Re: Partition help

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:28:10 -0600, "Bill in Co."
<not_really_here@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I want to add to this that when I suggested partitioning, it was not to
separate all program data into into its own "data" partition, but rather
to
create room for a backup partition,

A partition for backup is only very slightly better than having no
backup at all. Most things that will cause the loss of your first
partition will simultaneously cause the loss of the "backup."

If you care about your data, I urge you to reconsider this plan.
Secure backup needs to be on removable media, not stored in the
computer, and especially not on the same physical drive.

As I replied to Anna:

I am storing my backup on an external USB Hard Disk Enclosure these days.
And obviously that's the best approach.

But in the past, at least, I've kept a backup partition free on the main
internal drive, and used that to good advantage (this was for my Win98SE
computer), when I did a "clean (re)install of Windows w/o formatting, by
leaving most folders in place, except Program Files and Windows (i.e., the
fast way), by having copies of my Program Files and Windows folders right
there on call on the second partition, ready to be called upon, as needed.
And of course this way it doesn't rely on being able to read the USB
external drive (which may be more problematic at the DOS or lower level
operations).

and perhaps use a separate partition for huge work files - like video
work.

Up to you, of course, but I don't understand the rationale for that.
Why does that need a separate partition?

Actually I have two fairly large (40 GB) partitions, one for all audio
restoration work, and one for any video and/or DVD restoration work. Those
partitions can easily fill up with a large number of audio and video files
to work on, so it just makes a lot of sense, in my case. So, it's not so
much a question of "need", but rather just preference.

I mean, face it, one could use only 1 partition for everything, if one
wanted. But I don't think its the best idea, though (for all the reasons
I've given above).

That's what I have done. I've never used a separate partition for
programs, and another one for user data, preferring to keep them
together,
so that when I back it up, it's ALL together and easily restorable and
updateable, in a one shot operation.

Anna wrote:
"mag" <the1mag@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:DvudnaSyO7zgp0XanZ2dnUVZ_oaonZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

We're about to take delivery of a new (actually a Dell refurb) computer
with a 320 hard drive and XP Pro pre-installed. I've always previously
had
a small C drive for the OS and programs and a large secondary drive,
called D, for data, so a single hard drive of this size is making me
nervous! I think it probably should be partitioned but I have no idea
how
to go about doing it. Should I get something like Partition Magic? One
friend suggested wiping the hard drive, reinstalling the OS and
partitioning at that point.

Any advice will be appreciated.

Maggie


"mag" <the1mag@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xcqdndy-5vTl2UXanZ2dnUVZ_rmjnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ken,

I just read your article, thanks, and you've mentioned the reason I
said
maybe I "should" partition the drive, which is that we backup the data
to
an
external hard drive every day. I thought having a partition just for
data
would make the process easier but perhaps it doesn't really matter.

I'm thinking now that if I'm going to wipe the hard drive anyway, maybe
I'll get a smaller hard drive and continue with what I currently do, ie
have the OS and programs on a small C drive and the data on a large D
drive.

Thanks,

Maggie


Maggie:
Let me give you another point-of-view to consider...

You are certainly correct in your objective to "backup the data to an
external hard drive every day". Not only is this a worthwhile
objective,
it
really should be your *primary*, if not exclusive objective. And when we
use
the term "data" in this context, consider that this "data" includes
*everything* on your day-to-day working HDD, i.e, your XP operating
system
(OS), all your programs/applications, as well as your user-created data.
So
that by a comprehensive backup your data you can, in effect, have a copy
of
your HDD. A precise copy whereby should your day-to-day HDD fail or your
system becomes unbootable because of a corrupt OS, you would have the
wherewithal to restore your system to a bootable, functional state with
a
minimum of fuss. What better backup system can one have?

You can achieve this through the use of a disk-cloning (or disk-imaging
program). A comprehensive backup program that you could use on a daily
basis
should you want.

