Just installed a new HD today (1 Tb) and used Macrium image to restore to the new HD but now I have 630 Gb of free space that I want to integrate to the Primary active C partition to expand it out fully. For you gurus out there is there a free tool that can carry out this task safe enough you guys trust that's proven or is there a Microsoft Windows command series that might be better suited for this purpose.
Thanks Bill. If it's proven good enough for you then that's fine for this project. It's a one on and done plan and some free apps really can come in handy in a pinch so long as their not tainted with foulware like is common anymore.
I've used it dozens of times over the years with no problems. But still, whenever you mess with partitions, there is a risk something might go wrong. The hard drive could decide to fail or a drunk takes out your power pole. So always backup any data you don't want to lose before changing partitions - just in case.
No problem. Is already imaged. Been down that road too many times before. Appreciate the precaution notice about that. I likely will use something else though. EASEUS wants to download a pile of garbage and I don't go for that excess baggage. More concerned how to restore a more recent image from Drive Snapshot after expansion, it's good but it's not a Macrium Reflect
You can also expand partition using Windows build in Disk manager: https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/shrink-extend-volumes-partitions-windows-7/ Also when restoring Macrium image you can also expand partition, if drive is larger than original: http://reflect.macrium.com/help/v5/how_to/restore/restore_partitions_with_resize_and_reorder.htm
Got it! Thanks. Hah ha, had to restore image again EASESUS is full of junk. Soon going to be time to sue the pants off creepos that cause undo delay and try to trick people to add all that excess that can cripple or gum up a machine.
Holy Smokes!! 16 seconds! on reboot to resize my C:\ primary adding 631 Gb unallocated? Mind you it took approx. 12 minutes for it to work within the windows GUI desktop and needed a reboot it said to complete-
EASTER, Adding 630 GB of Free Space to the OS partition would be at the end of my list of things to do. I don't know how full your OS partition is at present so maybe it does need some extra Free Space. But 630 GB?
BrianK, I done a Macrium restore (320+Gb) to a new 1 Tb HD but somewheeee in a hurry I missed the feature where Macrium could likely do that operation and it only applied the restored image total (full disk backup) leaving all the rest. Soooo, after image restored I had a whole bunch of unallocated space that necessitated picking up a useful safe partitioning tool to get the job done fast. The one above in the image was just the ticket. Had no idea it was THAT good but I seen it breeze through that transition like nobody's business, and now we're back in business. I recommend it. Fine organization.
EASTER, We are at cross purposes. You are saying you want the OS to fill the drive. I'm saying the 650 GB of Free Space could be better used for other purposes. Such as installing other OS (Windows and Linux) and a data partition which could contain files you don't want included in your OS image. Also, the closer you keep the OS partition to the outside of the HD (to the left in Disk Management) the faster will be read/write.
I understand that. Shorter reach equals quicker access, I get that. However it was purposed for this particular drive to use the full 1Tb for the Primary. You have no idea how tempting it is to start rigging up some Linux O/S's. I already use Mint to bail out windows when it barfs. I can only imagine if I done the dual boot my interest in Windows 8 would wane severely enough but on another HD partitioning for other purposes might be useful. 1 to 2 Terabyte mechanical hard drives are dirt cheap right now in my neck of the woods where most are sold on the SSD hype, and while they do have advantages, this user remains a throwback. Do have one SSD system but am also thrifty and not willing to dish out what they sell for right now when you can pick up all the Extra heavy duty space at less cost.
EASTER, I like HDs too and I use them for data and backups. But I'm sold on SSDs for OS partitions. The performance gain over a HD is quite clear. Small SSDs are cheap now. 128 to 256 GB. In my test computer I have 4 SSDs and 1 HD. I can compare an OS on an SSD with a clone of that OS on the HD.
