Separate Data Partition Or Not?

I'm definitely in the 'separation camp' for the reasons already expressed, but mainly because that way my data, doc, pics, etc. are never at risk if and when I have to recover Windows from a fatal situation. And consistent with that rationale, a smaller system partition makes for smaller (and faster) system images than a larger system partition.

But "different folks, different strokes"...

 

That was exactly my point and is the big difference between your setup and mine.
You MUST do a backup of your data, before you start playing with your system.

I don't have to backup my data, when I play with my system. If I had to backup my data each time, that would be an extra 50gb, just for playing with my system.

 

Really can't beat that for an answer because it really is all there is to it on a topic such as this, there are points to consider both for it and against it and you really have to just sit down and workout what you want to acheive and then plan best how to acheive that, hence I have computers that are partitioned and not partitioned, and am happy that both acheive what I want from them.

 

Fully agree here

 

I use a similar method but with a little different spin on things; My data partition is isolated & LOCKED! plus i use FD-ISR on one partition with a pair of snapshots "AND" the other partition is plain, in essence a dual-boot setup but with one system a multiple showcase of systems via FD-ISR provided theres space to expand/add more snapshots.

I might add that my 2nd partition also holds a storage area for those FD-ISR .archives. If i use any drive less than 40 GB then i don't divide it up, if it's more, i split it up into single drive partitions (usually just 2).

I've learned a great deal from many members here at Wilder's on how to better PRESERVE & not just protect my data "AND" system thru rollback recovery & full imaging, something which was sorely neglected during all my malware research duties in the past.

And now my computer is nearly an air-tight chamber.
Nearly, because i always end up eventually with some software that i want to test that winds up making trouble, but even that isn't a problem anymore. Whew!!

 

My own practice of LOCKING data is not meant to imply an outright endorsement but rather to show there are other alternatives, that being a fairly safe one indeed. Limitations of course are genuine and it's not for everyone, only those who can make the most of isolating their data in that manner.

If you're needing access to your data while on-line, of course your classical sandboxes & virtual chambers are your best bet, "BUT" if your data is not SECURED while online or from Windows coughing up itself, and for lack of a better term (Locked/Hid ), then can you be 100% assured that it can't be EXPOSED or EXTRACTED via internet access?

Of course this whole subject of securing data separately is been thoroughly discussed and is still being discussed and various methods challenged as well as regarded, but so not to steer to far off course, a separate data partition IMHO is beneficial for those who like to keep their system trim and avoid the pitfalls of when $M Windows chokes up, so that it won't take their data down in that failure too.

 

Can you give an example of how one's data can be extracted via internet access?

By "chokes up" I assume this requires reinstalling, rebuilding, re-imaging, or whatever method the user employs. Why is restoring data any more of a problem than restoring Windows?


---
rich

 

Assuming a stand-alone, home computer:

In reading through all of the posts, I see only one compelling reason for separate partitions: dual booting. This, of course, is a bit off-topic, since the OP refers to separate data partition.

The other reasons given are not convincing to one who uses a different file management system than those mentioned.

In case of a hard drive failure, anyone with a comprehensive backup solution will have no problem restoring both System and Data. What does it matter if they are on separate partitions or not?

I've not seen any evidence as to how data files can get infected. If one is that concerned, files should be kept on an external HD disconnected when not actually in use. Having them on another partition of the primary HD or a second internal drive might not be that secure, if one is concered about such an occurrence, unless you use encryption, locking, or other such methods.

As far as losing data for the day of the hard drive failure: if what you are doing is that important, then surely you have a real-time backup plan to an external drive or second internal drive. This should be in effect whether you have one or ten partitions, if the data is that important. Even if your data partition is a second HD - it could fail while you are working on it: only a realtime backup to another HD will preserve your work.

So, the reasons listed in favor of a separate data partition are interesting and specific to the user's preferences, but certainly not necessary for others.

I mention this because it's always been fashionable to have multiple partitions, and the dogmatic position taken by many ( you *MUST* separate programs and data from System) is confusing to many people. For the typical home user (my area of interest) multiple partitions are not relevant to their computing experience, and create more of a burden than is necessary.

