Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Hard Drive Partitioning

Tags:
  • Hardware
  • Windows XP
Last response: in Windows XP
Share
September 14, 2005 9:50:59 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I just purchased a new computer running XP that came with a 160GB HD,
and picked up a 2nd
160GB HD as it was only $39 (after rebates).
I have a few questions re partitioning -
I plan on dividing the second HD into seperate partitions for
Data/Downloads/Photos/Music/.
I was also thinking of making a small partition at the beginning of the
drive to use for swap/paging.

Is it best to leave the primary drive intact, or make a seperate
partition for the OS, so if/when I need to do any maintenance, I only
need to deal with a 10GB drive.
Does it make sense to have a seperate drive for programs (install to
D:/program files instead of
C:/program files)?

Thanks,
Jay D

More about : hard drive partitioning

September 14, 2005 12:56:17 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Hi Jay,

Partitioning is total waste of time and provides no additional data
security. If you want an optimized swap file then set the minimum and
maximum size to be identical -- this will prevent fragmentation. Want
to store music and photos in their own area? Create a folder.

If you want to seperate personal data from the system data then
consider moving all personal data into the MyDocuments folder -- you
can use TweakUI to move the Favorites and Desktop folders. Make sure to
also relocate your email and address book data. (I also like to move
"MyDocuments" to "c:\data" to make it all more accessible. With all
critical personal data thus centralized in a single folder, it's easy
to use freeware backup software to keep a running backup on your second
drive (not a second partition on the same drive).

Here's a collection of freeware data backup tools which you might find
useful for this:

http://free-backup.info/backup-software.htm

And a link to TweakUI:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/...

Regards,
Chad
September 14, 2005 1:17:13 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Hi Odie,

I still don't see any benefit -- even with apps. If you have to
re-install, the registry will be wiped clean meaning that almost all
apps will need to be re-installed anyway.

What you can do to avoid this is to ghost your system periodically and
store that on your second drive also. That way you have daily backups
of critical personal data and periodic (say monthly) ghosted system
backup. That would be the best of both worlds because you can then
completely recover from a total main disk failure in a matter of
minutes.

Chad
September 14, 2005 1:36:37 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> I just purchased a new computer running XP that came with a 160GB HD,
> and picked up a 2nd
> 160GB HD as it was only $39 (after rebates).
> I have a few questions re partitioning -
> I plan on dividing the second HD into seperate partitions for
> Data/Downloads/Photos/Music/.
> I was also thinking of making a small partition at the beginning of the
> drive to use for swap/paging.
>
> Is it best to leave the primary drive intact, or make a seperate
> partition for the OS, so if/when I need to do any maintenance, I only
> need to deal with a 10GB drive.

That depends on your backup strategy.

> Does it make sense to have a seperate drive for programs (install to
> D:/program files instead of
> C:/program files)?

No. Better to leave them on C:. But you may keep data on separate
partition(s).

>
> Thanks,
> Jay D
>
September 14, 2005 4:27:45 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> What you can do to avoid this is to ghost your system periodically and
> store that on your second drive also. That way you have daily backups
> of critical personal data and periodic (say monthly) ghosted system
> backup. That would be the best of both worlds because you can then
> completely recover from a total main disk failure in a matter of
> minutes.

There is an issue though, if OS + applications + critical data take only
10GB but non critical data 150GB.
Non critical data does not need to be backed up frequently or does not need
to be backed up at all.

You will be wasting a lot of resources if you ghost all 160GB as a system
backup. With a long restore time.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 6:33:52 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Well it does reduce the time for a CHKDSK to complete. :-)

chad@aahh.com wrote:

> Hi Jay,
>
> Partitioning is total waste of time and provides no additional data
> security. If you want an optimized swap file then set the minimum and
> maximum size to be identical -- this will prevent fragmentation. Want
> to store music and photos in their own area? Create a folder.
>
> If you want to seperate personal data from the system data then
> consider moving all personal data into the MyDocuments folder -- you
> can use TweakUI to move the Favorites and Desktop folders. Make sure to
> also relocate your email and address book data. (I also like to move
> "MyDocuments" to "c:\data" to make it all more accessible. With all
> critical personal data thus centralized in a single folder, it's easy
> to use freeware backup software to keep a running backup on your second
> drive (not a second partition on the same drive).
>
> Here's a collection of freeware data backup tools which you might find
> useful for this:
>
> http://free-backup.info/backup-software.htm
>
> And a link to TweakUI:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/...
>
> Regards,
> Chad
>
September 14, 2005 8:45:40 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Gee, why not use that pair of 160's to make a RAID 0 Array?

