Partitioning

[Hugger]

With hard drive capacity constantly growing and imaging programs seeming to get better, is it even worthwhile to separate system from programs and files?
I ask this because I've read comments by users who have had a good bit of trouble after restoring an image of only the system. They had trouble getting some of the programs to connect with the system, I think.
Also I remember reading in this forum the words of a respected member who, if I remember correctly, doesn't partition his hard drives any more.
So I'm curious.
Thanks.
Hugger

[lodore]

its definatly worth seprating data. if C: messes up it doesnt matter.
i have C: system
F: data

second harddrive has Z: backup.

once hard drives get even cheaper i may get a 1tb drive.

i havent had any issues with programs not working after restoring an image.
only reported cases in this forum where using ATI.

[Meriadoc]

I agree. Radified - 5 pages about partitioning strategies

[Threedog]

I run my OS and everything on one partition/hd but image and back up my documents to the second hard drive. I have different images of different setups and then just restore one of them...copy my documents over and my outlook pst file and I am ready to go. I also do full images of my OS, documents and stuff so when something goes wrong I can be back up and running in the time it takes me to get a coffee. I find it a PITA to separate everything and then trying it get it to all work again.

[Jo Ann]

I also agree that your data, docs, photos, music, etc., should be isolated from the OS and Programs. Furthermore, if you are going to backup the C-partition via imaging, keeping it small will make backups/restores fast!

[farmerlee]

I don't separate system from programs but i do separate system and programs from my personal data files. My system and programs are expendable, my personal data is not.

[Brian K]

I'm in the two partition camp. It's easy.

If you have an OS problem, restore the OS image.
If you have a HD failure, install a new HD, restore the OS image, boot to Windows and using Windows Explorer, simply copy over the Data backup to the new data partition.

http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/notes.htm#13

http://www.windowsbbs.com/windows-xp...ders-rev1.html

[Peter2150]

I am in the one partition camp. 4 machines with c: drives ranging from 160gig to 640gig.

No problems, no data loss, and no reason I can see to partition.

Pete

[SourMilk]

Many partitions for me. Disk 0 has OS and program files. Disk 1 has Pagefile Cache; Games; My Documents; Disk Images (in that order). External drive has copies of Disk Images and My Documents.

Is it faster this way? Might be
Is it easier to image partitions? I find it so.
Is it safer for keeping files? Hope so.

SourMilk out

[noone_particular]

With hard drive capacity constantly growing and imaging programs seeming to get better, is it even worthwhile to separate system from programs and files?
I ask this because I've read comments by users who have had a good bit of trouble after restoring an image of only the system. They had trouble getting some of the programs to connect with the system, I think.

I'd suggest separate partitions for user data and system. System backups should include Windows and the Program Files together. It's very common for software to install files to both its own program files folder and to the windows folders. Software updates also change registry entries. This also applies to software updates. If the user keeps this in mind, they'll avoid probems. If they're handled separately and the user restores one from a different time than the other, software installed or updated after the backup was made way not work properly. Some of the files it needs could be missing or could be the wrong version number. If the user wants to keep separate backups for Windows and the Program Files, they need to treat them as matched sets. When one is updated or added to, such as a new app being installed, the user should makes new copies of both. If the user wants to restore to an earlier setup, they should restore both Windows and the Program Files to that time period, not just one of them. This will solve the problem of applications not working after a system or program files restore.

[TonyW]

I wonder if another alternative to partitioning would be to put your data on an external hard drive. By doing that, you still keep data separate without the need to partition.

[TonyW]

Originally Posted by Peter2150

I am in the one partition camp. 4 machines with c: drives ranging from 160gig to 640gig.

Just noticed in another thread where the discussion is about the Shadow Protect program that you stated you have at least two internal drives. Does this mean your data is separate on the internal D: drive? If it is, then in a sense, that's like partitioning. (It could be said partitioning is like having extra internal drives without the expense of adding them.)

