way to do it safely
(after 3 days slog I've failed so far), I aim to get rid of C. It's on
a 60GB disk, and I want to get down to just my two 200GB disks.
So another 'tidy up' project would then become necessary.

But if necessary, I'll just have to live with 3 drives, and the rather
messy files that become apparent when you look under the surface!

That is a dangerous approach, particularly if the 60G drive dies. You
would then be up shit creek without a paddle very comprehensively indeed.

The only way you could adequately protect that config
would be full images of all the OS and 60G drive partitions.

 

[Rod Speed]

I'm trying to understand how and where my system records all
the many changes that are made during a typical working session.

Normally on the boot partition with most OSs.

And mostly in the registry with XP.

I have a multi-boot environment. For this discussion, let's stick to just
two (although I actually have three at present). Both are XP Home.
Two days ago I copied the OS (with Drive Image > Copy Drive)
from the original partition C on Disk 0 to partition H on Disk 1. I
booted into H and have been working in it today.

I expected to find that C would now be ignored, getting steadily
out of date (although still offering me security in an emergency),
and that all the new changes would now be recorded in H. But
in fact, from a simple search, it's clear they are in BOTH C and H.

Only if you dont have a clean boot, due to the way you copied XP.

Changes to my Mailwasher logs, Firefox bookmarks,
etc, are being recorded in places like these:
C:\Documents and Settings\Terry Pinnell\Application Data

Apps complicate things, with most of them
they control where they keep data like that.

Changes from Symantec LiveUpdate, ntuser.dat, shortcuts
to Recent Files, etc, are being recorded in places like these:
H:\Documents and Settings\Terry Pinnell\Recent
H:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\Symantec

Is that normal?

Thats basically because of the mess you have got into drive letter wise.

Its not a trivial exercise to keep two copys of the OS in synch.

In a practical sense it makes more sense to be doing a high
frequency of image creation, maybe even incremental, rather
than trying to keep two copys of an OS in synch at that level.

Is it down to each application (or XP program/process)
to decide whether it records automatically in the currently
booted partition, or to some previously fixed location?

Yes. Some keep some of that stuff in the registry,
some only in the Applications Data tree, quite a few
do their own thing on the location of various data.

If so, presumably *both* of these partitions must be present for
that application to work properly in future? So if I removed one,
to get greater simplicity, some applications would be screwed up?

Yes. That is one reason why images are better.

The only real downside is that it takes a bit longer
to get a bootable system if say a hard drive dies.

 

[Jim]

As someone who's been multi-booting for a VERY long time and seen it all, I
have a suspicion what's gone wrong here.

Whenever multi-booting in a case like this, it's critical to HIDE partitions
that are NOT relevant! A good boot manager will provide this option. Since
you didn't mention what you're using, I'll assume you're using the Windows
boot loader. One of its *major* drawbacks is its lack of partition hiding.
All it does is determine what partition is to be booted, but beyond that,
any and all other partitions remain VISIBLE.

So what happened? When you copied the C: partition to another location, and
then booted the copied partition (H, the original C: partition was still
visible, and since the C: partition was still referenced throughout the H:
partition, such as the registry, you ended up affecting the C: drive at
times, and just as bad, NOT affecting the H: drive when appropriate. IOW, a
mess.

The BEST way to address the problem is to use a quality boot manager. I use
BootIt NG myself ( http://www.bootitng.com ), there are others. If you were
using BootItNG, what you would do is copy the C: partition to another drive.
You then have TWO bootable partition, and most importantly, you'd configure
a boot item for EACH partition that always hide the other. And as a result,
EACH partition would boot as C:! There would be no H: in the picture, at
all. The ONLY reason an H: partition exists at all (and as a result screwed
up your installation) is because your current boot loader can't hide the
other partition when the other partition is visible.

The WHOLE problem with this attempt to multi-boot was caused by not using
the right boot manager. As soon as you resort to the Windows boot loader,
you set yourself up for all kinds of headaches. Use a tool like BootIt NG
instead, and the process is trivial.