As an Image Specialist I know you must admire SPEED in imaging and even more importantly with the return in RESTORES, and SSD's do make for some advantage on that front. Ya never know, one day that same satisfaction & ambition may also inspire my interest to them, but mechanical HD's have also improved in reliability as well as durability and as a throwback, although you make a pretty good argument for those, regular HDD's are the normal since I get new ones at bargain basement discount with space galore to load up with.
I have used it many times and it caused issues once, which is why it is important, as you said, to backup. I have a lifetime license.
I appreciate the mention since I was pressed for time but it flopped. MiniTool Partition Wizard though was so stupid simple I was literally shocked and amazed at it's performance and in breakneck speed record time. Was completely unprepared for such a smooth and rapid result as that. Thanks guys for weighing in.
A resize larger should take a second or so because no data has to be moved. Resizing smaller would take longer if data has to be moved. For example, a 1 GB partition with 500 GB of data. That data could be spread over the entire 1 GB so if you wanted to resize the partition to 600 GB, it would not take 1 second. The sectors in use would need to be moved into the 600 GB space during the resize.
Good to know. This specialty is always been out of my element of expertise and why I rely on yourself-Peter2150-RollbackFrog etc. in picking up some vital useful pointers when you guys engage members who bring their issues out front for discussion.
While technically true, it is not a good argument anymore with today's drives. Decades ago, drives were much smaller which often resulted in much more severe fragmentation. Data transfer speeds were much slower and drive buffers were tiny (often just 2MB). Today's drives are HUGE and Windows defrags hard drives automatically so fragmentation is kept to a minimum. Data transfer speeds are really fast and most drives have 32 or even 64MB buffers. Even the fact most computers today have gobs of RAM makes a big difference in drive performance. Partitioning does NOT improve disk performance. If anything, it can degrade performance because the drive head has to jump back and forth between the OS partition and the application partition. With Windows running programs, that is a lot of jumping back and forth. If all in the same partition and with Windows keeping drives defragged, there is less jumping back and forth. True, for a modern drive, that degradation is likely imperceptible to the user but the point is, in terms of performance, having a large boot partition for Windows, your apps and your data is not a problem. If you want your OS to have its own space, I recommend two physical drives. Then you have two R/W heads doing the work at the same time, not one R/W head doing double the work sequentially.
Am not a scientist to mechanical HD tech but this does seem to stack up exactly with experience-results I have found with modern spindle drives. It does make sense to me in this little world
True on systems where data is accessed regularly and in parallel on multiple partitions. If I have no choice but to connect jut one HDD onto my system, I'd partition it anyway cause in a case of disaster such as a drive failure I could recover my data easier than having system and data files in scrambled in just one partition. So for me, partitioning is not about performance only.
Taken from an article of MiniTool Partition Wizard website: https://www.minitool.com/partition-disk/does-partitioning-affect-performance.html
No worry on that front so long as you practice keeping a running-rolling set of near-up-to-date images which in this local camp revolves around Macrium first and foremost but also DS imaging with SNA backups which I ONLY DO FULL DISC BACKUPS. I leave the incremental and differential functions to you guys who are really in tune with adequate applications of scheduling those. Guess I will always be a hands on manual type where concerns imaging-but works for me.
And when would that not be the case? That's my point. People don't use computers that have only the OS installed. They install and run applications as well as use, save and modify data files. How do you figure? If you have a drive failure, there is nothing to suggest one partition will still work perfectly. No, partitioning has nothing to do with disk or data reliability (except - maybe - from malware corruption). In fact, partitions adds to the complexity of the partition and file tables. It can however, make using a computer more convenient for some users. So in that respect, having multiple partitions on the same drive can be desirable and advantageous.
Many times. I, for example, access some files daily which I modify data, such as xlsx, docx, etc. documents, even my sons computers are used the same way when doing school works, again no performance decrease at all. They all sit on another partition and see no performance decrease. OS and applications are on another first primary partition, fast my pcs feel, yep. Yes as I said above. So says you. I've experienced quite the opposite. Besides I bet on data RECOVERY reliability with a partitioned drive.