There are, however, other compelling reasons why one might need|want a separate data partition.

1) Deep Freeze -- requires a separate thawed partition on which to write data. However, I know a college student whose laptop has DF and just one partition. She has two small self-powered external USB drives which are mirror copies of her school and personal files. One drive stays in her room, hidden. The other goes with her when on campus.

2) Concern for cluster size. Those from Win95 days may remember the concern for "wasted space." Briefly, if a 1-kilobyte file is stored in a 4-KB cluster on a drive, there are 3 KB of unused space in this cluster. The reason is outlined in a KB article:

In those days, when a 1GB drive was big, cluster size was a consideration. So, you could create partitions of different sizes, each with it's own cluster size. These were the options for FAT32:

Code:

[font=courier]
------------------------------------------
    Partition                  Cluster
      Size                        Size
------------------------------------------
MB	      MB		Bytes-Kilobytes

1	-     31		512bytes

32	-     64		 1K

64	-    127		 2K

128	-    255		 4K

256	-    511		 8K

512	-   1023		16K

1.024	-  2.047		32K
-------------------------------------------- [/font]

In Win95 days I had five partitions, one of which was 32MB with a 1K cluster size, for storing 1K notepad files - daily financial information, just a few lines of text. It was a nice feeling that I was not wasting any cluster space.

Today, with such large hard drives, the "wasted space" aspect of cluster size is no longer a consideration for most people. However, on my desktop system with Win2K, I've carried over that plan -- more for fun, than anything else -- although I no longer have a 32MB partition, since in Win2000 you can assign the cluster size of your choice to any FAT32 partition size. Using other than the default 4K cluster size for NTFS is not recommended, and Partition Magic (7.0) doesn't permit it.

A DOS command at that time (now removed) allowed you to calculate the wasted space. When Partition Magic came on the scene, you could easily bring up that information.

Using Partition Magic, I can see the wasted space for various cluster sizes. For example, I have a small (by today's standards!) partition of 4GB for work files. Here is the display. 20MB of wasted cluster space is hardly anything on a 4GB partition:


___________________________________________________________

Wasted cluster space is still discussed in some circles, and people swear by one cluster size over another, with respect to performance and fragmentation. Those who store a lot of video files often use a 64K cluster size.

However, there is no concensus as to the effectiveness of this. Just search around for interesting and often heated discussions.

And so:

Only you can answer that based on either a compelling need for it, or just a personal preference as to how you want to organize your file management system!

---
rich

 

Partitioning stems back to Unix days where there are very good reasons for it, originally virtual memory could only be extended to disc via a dedicated partition.
Log files on a Unix server could file a drive and crash a system - putting them on their own partition meant that only the apps that insisted on witting log files would crash, the rest of the OS would function.

Then there's fragmentation - certain apps under Unix (certain mail servers for example) have file based databases, where the files are many and small, they don't fragment much themselves, but as they are created and deleted frequently in the same partition as other files like data and log files, these other files can become rapidly fragmented.

In Unix/Linux there's more flexibility in choosing different file systems and tuning them, e.g. block sizes, index mode, journal size, etc., so you can fine tune your machine for maximum performance (important with servers), so you can make your boot partition most compatible, you can create a log partition that doesn't require journalling, you can create a mailbox partition with extra block sizes.

Pretty much all of these things have little significance to Window NT based OS, but back in NT4 days, the boot partition could be no larger than 4gb, for example, NT4 only supported about 8 gig partitions maximum.

By having separate partitions if you get file system errors on one partition, your reduce the risk of having damage on the other partitions.

I have different backup strategies for my OS and data partitions, one uses images the other is backed up on the network at work or via usb at home - far easier to manage. Not only that but it reduces costs (space required) and time as I backup my OS far less frequently than my data.

That probably is the ONLY reason I still use partitions that is important to myself.

One thing no-one has mentioned is limited user accounts and group policies and folder permissions, it is far easier to maintain (not mess up), not that its essential (like partitions for backup), but it does make life easier a lot easier, when you know you can remove everyone permission from your OS partition.

Also, file system encryption - its slow, no point encrypting your OS, just encrypt your data, by putting it on a separate partition.