HTH

Jim

 

[Peter]

The BEST way to address the problem is to use a quality boot manager. I
use

BootIt NG myself ( http://www.bootitng.com ), there are others. If you were
using BootItNG, what you would do is copy the C: partition to another drive.
You then have TWO bootable partition, and most importantly, you'd configure
a boot item for EACH partition that always hide the other. And as a result,
EACH partition would boot as C:! There would be no H: in the picture, at
all. The ONLY reason an H: partition exists at all (and as a result screwed
up your installation) is because your current boot loader can't hide the
other partition when the other partition is visible.

The WHOLE problem with this attempt to multi-boot was caused by not using
the right boot manager. As soon as you resort to the Windows boot loader,
you set yourself up for all kinds of headaches. Use a tool like BootIt NG
instead, and the process is trivial.

Does BootIt NG require its own partition on one of the hard drives?
What happens if that drive dies? Can I still easily boot my OS installed on
a third hard drive?
Does Disk Manager in Windows see other disks and partitions?

 

[Jim]

Does BootIt NG require its own partition on one of the hard drives?

It's quite flexible. There are several options.

You could define its own partition, and use either FAT16, FAT32, or the
BootIt NG proprietary format. It only requires 8-16mb. In my case, I opted
to create a small 16mb FAT16 at the head of my HD formatted as bootable DOS.
I did this so I could gain access to the BootIt NG files by simply booting
it directly. It can be advantageous to do this, for example, BootIt NG
allows you to ad your own sound files, background bitmaps, etc.

Another option would be to simply create a small 8-16mb FAT16 partition,
format it, and install BootIt NG there.

And of course, you could install it to your Windows XP partition, or any
other FAT16/FAT32 partition (not sure if NTFS is supported, I'd need to
check further). This is obviously the easiest installation since it
requires no reworking of the partitions, BUT, it places a dependency of the
boot manager into your OS partition, something I prefer to avoid. At times,
I even install BootIt NG on its own HD, which then always boots various OS's
on other HDs. Whatever free space remains on the BootIt NG drive I use for
storing OS image copies, work partitions, etc.

So you pretty much can do whatever suits your preferences.

What happens if that drive dies? Can I still easily boot my OS installed on
a third hard drive?

A fail HD is a risk to ANYTHING on that drive, nothing special about BootIt
NG. Just like anything else, you should backup the BootIt NG partition from
time to time. And being so small, it's quite easy to do. I just use its
built-in image copy facility and store it on DVD/CD media. Or perhaps an
external USB HD. BootIt NG will even backup to floppy.

Does Disk Manager in Windows see other disks and partitions?

Disk Manager is NOT a boot manager. It's just Windows interface to the HD's
in your system. It will let you define partitions, format them, etc. BUT,
if you're using a boot manager like BootIt NG, while the Windows Disk
Manager will see the HD's on the system, it will ONLY see the partitions
that BootIt NG has not hidden!!! That's the whole of this problem. When
Disk Manager is started in Windows and you have TWO partitions using the
plain ol' Windows boot loader, Windows has no choice but to label one C: and
the other H:. Using BootIt NG, you'd create a boot menu item that EXCLUDED
the H: partition so that Windows Disk Manager nevers see it. Yes, it sees
the actually HD, but it will show up under Disk Manager as either
unpartitioned space or unknown partitioned space. And as such, it will not,
indeed CAN NOT, assign a drive letter.

Jim

 

[Peter]

It's quite flexible. There are several options.

So it does.
Because none of my OS-es use FATxx anymore. It is NTFS or else.

You could define its own partition, and use either FAT16, FAT32, or the
BootIt NG proprietary format. It only requires 8-16mb. In my case, I opted
to create a small 16mb FAT16 at the head of my HD formatted as bootable DOS.
I did this so I could gain access to the BootIt NG files by simply booting
it directly. It can be advantageous to do this, for example, BootIt NG
allows you to ad your own sound files, background bitmaps, etc.

Another option would be to simply create a small 8-16mb FAT16 partition,
format it, and install BootIt NG there.

