Re: cross post: mount partition as folder?
- From: "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 08:10:34 -0700
Callmark1 wrote:
Yes I know 40G is ridiculously small by today's standards, but I
rarely go over 10G used.
No, I don't think there's anything "ridiculous" about it. If it meets your
needs, that's fine. The only reason I mentioned the size is that much f the
rationale for multiple partitions is based on drives being larger.
I DID use the term "backup" partition-- what I meant was a "scratch
area"
for temp storage. This extra partition I have found very useful for
staging backups before burning to CD and as a place to destroy any
sensitive data.
OK, I understand now.
Thanks again for your input.
You're welcome again.
--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
Callmark1 wrote:
11:59 AM 6/16/2006
Thanks Ken.
You're welcome. Glad to help.
That is exactly what I am deciding before I do the clean
install. I have read (including here at times) that keeping Program
Files and My Docs on partitions seperate from the OS partition is a
good idea.
People often advise doing those because they think that if they ever
have to do a clean reinstallation, it won't cause the loss of their
programs and data. I think that point of view is largely mistaken,
and I have two comments to make regarding this:
1. Installed programs (except for an occasional trivial one) have
many components and entries referring to them throughout Windows (in
the registry and elsewhere). If you reinstall Windows, all of that
is lost and the programs need to be reinstalled anyway. Fot that
reason, there is generally no advantage to separating programs from
the partition Windows is installed on.
2. Having data in a separate partition so it's not lost if you
reinstall Windows would be valuable only to those who have no
external backup of their data. Since, in my view, having no external
backup of your data would be a foolhardy situation to be in, I don't
consider this a good reason for separating data (although there can
be a different good reason; see the paragraph below).
I think most people should choose a partitioning scheme that's based
on their backup scheme. If your backup scheme is one that backs up
your data, but not the operating system, separating the operating
system and your data on different partitions facilitates that
backup. For those whose backup scheme consists of making an image of
everything on the hard drive, there is much less value to separating
data on its own partition.
However, after having this setup for a year now, I have
not found that to be so; it just seems overly complicated. I can
see how seperate partitions might facilitate a speedier backup if I
had large amounts of data but my 40G hard drive is likely to serve
my needs indefinitely:
A 40GB drive is very small these days, and with such a small drive,
a single partition may well be best for you.
The nature of my work requires that I backup each completed project
(about 3 per week at about 100M each) on a CD and send it to the
"home office" along with attendant paperwork. I also keep a
duplicate copy of each project in a file cabinet at my office. Once
the project has reached the age of 6 weeks, there is really no need
to keep any detailed info so I can delete it from my hard drive with
impunity. In the rare event (only 3% over the last two years) I
need to re-open a particular project, it exists on CD in two
different files in two different locations so, for me, backup is
not a strenuous issue other than making sure I can get working again
quickly after a mishap.
That sounds fine for your use, but I'm somewhat confused. You talk
here about backing up to CDs, but in your previous message you spoke
about a backup partition.
--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
I think that for this re-install I will set it all up on D: (C: is
dedicated) and format a smallish partiton just as a staging area for
backups.
Thanks again
mark
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
Callmark1 wrote:
Thank you all for your dedication to this site. I have learned so
much in the few weeks I have been reading. I started reading
because I have been planning a clean re-install-- the basics of
which I am fairly familiar with since having installed/upgraded XP
for several friends. My target date is this weekend. So I will
likely be posting several times until then. My question of the
moment is in regards to Larry Gardner's recent reply about
partitions:
<snip>
My system is setup this way:
1. C: - Windows XP OS
2. D: - Documents ans Settings for all profiles
3. E: - Third-Party/Additionally installed Software (software
not part of basic Windows out-of-the-box XP OS)
4. F: - Backup
<snip>
My current setup is similar (except for a copy of Win98SE on C,
thus XP enumeration starts at letter D) but I have apparently set
it up in a rather cumbersome fashion.
Yes, I think so. I see no good reason to isolate what you have in
C, D, and E in separate partitions.
I sometimes find myself fiddling with
partitions instead of working.
My question is this: would it be better to mount partitions to
folders, i.e.- E: as the Program Files folder and F: as the Docs &
Settings folder, rather than "forcing" 3rd party software to
install onto a folder on the E: partition? If so, should one
mount before or after installing the bulk of applications (does
it even matter?).
If you're planning a clean reinstallation, I would just put all
those three into a single C partition.
Also, as regards to taking system images, if one has mounted
partitions as folders, I assume that Norton Ghost would include
the contents of a mounted partition as part of the backup since it
should read the partition just as if it WAS the folder. Is this
asuumption correct? Further, in the event of restoring said
image, would Ghost automatically "re-mount" the partition to its
original configuration? or would it try to stuff it all onto the
same partition as the OS?
Regarding taking system images, and your backup strategy, I think
what you are doing is better than no backup at all, but just
barely. I don't recommend backup to a second partition (or even a
second non-removable hard drive) because it leaves you susceptible
to simultaneous loss of the original and backup to many of the most
common dangers: head crashes and other drive failures, severe power
glitches, nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks, even theft of
the computer.
In my view, secure backup needs to be on removable media, and not
kept in the computer. For really secure backup (needed, for
example, if the life of your business depends on your data) you
should have multiple generations of backup, and at least one of
those generations should be stored off-site.
My computer isn't used for business, but my personal backup scheme
uses two identical removable hard drives, I alternate between the
two, and use Acronis True Image to make a complete copy of the
primary drive.
--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
.
- References:
- Re: cross post: mount partition as folder?
- From: Ken Blake, MVP
- Re: cross post: mount partition as folder?
- From: Callmark1
- Re: cross post: mount partition as folder?
- From: Ken Blake, MVP
- Re: cross post: mount partition as folder?
- From: Callmark1
- Re: cross post: mount partition as folder?
- Prev by Date: Re: I'm so done with Microsoft
- Next by Date: Re: White "Common" screen at bootup.....
- Previous by thread: Re: cross post: mount partition as folder?
- Next by thread: two monitors - one computer
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
