Are there really any benefits in partitioning?

[Faust]

I often hear about creating partitions on a HD for the OS, data and applications. The reason often quoted is that if you need to do a clean install then having the OS on its own partition makes it quick and easy and you can be up and running again in no time without any risk to your data.

Well I can understand the loss of your data bit but with something like Acronis TI the risk is greatly minimized in any event.

However, the up and running again quickly - really? Once you have installed the OS then comes all your programmes and applications. Even though you haven't lost them you will still have to reinstall them as they are integrated into your OS via pathways etc. these will have been trashed on the reinstall. It's the applications and programmes that take the longest to reinstall not the OS. Last time I did all mine it took the best part of a week before I had it all fine tuned again.

[Brian K]

-{ Quote: "
However, the up and running again quickly - really? " }-
Faust,

Yes. Most restores are done for software reasons rather than HD failure. Depending on your restore threshold, maybe a hundred to one. If I experience a software problem, such as a Windows update gone bad, I can restore to yesterday in 10 minutes. The data and program partitions don't need to be restored.

[Faust]

-{ Quote: "Faust,

Yes. Most restores are done for software reasons rather than HD failure. Depending on your restore threshold, maybe a hundred to one. If I experience a software problem, such as a Windows update gone bad, I can restore to yesterday in 10 minutes. The data and program partitions don't need to be restored." }-

Yes but your programs will not run if you have altered Windows in anyway as they will have lost the pathways etc. I'm talking about a fresh clean install of the OS not recovering an image. If you are talking about recovering an image then I can recover a full TI backup 60 gig in around 22 minutes, that's everything.

[Brian K]

Faust,

You are correct. We are discussing different concepts.

Can you restore a 60 GB .tbi in 22 minutes? Sounds fast. How large is the the partition and how much data is involved.

[Faust]

-{ Quote: "Faust,

You are correct. We are discussing different concepts.

Can you restore a 60 GB .tbi in 22 minutes? Sounds fast. How large is the the partition and how much data is involved." }-

It used to be seventeen hours before I made a VistaPE disk - my QuadCore PC didn't like the Linux environment one little bit. The drive is a single volume 500 gig WD Blue with Vista and data going back to 1998 :argh: 64 gig is total size.

[Brian K]

-{ Quote: " The drive is a single volume 500 gig WD Blue with Vista and data going back to 1998 :argh: 64 gig is total size." }-
Sorry, is the image or the data, 64 GB?

[Faust]

-{ Quote: "Sorry, is the image or the data, 64 GB?" }-

Volume size is at present 84 gig but that varies depending on size of system restore. I use minimal compression for backups.

[Brian K]

-{ Quote: "Volume size is at present 84 gig but that varies depending on size of system restore. I use minimal compression for backups." }-
You have a fast system! Which imaging app do you use?

[Faust]

-{ Quote: "You have a fast system! Which imaging app do you use?" }-

I have used all three - TI 10 is perhaps the slowest though not by much, I'm currently using TI 11 but the fastest of them all was the trial version of 2009. This worked flawlessly on my newest PC. I keep musing over whether I should upgrade to 2009. However, all three apps backup and all three restore and keep the dual boot intact every time so is there any point upgrading when the two I have do what they say on the tin? With 2009 I didn't need to use a VistaPE disk though I do like the disk and it is this that makes TI 10 and 11 operate like it was intended to.

[bulldog356]

Faust--

As you've stated, there is no point to separating Windows and other applications into separate partitions.

The idea is to have Windows and all your software in one partition and your data files (documents, pictures, etc.) in one or more separate partitions. The raison d'etre for this arrangement is that when you restore your system partition to an earlier time, your data files do not also go back to that earlier time.

The argument against partitioning is that it can slow your computer's performance. The extent of slowdown is arguable, given today's fast hardware. Nonetheless, not losing all the time you spent editing your video simply because a driver install failed and you have to restore Windows is compelling enough a reason for me to have separate partitions.

I suppose one could overcome the 'slow performance' argument by installing your software and data files on separate physical hard disks.

[cortez]

I have my data on 3 different partitions (and OS's on 7 other partitions) and have not noticed any slowdown in any of my subsystems on my machine.

Perhaps it depends on what one is running application wise (???).

[dwalby]

Do viruses typically install themselves only on the system partition and registry, or do they often attack the other partitions as well?

It seems to me that any virus on a non-system partition would have to be some sort of executable file that would be fairly visible, even without running an AV program. And once the file was deleted the hazard would be removed, so the fix should be straightforward and simple. Certainly with an AV scan it should be easily detectable and fixable.

So is it reasonable to assume that hackers don't bother with attacking separate data partitions and focus entirely on the system partition? Stated another way, if you restore ONLY the system partition after a virus attack how likely is it that you would have additional problems that need to be addressed in the other partitions?

The reason I ask is with several partitions scattered over two different machines I'd rather not do more work than necessary regarding virus prevention.