And of course, you could install it to your Windows XP partition, or any
other FAT16/FAT32 partition (not sure if NTFS is supported, I'd need to
check further). This is obviously the easiest installation since it
requires no reworking of the partitions, BUT, it places a dependency of the
boot manager into your OS partition, something I prefer to avoid. At times,
I even install BootIt NG on its own HD, which then always boots various OS's
on other HDs. Whatever free space remains on the BootIt NG drive I use for
storing OS image copies, work partitions, etc.

So you pretty much can do whatever suits your preferences.


A fail HD is a risk to ANYTHING on that drive, nothing special about BootIt
NG. Just like anything else, you should backup the BootIt NG partition from
time to time. And being so small, it's quite easy to do. I just use its
built-in image copy facility and store it on DVD/CD media. Or perhaps an
external USB HD. BootIt NG will even backup to floppy.

So that means I have to restore BootIt NG partition, BEFORE I could use any
systems?

Disk Manager is NOT a boot manager. It's just Windows interface to the HD's
in your system. It will let you define partitions, format them, etc. BUT,
if you're using a boot manager like BootIt NG, while the Windows Disk
Manager will see the HD's on the system, it will ONLY see the partitions
that BootIt NG has not hidden!!! That's the whole of this problem. When
Disk Manager is started in Windows and you have TWO partitions using the
plain ol' Windows boot loader, Windows has no choice but to label one C: and
the other H:. Using BootIt NG, you'd create a boot menu item that EXCLUDED
the H: partition so that Windows Disk Manager nevers see it. Yes, it sees
the actually HD, but it will show up under Disk Manager as either
unpartitioned space or unknown partitioned space. And as such, it will not,
indeed CAN NOT, assign a drive letter.

That is good and bad. One could forget about what those "unknown partitions"
are, and delete them by mistake.

 

[Rod Speed]

It's quite flexible. There are several options.

You could define its own partition, and use either FAT16, FAT32, or
the BootIt NG proprietary format. It only requires 8-16mb. In my
case, I opted to create a small 16mb FAT16 at the head of my HD
formatted as bootable DOS. I did this so I could gain access to the
BootIt NG files by simply booting it directly. It can be
advantageous to do this, for example, BootIt NG allows you to ad your
own sound files, background bitmaps, etc.

Another option would be to simply create a small 8-16mb FAT16
partition, format it, and install BootIt NG there.

And of course, you could install it to your Windows XP partition, or
any other FAT16/FAT32 partition (not sure if NTFS is supported, I'd
need to check further). This is obviously the easiest installation
since it requires no reworking of the partitions, BUT, it places a
dependency of the boot manager into your OS partition, something I
prefer to avoid. At times, I even install BootIt NG on its own HD,
which then always boots various OS's on other HDs. Whatever free
space remains on the BootIt NG drive I use for storing OS image
copies, work partitions, etc.

So you pretty much can do whatever suits your preferences.

A fail HD is a risk to ANYTHING on that drive, nothing special about
BootIt NG. Just like anything else, you should backup the BootIt NG
partition from time to time. And being so small, it's quite easy to
do. I just use its built-in image copy facility and store it on
DVD/CD media. Or perhaps an external USB HD. BootIt NG will even
backup to floppy.

The whole point of having two copys of XP is so that if
one of the drives dies, you can just boot off the other one.

Its perfectly doable without doing a backup and restore.

 

[Jim]

The whole point of having two copys of XP is so that if
one of the drives dies, you can just boot off the other one.

Its perfectly doable without doing a backup and restore.

I was only responding to the question about what happens should the drive
the boot manager was on die (that's what was asked). I was only assuring
him that the boot manager partition could be backed up like any other
partition and recovered. Thus, not losing access to the installed OS's to
which it refers.

But before the whole discussion gets mired in boot managers, let's face it,
a big part of the problem here is that the OP requested help (even an
explanation) as to why things went awry AFTER the fact. The OP did not
understand the implications of the way he was trying to solve this problem,
a problem that has never been totally defined. So let's define it now, what
should have been done before the current mess was created.