Best Bang for the Buck, for sure. You WILL notice the speed improvement.

Set a large stripe size (most default to 128K; use it! Ignore benchmark
"hounds" that recommend 4K or 8K.)

-------

Seperate partition for data is a fine idea. It's a personal choice tho.

-------

Seperate PARTITION for swap file doesn't make a whole lot of sense;
seperate DRIVE does tho, if it's an independent channel.

--------

Personally, I like to partition a large drive "as I go", leaving
unpartitioned space for future uses. It makes no sense to partition the
entire drive at setup-time based on assumptions at that time. Make what
you need, leave the rest for allocation later. It is not a sin to leave
unpartitioned space!

--------

Don't forget a bootable partition w/ a minimal XP install and an Imaging
program, plus room for all the images. Easy security for anything short
of a drive failure.
September 14, 2005 8:45:41 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> Gee, why not use that pair of 160's to make a RAID 0 Array?
>
> Best Bang for the Buck, for sure. You WILL notice the speed improvement.
>
> Set a large stripe size (most default to 128K; use it! Ignore benchmark
> "hounds" that recommend 4K or 8K.)
>

RAID 0 for what? OS, data or backup?

> -------
>
> Seperate partition for data is a fine idea. It's a personal choice tho.
>
> -------
>
> Seperate PARTITION for swap file doesn't make a whole lot of sense;
> seperate DRIVE does tho, if it's an independent channel.

Yeah, just for a swap file alone, you must be joking.

>
> --------
>
> Personally, I like to partition a large drive "as I go", leaving
> unpartitioned space for future uses. It makes no sense to partition the
> entire drive at setup-time based on assumptions at that time. Make what
> you need, leave the rest for allocation later. It is not a sin to leave
> unpartitioned space!

That is called a lack of planning. Resizing small partitions is not a
problem.

>
> --------
>
> Don't forget a bootable partition w/ a minimal XP install and an Imaging
> program, plus room for all the images.

In one, separate partition?
I prefer rather to boot from WinPE CD for recovery.

> Easy security for anything short of a drive failure.

That approach is for lucky ones only.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 9:01:34 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

chad@aahh.com wrote:
>
> Hi Jay,
>
> Partitioning is total waste of time and provides no additional data
> security.

And what about the benefit of having your data on a partition separate
from the system and apps?

That way, if you need to reinstall Windows or whatever, your data
partition need not be affected.

Makes sense to me.


Odie
--
Retrodata
www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 10:06:57 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

<chad@aahh.com> wrote in message
news:1126714633.091741.59250@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Odie,
>
> I still don't see any benefit -- even with apps. If you have to
> re-install, the registry will be wiped clean meaning that almost all
> apps will need to be re-installed anyway.

That's one thing I wish MS could/would fix. It would be nice to be able to
reinstall an os without having to do the same for all the other progs.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 10:23:54 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

chad@aahh.com wrote:
>
> Hi Odie,
>
> I still don't see any benefit -- even with apps. If you have to
> re-install, the registry will be wiped clean meaning that almost all
> apps will need to be re-installed anyway.
>
> What you can do to avoid this is to ghost your system periodically and
> store that on your second drive also. That way you have daily backups
> of critical personal data and periodic (say monthly) ghosted system
> backup. That would be the best of both worlds because you can then
> completely recover from a total main disk failure in a matter of
> minutes.
>
> Chad

Yes - I do this with all my recovery systems, and re-clone all my
systems a couple of times each month.