You can make an entire partition hidden to a user (but you cannot folders)

I can thing of various reasons for a Windows SERVER to be partitioned, large volume management (e.g. much easier to swap the partition out for a new drive when more space is needed and keep the OS on-line), separate database partition (so the database file cannot fill and crash the OS).

But for home/desktop use its all down to personal preference.

 

A frozen FDISR snapshot requires also a separate thawed partition, where else am I going to store my data.

Returnil has also a Virtual Partition to store data.

ShadowUser recommends a separation of system and data.

All good reasons to create a Data Partition and that's what all ISR-software recommend. And I can lock my Data Partition, I can't lock my System Partition with data on it.
I don't even need partitioning, just two harddisks, alot safer than having two partitions on the same harddisk.

I'm doing this since March 2006, no regrets on the contrary.

 

Except that Rmus has a thawed "data partition" as a DeepFreeze-user.

 

Thanks nickr and ErikAlbert for other situations where partitioning may be necessary. I'm making a list.

ErikAlbert - I do use Thawed partitions, with Deep Freeze, but it's not necessary, as in the case of the student who writes data to a separate external HD. In conversation this morning with friend, I learned of another person who does the same thing with a laptop.

In the case with the student, security (in the event the laptop is stolen) was the motivating factor.

---
rich

 

Frankly I don't see the difference between a thawed partition and a separate external HD, which has also a partition.
The fact is that you can't live without a thawed data partition, when your system partition is frozen, especially with DeepFreeze, where you have to reboot for each thawed or frozen session, because there is no option to get from thawed to frozen mode without reboot, like some ISR-software do have (Returnil, FDISR, ...).
FDISR is the only one that allows you to get in thawed or frozen mode without reboot (Freeze, Unfreeze, Freeze Previous). Most ISR-softwares can learn alot from FDISR and FDISR is older than most ISR-softwares. That's the difference between brilliant and average.
Freeze is just an option in FDISR, we aren't even talking about the main functions of FDISR, they don't even exist in other ISR-softwares.

 

There isn't. I illustrated a situation where the user wants her school|personal files separate from the computer. It's just another option.

----
rich

 

OK for a laptop. I could store my data on an external harddisk, but that would be too unpractical. You can't turn ON/OFF an external harddisk without using hardware buttons.
I can lock/unlock my second harddisk (= data partition) much easier with two mouse-clicks and a password, when I start surfing or testing unknown softwares and lock means "no reading, no writing, no stealing".
If malware can hurt my system partition, I find it very logical that it can hurt my data partition also.
Malicious deletion of my data is not the worst, I can recover these files.
Malicious infection of my data is the worst, if I don't see it in time, I backup these infections also and then everything is infected.

 

Hello,

I must be the only one that notices this, but in this day and age of terabyte drives and HD videos, my "data" consists of 3TB worth of videos, music, movies, documents, software, and pictures, I don't see how it is possible for me to have my data on a C drive, let alone make multiple images/snapshots of that kind of a system. It would be a tremendous waste of hard drive space/ electricity to NOT partition.

In general, even if an user only has 2 spreadsheets as data, archiving 20 snapshots of those spreadsheet is STILL redundant and useless.

Just my 2 cents.

 

It sounds like you have a good solution!

There are situations where it may be ideal.

Our church library has a computer for all members to use. It has software for doing research. Those wanting to make notes on the computer bring their own USB drive - either thumb drive or small external HD. No personal files are stored on the computer.

----
rich

 

I agree in your case, but not everyone creates images/snapshots.

Some use simple backup plans that append new files to the backups.

----
rich

 

Snapshots in FDISR are not for DATA.
ISR = Immediate SYSTEM Recovery (Windows and Applications, NO DATA).

 

Perhaps you didn't understand what I said.

 

Most probably, I didn't understand you. Images, snapshots and archives are different things to me and I work with all three.

I would certainly not store 3TB of data on my system partition.
I wouldn't keep video, photos, ... on harddisks either, I would store those on quality DVD's, certainly movies.
I don't have photos, so I have no experience with those.

In general, I would store non-graphical files and graphical files on two separate partitions, but I don't have that problem.