Q. How do I protect my current installation of XP against possible lose,
perhaps due to HD failure or partition corruption? What are my options?

A. I can think of three possibilities.

First and most straight-forward, RAID 1 (mirroring). You can pick up an ATI
FastTrak 100 TX2 off eBay for a few bucks, works great. Each write
operation is merely replicated to the other drive. Simple solution and it
works.

Second possibility is to image/copy the current XP partition to DVD/CD
media, or another HD (internal or external). Now here's where the caveat
comes in -- you have to be careful you don't use the COPIED partition while
the old partition is visible, lest you end up w/ the OP's problem. At the
very least, use the ORIGINAL XP partition, and even though the copied
partition (H is exposed, if you leave it alone, no harm done, it just sits
there as a data drive. Unfortunately, the OP booted the H: partition (w/
all it's embedded C: references) and NOT the C: partition, as he should have
done. BIG MISTAKE!

Third possibility it to use something like the Trios, which is a hardware
solution that allows you to switch *physically* between bootable HDs.

http://www.3dgameman.com/vr/romtec/trios2/video_review.htm

You copy the XP partition from one HD to the other. Install the Trios, and
boot one of them, leaving the other alone (it's never even started). If one
fails, you shutdown, toggle to the other drive, and reboot. Pretty simple
actually. Of course, this doesn't keep the HD's "synched" as the RAID setup
does. But frankly, the OP never indicated this was a requirement or desired
anyway. So it has to be at least considered.

Finally, use a boot manager so you can to LOGICALLY hide a HD, some or all
of its partitions. This is in contrast to the previous solution which
PHYSICALLY hides one HD from the other.

In a nutshell, that's the answer(s) to this problem. Pick your poison. One
thing we know for sure, the OP's original approach was wrong. ANY of the
approaches I described above would allow the OP a fail-over solution should
one HD fail. The question for the OP to consider is what best suits his
objectives and economics. For most people, RAID is a cost effective
solution for realtime replication. No, it doesn't provide incremental or
archival protection, but the OP never asked for that. The OP's original
post resulted in such protection, but it was incidental. I assume the OP
really wants HD fail-over protection, not archival backup, so RAID is
perfect. OTH, if archival backup is desired, the use of the Trios or boot
manager solution is better. As usual, these approaches bring there own
advantages and disadvantages. For example, the Trios (AFAIK) permits one or
the other HD, not both. So you probably can't copy from one to the other
directly (of course, this is perhaps exactly what the OP wants, heck, who
knows). On the other hand, the use of a boot manager makes hiding and
unhiding partitions trival, and thus you get the benefits associated w/
hiding when you want it (e.g., booting the OS), vs. the benefits of unhiding
(e.g., when copying a partition from one HD to the other). Of course, using
a boot manager is more complex than the Trios, and perhaps more risky, in
the sense that you are manipulating the HD master boot record, have the boot
manager installed, etc. The Trios is just a simple toggle switch setup,
pretty mundane, but effective.

Not sure what more I can say. Those are the options. There are good and
bad points for each. But you can't use the OP's original approach, as we've
seen, it doesn't work.

HTH

Jim

 

[Rod Speed]

I was only responding to the question about what happens should the
drive the boot manager was on die (that's what was asked). I was
only assuring him that the boot manager partition could be backed up
like any other partition and recovered. Thus, not losing access to
the installed OS's to which it refers.

But what Terry wants to do is to have either drive bootable on drive failure.

If he was going to restore on boot failure, there
isnt any need for two copys of the OS at all.

But before the whole discussion gets mired in boot managers, let's
face it, a big part of the problem here is that the OP requested help
(even an explanation) as to why things went awry AFTER the fact.
The OP did not understand the implications of the way he was trying
to solve this problem, a problem that has never been totally defined.

While he may not have done that formally, its pretty obvious
what he is trying to do, have two copys of the OS so he can
boot the other if one copy becomes unusuable for whatever reason.

So let's define it now, what should have been
done before the current mess was created.

That's just one way of doing things.

Q. How do I protect my current installation of XP
against possible lose, perhaps due to HD failure
or partition corruption? What are my options?