It doesn't matter that apps have to be reinstalled; data exists quite
independently of apps - unlike the relationship between apps and the
operating system.


Odie
--
Retrodata
www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 10:25:34 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Peter wrote:
>
> > And what about the benefit of having your data on a partition separate
> > from the system and apps?
> >
> > That way, if you need to reinstall Windows or whatever, your data
> > partition need not be affected.
> >
> > Makes sense to me.
>
> That implies that there was no backup of data. Someone does not care about
> data then.

I must be misinterpreting your version of things.

There's nothing at all stopping someone from backing up a data volume
independently of the operating system partition.


Odie
--
Retrodata
www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts
September 14, 2005 10:25:35 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> > > And what about the benefit of having your data on a partition separate
> > > from the system and apps?
> > >
> > > That way, if you need to reinstall Windows or whatever, your data
> > > partition need not be affected.
> > >
> > > Makes sense to me.
> >
> > That implies that there was no backup of data. Someone does not care
about
> > data then.
>
> I must be misinterpreting your version of things.
>
> There's nothing at all stopping someone from backing up a data volume
> independently of the operating system partition.

So if you have a backup of a data volume, why do you care if data partition
is affected or not?
September 15, 2005 3:11:21 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:IUXVe.2651$6Z1.613087@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > And what about the benefit of having your data on a partition separate
> > from the system and apps?
> >
> > That way, if you need to reinstall Windows or whatever, your data
> > partition need not be affected.
> >
> > Makes sense to me.
>
> That implies that there was no backup of data.

No it does not imply that

--
Joep
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 7:53:01 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Peter <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>> What you can do to avoid this is to ghost your system periodically
>> and store that on your second drive also. That way you have daily
>> backups of critical personal data and periodic (say monthly) ghosted
>> system backup. That would be the best of both worlds because you can
>> then completely recover from a total main disk failure in a matter of
>> minutes.

> There is an issue though, if OS + applications + critical
> data take only 10GB but non critical data 150GB.

You're mangling the story considerably. There is no point in having
critical data in with the OS and apps, the OS and apps dont change
much over time and so dont need a high backup frequency.

You can however make a case for imaging the OS and apps before
doing anything much at all updates and config wise, and you can make
a case that minimising the size of that does maximise the chance that
you will bother before changing anything. On the other hand its more
complicated than that too if for example you have automatic updates
enabled, and want to be able to do more than just use a restore point
if you find the system has gone pear shaped due to an update. In that
case it makes more sense to automate that image before the automatic
update happens say daily etc.

Data is more complicated. It is actually what needs to be backed up
more, basically because its in a real sense irreplaceable quite a bit
of the time, unlike the OS and apps and config which at worst can
be done again, and so is just a damned nuisance if you need to do that.

It isnt really that practical to distinguish between critical and non critical
data and it makes a lot more sense to only backup what has changed
at a quite high rate, say at least daily if the system is used much. Its
too dangerous to have the user decide what is critical data, too easy
to forget and one hell of a mess having to put it in the right place etc.

And you have the other awkwidity of where the emails are
etc. Many consider those a damned nuisance if they are
lost, and they default to be in with the OS and apps.

> Non critical data does not need to be backed up
> frequently or does not need to be backed up at all.

Yes, but it isnt that easy to automatically distinguish between
critical and non critical data with no possibility of forgetting that
some data is critical, like a digital certificate or cookie etc.

> You will be wasting a lot of resources if you ghost all
> 160GB as a system backup. With a long restore time.

Yes, but ghost is just one way of doing backups.

And modern incremental image backups dont have the same
resources problem. The long winded restore isnt really that
much of a problem because it hopefully doesnt happen much.

There is something to be said for a separate OS and apps
partition, automatically imaged every night if you have automatic
updates enabled, manually if you dont, and incremental image
backups of all the data, so you dont have to consider what is
critical data and what is not and cant risk getting that wrong etc.