[Peter2150]

Originally Posted by TonyW

Just noticed in another thread where the discussion is about the Shadow Protect program that you stated you have at least two internal drives. Does this mean your data is separate on the internal D: drive? If it is, then in a sense, that's like partitioning. (It could be said partitioning is like having extra internal drives without the expense of adding them.)

Nope. With the exception of large programs I download and want to keep the installers, everything, including what I consider my data is on my c: drive. Note though I don't large collections of photo's movies etc. That I would probably separate. My data is spreadsheets, databases, word doc's etc. The stuff on the other drives, if lost wouldn't be critical. All critical data is with OS and programs on the c: drive.

As I said, never a problem, no lost data, nothing infected, etc.

Pete

[TonyW]

It's interesting this discussion about partitioning and I got to thinking that if Microsoft thought it was critical to separate data from the OS, they surely would have implemented ways for OEMs to make that happen a long while ago. As I see it, most new computers with the Windows operating system come with data set for the C: drive. It's only when you start reading forums like this that you discover the possibilities of moving 'My Documents' elsewhere, but most people I know still have it in the one place.

[Brian K]

Pete,

If I remember correctly your 600 GB HD is 90 to 95% free space. This keeps your backup image size low and allows fast image creation. If I'm correct I can see why you don't need partitions on this HD.

As TonyW mentioned, using multiple HDs is "partitioning by proxy".

[Peter2150]

Originally Posted by Brian K

Pete,

If I remember correctly your 600 GB HD is 90 to 95% free space. This keeps your backup image size low and allows fast image creation. If I'm correct I can see why you don't need partitions on this HD.

As TonyW mentioned, using multiple HDs is "partitioning by proxy".

Geesh, Brian. I can't hide from you a bit. But you are right, I also like to keep my drives with lots of free space. Keeps the machine with that new feeling.

Pete

[Brian K]

Pete,

I wish I had that much free space. It's almost time for me to spend money on a larger HD.

[InfinityAz]

I've tried with and without partitions and I much prefer partitioning. My current machine has 3 drives and each is partitioned differently.

One thing I like about keeping a small system partition is that I can create an image of that partition, test some software, and then quickly restore the partition after testing the software. I also do this with my Apps partition on a separate drive for software testing.

[Hugger]

Is there a safe easy way to move My Documents when doing a clean install of XP on a new hard drive?
Hugger

[Brian K]

Originally Posted by Hugger

Is there a safe easy way to move My Documents when doing a clean install of XP on a new hard drive?

http://www.windowsbbs.com/windows-xp...ders-rev1.html

I have "My Documents" on the D: drive. Also the Email store, Outlook pst, Address book, Favorites and Bookmarks. So when I restore yesterday's C: drive image, I don't lose one day of this data.

[Peter2150]

I can restore a week ago's image and not lose today's data. But you are now also forced to image/backup the d: drive.

[Brian K]

Pete,

My D: drive is backed up several times a day with Second Copy. On a schedule.

I'm intrigued. Why don't you lose data with a week old image?

[TonyW]

Originally Posted by Brian K

I'm intrigued. Why don't you lose data with a week old image?

I imagine that'll be because of his other backup strategies, which allow him to update his data from the latest backup sets.

We had this discussion in the FD-ISR forum. See this thread, particularly posts #3, #6 and #8 by Peter.

[Hugger]

Thanks everybody for the help and the links.
I hope to be able to get a new hard drive soon. If I'm lucky the new Hitachi 'B' will be available by then too.
Hugger

[Peter2150]

Originally Posted by Brian K

Pete,

My D: drive is backed up several times a day with Second Copy. On a schedule.

I'm intrigued. Why don't you lose data with a week old image?

Two reasons. First is FDISR. Second is Outback Plus 6. Although designed for Outlook you can back up almost anything you want in My Documents. Once setup a click of a button and 20 seconds and data is backed up, even with all files open.


As another aside, people always say too, its safer, cause your data is isolated. I browse and do all email thru sandboxie, so nothing can get to my D: drive or My Documents even on the c: drive.

I have nothing against partitioning, but I think it just a matter of convenience or choice.