A better question would be how to recover
gracefully regardless of what happens.

A. I can think of three possibilities.

There's a lot more than just 3.

First and most straight-forward, RAID 1 (mirroring).
You can pick up an ATI FastTrak 100 TX2 off eBay for a
few bucks, works great. Each write operation is merely
replicated to the other drive. Simple solution and it works.

But doesnt protect you against something stuffing up the
XP install, that will often stuff up both copys simultaneously.

And most dont actually need the speed
of recovery that that config has either.

And you are introducing another potential
point of failure, the RAID hardware. No thanks.

Second possibility is to image/copy the current XP partition
to DVD/CD media, or another HD (internal or external).

He's already got two copys of XP and an image as well.

Now here's where the caveat comes in -- you have to be careful
you don't use the COPIED partition while the old partition is visible,
lest you end up w/ the OP's problem. At the very least, use the
ORIGINAL XP partition, and even though the copied partition (H
is exposed, if you leave it alone, no harm done, it just sits there
as a data drive. Unfortunately, the OP booted the H: partition
(w/ all it's embedded C: references) and NOT the C: partition,
as he should have done. BIG MISTAKE!

Its more complicated than that in practice. Its perfectly possible
to produce a pair of copys of XP that get the C drive letter when
booted, and fix the letter the other partitions get, and have that
work fine regardless of which of the copys of XP is booted,
and you dont have to hide the original except on the first boot
of the copy after the copy has been made.

The big advantage of this approach is that no additional
hardware or software is required at all except to actually
make the copy and you have that already anyway.

Third possibility it to use something like the
Trios, which is a hardware solution that allows
you to switch *physically* between bootable HDs.

http://www.3dgameman.com/vr/romtec/trios2/video_review.htm

Cant see the point in proprietary hardware
when its perfectly possible to do it without that.

Its just another potential point of failure.

You copy the XP partition from one HD to the other. Install the
Trios, and boot one of them, leaving the other alone (it's never even
started). If one fails, you shutdown, toggle to the other drive, and
reboot. Pretty simple actually. Of course, this doesn't keep the
HD's "synched" as the RAID setup does. But frankly, the OP never
indicated this was a requirement or desired anyway. So it has to be
at least considered.

Finally, use a boot manager so you can to LOGICALLY hide a
HD, some or all of its partitions. This is in contrast to the previous
solution which PHYSICALLY hides one HD from the other.

Hiding is just one approach, its perfectly possible to do it without hiding.

In a nutshell, that's the answer(s) to this problem. Pick your poison.

Or just work out how to do what he is trying to
do with what he has already got. Perfectly doable.

One thing we know for sure, the OP's original approach was wrong.
Yes.

ANY of the approaches I described above would
allow the OP a fail-over solution should one HD fail.

So would doing what he tried to do correctly.

The question for the OP to consider is what best
suits his objectives and economics. For most
people, RAID is a cost effective solution for realtime
replication. No, it doesn't provide incremental or
archival protection, but the OP never asked for that.

Doesnt matter what he asked for, what matters is the very
real downsides of that approach. They are real and can bite.

The last thing he needs is to realise that he didnt ask
the right question initially when he has fangs in his arse.

It makes a lot more sense to point him in the direction of
an approach which cant result in fangs in the arse instead.

And two copys of XP on separate hard drives and
an image as well does that fine when done properly.

The OP's original post resulted in such protection,
but it was incidental. I assume the OP really
wants HD fail-over protection, not archival backup,

Your assumptions are irrelevant, what
matters is what make most sense.

so RAID is perfect.

Nope, its got real downsides that you didnt even mention.

OTH, if archival backup is desired, the use of the Trios
or boot manager solution is better. As usual, these
approaches bring there own advantages and disadvantages.

And doing it properly with what he already has doesnt.

For example, the Trios (AFAIK) permits one or the other HD, not both.

So, when he wants to have 2 200G drives, with only a tiny part of
each of those with the XP install on them, its a lousy approach for him.