With hard drives getting as cheap as his second 160G drive,
there is something to be said for bulletproof backup strategys,
tho I would personally have that backup destination on another
PC on the lan or where some damned burglar cant find it etc.
September 15, 2005 7:53:02 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3or6c0F7bqlnU1@individual.net...
> Peter <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> >> What you can do to avoid this is to ghost your system periodically
> >> and store that on your second drive also. That way you have daily
> >> backups of critical personal data and periodic (say monthly) ghosted
> >> system backup. That would be the best of both worlds because you can
> >> then completely recover from a total main disk failure in a matter of
> >> minutes.
>
> > There is an issue though, if OS + applications + critical
> > data take only 10GB but non critical data 150GB.
>
> You're mangling the story considerably. There is no point in having
> critical data in with the OS and apps, the OS and apps dont change
> much over time and so dont need a high backup frequency.

I'm not saying that I have "critical data in with the OS and apps".
I have said that "OS + applications + critical data take only 10GB". It does
not imply that they are in the same partition. But they might be left in the
same partition, why not.While apps may not change much over time, OS is a
different story. Any updates, fixes or damages from virus, spyware and alike
can happen any time. I treat my OS configuration almost as vital as critical
data. I don't have time to reistall everything (OS + apps + settings) when
something goes wrong. I want to restore it. That is why I put it together
with critical data. Those things need to be saved often.
Non critical data are mostly downloads or streaming data being worked on.
Originals are always archived.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 9:45:24 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Peter <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Peter <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote

>>>> What you can do to avoid this is to ghost your system periodically
>>>> and store that on your second drive also. That way you have daily
>>>> backups of critical personal data and periodic (say monthly)
>>>> ghosted system backup. That would be the best of both worlds
>>>> because you can then completely recover from a total main disk
>>>> failure in a matter of minutes.

>>> There is an issue though, if OS + applications + critical
>>> data take only 10GB but non critical data 150GB.

>> You're mangling the story considerably. There is no point in having
>> critical data in with the OS and apps, the OS and apps dont change
>> much over time and so dont need a high backup frequency.
>
> I'm not saying that I have "critical data in with the OS and apps".
> I have said that "OS + applications + critical data take only 10GB".
> It does not imply that they are in the same partition.

OK, but its still not relevant to include the OS and apps
in with the critical data volume wise, the space taken by
the OS and apps is irrelevant to the backup question.

And he doesnt have a volume problem anyway
with the second 160G drive so cheap.

> But they might be left in the same partition, why not.

Basically its too risky to try to include just the critical data in
with the OS and apps, much safer to backup the data when
it changes and not attempt to work out what is critical data.

Or more strictly it makes a lot of sense backup all the
data you create yourself that way and say the stuff
you save off the net etc as less important to backup.

> While apps may not change much over time, OS is
> a different story. Any updates, fixes or damages
> from virus, spyware and alike can happen any time.

That's rather mangled too. The changes to the OS and apps due
to updates and fixes cant happen at any time unless you choose
to have automatic updates. So you only need to backup the OS
and apps partition whenever updates and fixes have been done.

Yes, like I said, you can make a case for having a separate
OS and apps partition to maximise the chance that you will
bother to back it up after each update or fix, but even thats
arguable if its an automated incremental backup that happens
when you arent around.

> I treat my OS configuration almost as vital as critical data.

Thats mad. Critical irreplaceable data is completely different. The
worst that can happen with the OS and apps is that you need to do
a clean install and then update that if the worst comes to the worst.

> I don't have time to reistall everything (OS + apps + settings)
> when something goes wrong. I want to restore it.

Sure, but that doesnt mean that is almost as vital as irreplaceable
data. Its a convenience thing rather than an impossibility.

> That is why I put it together with critical
> data. Those things need to be saved often.

No they dont, they only need to be resaved when they have changed.

> Non critical data are mostly downloads or streaming
> data being worked on. Originals are always archived.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 9:47:13 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

CWatters <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote
> <chad@aahh.com> wrote

>> I still don't see any benefit -- even with apps. If you have
>> to re-install, the registry will be wiped clean meaning that
>> almost all apps will need to be re-installed anyway.

> That's one thing I wish MS could/would fix. It would
> be nice to be able to reinstall an os without having
> to do the same for all the other progs.