There are a number of disk-to-disk cloning programs available. The
program
we greatly prefer as a disk-to-disk cloning program - see
http://www.fssdev.com

It's extremely simple to use even for an inexperienced user, reasonably
quick in operation, and quite effective. There's virtually no learning
curve
in undertaking the disk cloning process as one navigates through the few
easy-to-understand screens with a final mouse-click on the button on the
screen which will trigger the disk-cloning process. After undertaking
one
or
two disk-cloning operations it should take the user no more than 20
seconds
or so to get to that point.

The significant advantage of the Casper 4.0 disk cloning program
compared
with other disk cloning programs that we're familiar with is its ability
to
create *incremental* disk clones following the creation of the original
(first) disk clone. Employing what Casper calls its "SmartClone"
technology
the program can create subsequent disk clones of the source HDD usually
at
a
fraction of the time it takes to create a "full" disk clone. This
results
in
a decided incentive for the user to undertake frequent complete backups
of
his or her system knowing that they can create "incremental" disk clones
in
a relatively short period of time. Understand that this "incremental
disk
clone" is a *complete* clone (copy) of the "source" HDD.

So, for example, in your case where your interest would be in backing up
your system on a daily basis, following the first time you clone the
contents of your internal (boot) HDD to your USB external HDD (USBEHD),
it
would probably take no more than two or three minutes each day to
thereafter
perform the disk-cloning operation. Again, bear in mind that your USBEHD
would contain the *complete* contents of your internal HDD. While the
USBEHD
would not ordinarily be bootable in an XP OS, it would be a simple
matter
to
clone the contents of the USBEHD back to a internal HDD should a
restoration
of the system be necessary. Again, what better backup system can one
have?

The Casper 4.0 program is also capable of scheduling the disk-cloning
process on a daily, weekly, or other time period selected by the user so
that should you prefer you could arrange for automatic backups at
pre-determined times.

There's a trial version available (see above link) although it's
somewhat
crippled but it will give you a good idea as to how the program works.
And
I
can provide further details about using the program should you be
interested.

The downside to the Casper 4 program as compared with the Acronis and
most
other disk-cloning programs is the cost of the program which comes to
$49.95
for the program + $9.95 for the "Casper Startup Disk" (the program to
create
the bootable CD containing the Casper program). So it's more expensive
than
the others. But in our view, well worth the additional cost considering
its
overall effectiveness and the fact that one will be using the program
many,
many times over the weeks & months ahead. AFAIK, the program is
available
only through download from the developer.

Another possible downside to the Casper 4 program (depending upon your
interests) is that it's really not designed to create "generational"
copies
of your system. Some users like to maintain complete copies of their
system
at various points in time. To that end a disk-imaging program is more
practical since to accomplish that objective using a disk-cloning
program
such as Casper 4 the user would obviously need a fair number of HDDs to
serve as the recipients of the clones at these various points in time.
But
based on our experience I would say that the vast number of users (and I
would assume you are one of them) are basically interested in only
maintaining a current up-to-date copy of their system and have little or
no
interest in maintaining "generational" copies
of such. But that may be a consideration for you & others.

Anyway, all of the above is predicated on the basis that you're seeking
a
reliable program to backup your *entire* day-to-day booting HDD,
including
the XP OS, all your programs & applications, and your user-created data,
in
short - everything that's on your "source" HDD. And you want an
effective
simple-to-use program to do this on a systematic routine basis and do so
reasonably quickly. To that end we've found this Casper 4.0 program
really
fills the bill. So I would suggest you take a look at it.

I really don't think there is any significant need for you to
multi-partition your HDD. There's no reason why you can't work
effectively
with a single-partitioned HDD that includes *all* the data on your HDD.
And
simply create the files & folders to organize your work on that single
partition. This is especially so should you use a disk-to-disk cloning
program such as the one I've suggested. In our experience this supposed
additional security one gains from separating data through partitioning
is
more myth than reality in the day-to-day world of personal computing.
While
there's no terrible harm in multi-partitioning your 320 GB HDD should
you
want to go that route, I honestly do not feel it's of any real value to
the
vast majority of PC users.

So, in summary, my advice would be to think more in terms of
establishing
&
maintaining a comprehensive backup system along the lines I've suggested
rather than multi-partitioning your HDD.
Anna


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


.