So you probably can't copy from one to the other directly (of course,
this is perhaps exactly what the OP wants, heck, who knows).

Corse it is if he wants to keep the two copys of XP in synch.

On the other hand, the use of a boot manager makes
hiding and unhiding partitions trival, and thus you get
the benefits associated w/ hiding when you want it
(e.g., booting the OS), vs. the benefits of unhiding
(e.g., when copying a partition from one HD to the other).

But isnt as convenient when one drive dies.

Of course, using a boot manager is more complex than
the Trios, and perhaps more risky, in the sense that you
are manipulating the HD master boot record, have the
boot manager installed, etc. The Trios is just a simple
toggle switch setup, pretty mundane, but effective.

But essentially useless in his situation.

Not sure what more I can say. Those are the options.

You left out the best option.

There are good and bad points for each. But you can't use
the OP's original approach, as we've seen, it doesn't work.

It does work if done correctly.

 

[Jim]

Peter, you have my response, I stand by ALL OF IT, as stated, if you have
question, ask, nuff said.

Good Night, Rod.

 

[Peter]

Peter, you have my response, I stand by ALL OF IT, as stated, if you have

question, ask, nuff said.

I'm not sure if I have seen your response to my questions. Let me repeat:

Because none of my OS-es use FATxx anymore; it is NTFS or else, I would be
forced to create additional partition for BootIt NG. I don't like that.

So that means if a hard drive with BootIt NG partition fails, I would have
to restore BootIt NG partition somewhere, BEFORE I could use any systems on
other hard drives?

"unknown partitions" are good and bad. One could forget about what those
"unknown partitions" are, and delete them by mistake.

 

[Rod Speed]

Peter, you have my response, I stand by ALL OF IT, as stated,

You can stand anywhere you like, you're just plain wrong.

if you have question, ask,

No thanks, you clearly dont have a clue about the basics.

nuff said.
Nope.

Good Night, Rod.

Pathetic, really.

 

[Jim]

I'm not sure if I have seen your response to my questions. Let me repeat:

Because none of my OS-es use FATxx anymore; it is NTFS or else, I would be
forced to create additional partition for BootIt NG. I don't like that.

So that means if a hard drive with BootIt NG partition fails, I would have
to restore BootIt NG partition somewhere, BEFORE I could use any systems on
other hard drives?

I went to the BootIT NG newsgroup and confirmed you can't use an NTFS
partition to install it. But, as I said before, using an existing
partition, of any type, is NOT a good practice anyway. It binds your boot
manager to a specific OS's partition. So in fact, if you move it, delete
it, or do any other operations intended to affect only the OS, you could
affect the boot manager as well. For example, if you accidentally delete
bootitng files within the booted OS, you've killed the boot manager.

The fact of whether the boot manager does or does not use its own partition
is irrelevant if the HD fails! If I have two HDs (A and B), and BootIt NG
is installed on A, what difference does it make from the point of failure of
HD A if BootIt NG is installed on its own partition, OR, the existing
partion of XP on that same HD?! If HD A fails, it fails! Won't make a bit
of difference where the boot manager was installed, you don't have access to
it either way, the A HD is DEAD!

That's why I try to keep emphasizing that you're making too much of the fact
that the boot manager does or doesn't use its own partition. If you want to
be 100% safe, fine, install 3 HDs, one (A) in which ONLY the boot manager is
installed (w/ its own partition). Now take your HD w/ XP installed (B) and
clone it to a third HD (C). Now the A HD can boot either the B or C HD.
And if the boot manager is destroyed, inaccessible, whatever, no big deal.
Both the B and C HDs are independently bootable! IOW, move the boot manager
COMPLETELY off the existing OS HD's, making your concerns moot. Of course,
for most people this is overkill, they simply use one of the existing HDs
(because in practice, as I described above, it doesn't matter, but perhaps
this makes you feel more comfortable, fine, whatever it takes). If the HD
containing BootIt NG and XP fails, well..., you've lost access to XP on that
drive anyway, so who cares about the boot manager also on that drive. The
other HD is still independently bootable. OTOH, if the other HD w/ the
cloned XP fails, you still have the other HD w/ XP (original) and BootIt NG.