You can, that's what the install in place does, doesnt affect the apps at all.

Usually used when you move a hard drive to a completely
different system, or the equivalent using an image file etc.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 12:53:47 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Just give windows plenty of space for both the OS and any applications. How
much depends on what and how many applications you intend to load. The
partition should also have freespace for "breathing room"

Frontloading the swapfile on a first partition of a just as fast or faster
hard drive is acceptable. Just let windows decide the swapfile size. Am
using a 4GB partition for that here.

You can divide your data between folders on one partition, or partitions on
a separate hard drive. Makes little difference.

Stick with NTFS.

"JayD" <scatman@jazzy.org> wrote in message
news:1126702258.948203.258200@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I just purchased a new computer running XP that came with a 160GB HD,
> and picked up a 2nd
> 160GB HD as it was only $39 (after rebates).
> I have a few questions re partitioning -
> I plan on dividing the second HD into seperate partitions for
> Data/Downloads/Photos/Music/.
> I was also thinking of making a small partition at the beginning of the
> drive to use for swap/paging.
>
> Is it best to leave the primary drive intact, or make a seperate
> partition for the OS, so if/when I need to do any maintenance, I only
> need to deal with a 10GB drive.
> Does it make sense to have a seperate drive for programs (install to
> D:/program files instead of
> C:/program files)?
>
> Thanks,
> Jay D
>
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 12:53:48 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Lil' Dave" wrote:
> [.........]
> Frontloading the swapfile on a first partition of a
> just as fast or faster hard drive is acceptable....


Is this because the partition numbering starts
with the outside cylinders (which contain the
fastest moving tracks)?

*TimDaniels*
September 15, 2005 2:42:29 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> >>>> What you can do to avoid this is to ghost your system periodically
> >>>> and store that on your second drive also. That way you have daily
> >>>> backups of critical personal data and periodic (say monthly)
> >>>> ghosted system backup. That would be the best of both worlds
> >>>> because you can then completely recover from a total main disk
> >>>> failure in a matter of minutes.
>
> >>> There is an issue though, if OS + applications + critical
> >>> data take only 10GB but non critical data 150GB.
>
> >> You're mangling the story considerably. There is no point in having
> >> critical data in with the OS and apps, the OS and apps dont change
> >> much over time and so dont need a high backup frequency.
> >
> > I'm not saying that I have "critical data in with the OS and apps".
> > I have said that "OS + applications + critical data take only 10GB".
> > It does not imply that they are in the same partition.
>
> OK, but its still not relevant to include the OS and apps
> in with the critical data volume wise, the space taken by
> the OS and apps is irrelevant to the backup question.

It is relevant because I backup OS and aplications too.

> And he doesnt have a volume problem anyway
> with the second 160G drive so cheap.

He didn't say that he has a volume problem. He had question on how/if to
partition drive.

> > But they might be left in the same partition, why not.
>
> Basically its too risky to try to include just the critical data in
> with the OS and apps,

It is not risky if properly backed up.

> much safer to backup the data when
> it changes and not attempt to work out what is critical data.

I grade my data (frequent backup set, seldom archive set, no backup or
archive set), because backing all frequently would take too much resources.

> Or more strictly it makes a lot of sense backup all the
> data you create yourself that way and say the stuff
> you save off the net etc as less important to backup.

That is what I'm saying.

> > While apps may not change much over time, OS is
> > a different story. Any updates, fixes or damages
> > from virus, spyware and alike can happen any time.
>
> That's rather mangled too. The changes to the OS and apps due
> to updates and fixes cant happen at any time unless you choose
> to have automatic updates. So you only need to backup the OS
> and apps partition whenever updates and fixes have been done.

I do chose to have automated updates. OS, antivirus, antispyware, etc. Is
that still "mangled" ?

> Yes, like I said, you can make a case for having a separate
> OS and apps partition to maximise the chance that you will
> bother to back it up after each update or fix, but even thats
> arguable if its an automated incremental backup that happens
> when you arent around.

Too many problems with incremental backups. At least as of today.

> > I treat my OS configuration almost as vital as critical data.
> Thats mad. Critical irreplaceable data is completely different. The
> worst that can happen with the OS and apps is that you need to do
> a clean install and then update that if the worst comes to the worst.

I said almost. I don't have irreplacable critical data which loss would cost
me thousand dollars. But others might.

> > I don't have time to reistall everything (OS + apps + settings)
> > when something goes wrong. I want to restore it.
>
> Sure, but that doesnt mean that is almost as vital as irreplaceable
> data. Its a convenience thing rather than an impossibility.

Right. Depends on personal situation.

> > That is why I put it together with critical
> > data. Those things need to be saved often.
>
> No they dont, they only need to be resaved when they have changed.

You might call it "resaved". I never thought that way (backup as a
"resaver").

> > Non critical data are mostly downloads or streaming
> > data being worked on. Originals are always archived.

No comment here?
September 15, 2005 8:36:41 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

JayD wrote:
> I just purchased a new computer running XP that came with a 160GB HD,
> and picked up a 2nd
> 160GB HD as it was only $39 (after rebates).
> I have a few questions re partitioning -
> I plan on dividing the second HD into seperate partitions for
> Data/Downloads/Photos/Music/.
> I was also thinking of making a small partition at the beginning of the
> drive to use for swap/paging.

Good idea to keep paging on the second drive but not at the beginning.

>
> Is it best to leave the primary drive intact, or make a seperate
> partition for the OS, so if/when I need to do any maintenance, I only
> need to deal with a 10GB drive.

A separate partition for OS and applications makes sense. I would
mirror this on the second drive, and keep copy of your data partitions
on drive 1.

In essence, both drives have the same structure, with an OS + apps
partition at the beginning, then a swap/paging partition followed by
one or more data only partitions.

> Does it make sense to have a seperate drive for programs (install to
> D:/program files instead of
> C:/program files)?

I would say no, but if you browse the Web a lot moving temporary
internet files on drive 2 could be helpful. Just try, you can always
move them back.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 3:51:59 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Odie Ferrous <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote:
> chad@aahh.com wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jay,
>>
>> Partitioning is total waste of time and provides no additional data
>> security.

> And what about the benefit of having your data on a partition separate
> from the system and apps?

> That way, if you need to reinstall Windows or whatever, your data
> partition need not be affected.

> Makes sense to me.

I have used that setting with good success for years. Mostly for
games (since I do other stuff on Linux) and except for a few really
stupidly designed ones that put their savegames on the c:/ drive
instead of into the installation directories, no serious problems
so far. You might loose the entries in the start menu on
reinstallation of windows from scratch or backup, but the apps
should still run as intended.

Arno
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 4:12:27 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Nice hearing from you.
Its first accessed there.
Think I'll scoot along now. You know who is tootin' his horn again.

"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
news:H_GdnVpROKXSBbTeRVn-uA@comcast.com...
> "Lil' Dave" wrote:
> > [.........]
> > Frontloading the swapfile on a first partition of a
> > just as fast or faster hard drive is acceptable....
>
>
> Is this because the partition numbering starts
> with the outside cylinders (which contain the
> fastest moving tracks)?
>
> *TimDaniels*
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 8:27:20 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Peter <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote

>>>>>> What you can do to avoid this is to ghost your system
>>>>>> periodically and store that on your second drive also. That way
>>>>>> you have daily backups of critical personal data and periodic
>>>>>> (say monthly) ghosted system backup. That would be the best of
>>>>>> both worlds because you can then completely recover from a total
>>>>>> main disk failure in a matter of minutes.

>>>>> There is an issue though, if OS + applications + critical
>>>>> data take only 10GB but non critical data 150GB.

>>>> You're mangling the story considerably. There is no point in having
>>>> critical data in with the OS and apps, the OS and apps dont change
>>>> much over time and so dont need a high backup frequency.

>>> I'm not saying that I have "critical data in with the OS and apps".
>>> I have said that "OS + applications + critical data take only 10GB".
>>> It does not imply that they are in the same partition.