Again, I keep emphasizing, you're making way too much of the fact BootIt NG
can (and IMO, should) use its own partition. No big deal. Using an
existing partition, at best, provides no more protection against HD failure,
NONE. At worst, as I pointed out initially, you end up having dependencies
between at least one OS and the boot manager, which has its own drawbacks.

I suggest reviewing the BootIt NG tutorials (videos), perhaps they might
clear some things up:

http://www.bootitng.com/examples.html

Jim

 

[Jim]

And to add more complications, I also said before that RAID 1 (mirroring) is
really the better solution to your problem. Based on your replies, it seems
you are primarily concerned about protection against a failed HD, and thus
the loss of XP. Well, that's what RAID 1 is for! It provides fail-over
protection by realtime replication of your data across one ore more HDs. I
use it myself to solve this very problem.

The only reason we're even talking about using a boot manager is because of
the way you attempted to solve this problem. You attempted to multi-boot
XP, but relied on the Windows default boot loader, which was the primary
mistake. Without partition hiding, this caused the behavior you saw. I
suggested the use of a replacement for that boot loader in the name of
BootIt NG, since it specifically addressed the problem your initial solution
created. But in actuality, a boot manager is better suited to someone
trying to use only one HD and boot more than a single OS (i.e., multiple OS
partitions on the same drive). But using BootIt NG as I've described in my
other posts will work too. Only problem is, you won't have a realtime copy
of your current working XP installation. The cloned XP partition will
always be out of date as changes are applied to your working XP
installation. Perhaps this is what you want, sort of an archived version.
If so, then use of BootIt NG is better, indeed, necessary, as a RAID 1
solution would result in realtime replication. Truth be told, the latter is
what most ppl want. But it's totally up to you.

Jim

 

[Terry Pinnell]

As someone who's been multi-booting for a VERY long time and seen it all, I
have a suspicion what's gone wrong here.

Thanks for your reply, and I appreciate you're trying to help, but I'm

Whenever multi-booting in a case like this, it's critical to HIDE partitions
that are NOT relevant! A good boot manager will provide this option. Since
you didn't mention what you're using, I'll assume you're using the Windows
boot loader.

As mentioned in this thread, I used Drive Image for the copying. It
has some partition management facilities too, which I supplemented
with Partition Magic on occasions. (That can hide partitions, BTW.)
And at one stage of this exercise I recall the convenience of adding a
new partition with XP's own Disk Management too.

You're right that I didn't give a detailed description in this thread
(deliberately), but if you'd like to know the fuller background you
can find it in 'Why this configuration not working?'. Amongst other
things, that makes it clear how I handle the boot alternatives. As you
guessed, I used XP's own facilities.

 

[Rod Speed]

I went to the BootIT NG newsgroup and confirmed
you can't use an NTFS partition to install it.

Wota dud.

But, as I said before, using an existing partition,
of any type, is NOT a good practice anyway.
Bullshit.

It binds your boot manager to a specific OS's
partition. So in fact, if you move it, delete it, or
do any other operations intended to affect only
the OS, you could affect the boot manager as well.

Nope, you just have to change what the bios boots from at worst.

For example, if you accidentally delete bootitng files
within the booted OS, you've killed the boot manager.

Very bloody unlikely indeed.

The fact of whether the boot manager does or does
not use its own partition is irrelevant if the HD fails!

Wrong. If you ensure that both OS copys are bootable
if one of the drives fail, you can survive a HD failure fine.

If I have two HDs (A and B), and BootIt NG is installed
on A, what difference does it make from the point of
failure of HD A if BootIt NG is installed on its own
partition, OR, the existing partion of XP on that same HD?!

Makes a lot of difference over the other config where
you ensure that you can boot either physical drive fine.

At worst you cant boot off all the OSs that are
specified in the boot.ini if one drive has failed.

You can STILL boot off whichever drive doesnt die.

If HD A fails, it fails! Won't make a bit of difference
where the boot manager was installed, you don't
have access to it either way, the A HD is DEAD!

And if you ensure that you can boot off either physical
drive and dont bother with a boot manager, you just
yawn if A HD dies and boot off the other physical drive.

At worst you cant boot off all the OSs that are
specified in the boot.ini if one drive has failed.
You can STILL boot off whichever drive doesnt die.

That's why I try to keep emphasizing that you're making too much of
the fact that the boot manager does or doesn't use its own partition.

You're wrong, as always.

If you want to be 100% safe, fine, install 3 HDs, one (A) in
which ONLY the boot manager is installed (w/ its own partition).
Now take your HD w/ XP installed (B) and clone it to a third HD
(C). Now the A HD can boot either the B or C HD.

Or just ensure you can boot off other of the two
physical drives fine regardless of which one dies.

Not a shred of rocket science required at all.

And if the boot manager is destroyed, inaccessible, whatever,
no big deal. Both the B and C HDs are independently bootable!
IOW, move the boot manager COMPLETELY off the existing
OS HD's, making your concerns moot.

Makes a lot more sense to not bother with
the boot manager at all and its drive.

Of course, for most people this is overkill, they simply
use one of the existing HDs (because in practice, as
I described above, it doesn't matter, but perhaps this
makes you feel more comfortable, fine, whatever it takes).

And anyone with a clue doesnt bother with a boot manager at all.

If the HD containing BootIt NG and XP fails, well...,
you've lost access to XP on that drive anyway, so
who cares about the boot manager also on that drive.
The other HD is still independently bootable.

No point in bothering with the boot manager at all.

OTOH, if the other HD w/ the cloned XP fails, you still
have the other HD w/ XP (original) and BootIt NG.

Which doesnt contribute a damned thing.

Makes a lot more sense to ensure you can boot either physical drive.

Again, I keep emphasizing, you're making way too much of
the fact BootIt NG can (and IMO, should) use its own partition.

You're making way to much of BootIt NG

No big deal. Using an existing partition, at best,
provides no more protection against HD failure, NONE.

True in spades of BootIt NG

At worst, as I pointed out initially, you end up
having dependencies between at least one OS
and the boot manager, which has its own drawbacks.

Not if you actually have a clue.

I suggest reviewing the BootIt NG tutorials (videos),
perhaps they might clear some things up:

http://www.bootitng.com/examples.html

No point in bothering with it.

 

[Rod Speed]

And to add more complications, I also said before that RAID 1
(mirroring) is really the better solution to your problem. Based on your
replies, it seems you are primarily concerned about protection against
a failed HD, and thus the loss of XP. Well, that's what RAID 1 is for!

Pity its got its own downsides!!

It provides fail-over protection by realtime replication
of your data across one ore more HDs.

And is another single point of failure. No thanks.

I use it myself to solve this very problem.

More fool you.

The only reason we're even talking about using a boot manager
is because of the way you attempted to solve this problem.

Wrong again.

You attempted to multi-boot XP,

No he didnt, Terry did.

but relied on the Windows default boot
loader, which was the primary mistake.

Wrong, again.

Without partition hiding, this caused the behavior you saw.

Wrong, as always.

I suggested the use of a replacement for that boot loader
in the name of BootIt NG, since it specifically addressed
the problem your initial solution created.

Pity it doesnt.

But in actuality, a boot manager is better suited to someone
trying to use only one HD and boot more than a single OS
(i.e., multiple OS partitions on the same drive). But using
BootIt NG as I've described in my other posts will work too.

Adds nothing at all.

Only problem is, you won't have a realtime copy of your
current working XP installation. The cloned XP partition
will always be out of date as changes are applied to
your working XP installation.

Nothing to stop you cloning again when you do make changes.

Perhaps this is what you want, sort of an archived version.

Yep, RAID1 has real downsides.

If so, then use of BootIt NG is better, indeed, necessary,

Wrong, as always.

as a RAID 1 solution would result in realtime replication.
Truth be told, the latter is what most ppl want.

Wrong, as always.

But it's totally up to you.

And you can have both if your silly 'advice' is ignored.