>> OK, but its still not relevant to include the OS and apps
>> in with the critical data volume wise, the space taken by
>> the OS and apps is irrelevant to the backup question.

> It is relevant because I backup OS and aplications too.

Nope. In spades with him because he
has loads of space to put backups into.

>> And he doesnt have a volume problem anyway
>> with the second 160G drive so cheap.

> He didn't say that he has a volume problem.

He doesnt have a volume problem, he has
loads of space on the second 160G drive.

> He had question on how/if to partition drive.

And you started discussing backup,
and I commented on what you said.

>>> But they might be left in the same partition, why not.

>> Basically its too risky to try to include just
>> the critical data in with the OS and apps,

> It is not risky if properly backed up.

Its risky trying to decide what is critical data and what
is not, because what is critical data may not get backed
up with the other critical data. THATS the risk.

>> much safer to backup the data when it changes
>> and not attempt to work out what is critical data.

> I grade my data (frequent backup set, seldom
> archive set, no backup or archive set),

And that is a risky approach, it isnt hard to forget about some
critical data and not include it in the frequent backup set.

> because backing all frequently would take too much resources.

I never said that it should be backed up frequently, I clearly
said that its a lot safer to back up what changes instead.

>> Or more strictly it makes a lot of sense backup all the
>> data you create yourself that way and say the stuff
>> you save off the net etc as less important to backup.

> That is what I'm saying.

But it isnt always easy to decide what you have created yourself
with stuff like digital certificates etc with that level of user.

>>> While apps may not change much over time, OS
>>> is a different story. Any updates, fixes or damages
>>> from virus, spyware and alike can happen any time.

>> That's rather mangled too. The changes to the OS and apps due
>> to updates and fixes cant happen at any time unless you choose
>> to have automatic updates. So you only need to backup the OS
>> and apps partition whenever updates and fixes have been done.

> I do chose to have automated updates. OS,
> antivirus, antispyware, etc. Is that still "mangled" ?

Yes, because you didnt make it clear that that you were
talking about that approach, and that it isnt necessarily
the best approach if you arent using automated updates.

>> Yes, like I said, you can make a case for having a separate
>> OS and apps partition to maximise the chance that you will
>> bother to back it up after each update or fix, but even thats
>> arguable if its an automated incremental backup that happens
>> when you arent around.

> Too many problems with incremental backups. At least as of today.

Bullshit. In spades with automated incremental backups
that get done when the system isnt being used.

>>> I treat my OS configuration almost as vital as critical data.

>> Thats mad. Critical irreplaceable data is completely different. The
>> worst that can happen with the OS and apps is that you need to do
>> a clean install and then update that if the worst comes to the worst.

> I said almost.

Nothing like almost.

> I don't have irreplacable critical data which loss
> would cost me thousand dollars. But others might.

Most do have data that would cost them more effort than
a clean install and updates applied in the worst case where
a virus etc does happen to infect the system since the last
OS and apps backup where there has been significant
reconfig since then that has not been backed up.

And that is easily avoided by doing another backup whenever
there has been a significant reconfig or update etc done.

>>> I don't have time to reistall everything (OS + apps + settings)
>>> when something goes wrong. I want to restore it.

>> Sure, but that doesnt mean that is almost as vital as irreplaceable
>> data. Its a convenience thing rather than an impossibility.

> Right. Depends on personal situation.

Its hardly ever almost as vital when the OS
and apps are backed up, just not daily etc.

>>> That is why I put it together with critical
>>> data. Those things need to be saved often.

>> No they dont, they only need to be resaved when they have changed.

> You might call it "resaved". I never thought
> that way (backup as a "resaver").

Corse it is.

>>> Non critical data are mostly downloads or streaming
>>> data being worked on. Originals are always archived.

> No comment here?

I did, you deleted it from the quoting.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 8:31:16 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Lil' Dave <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote:

> Just give windows plenty of space for both the OS and any
> applications. How much depends on what and how many
> applications you intend to load. The partition should also
> have freespace for "breathing room"

> Frontloading the swapfile on a first partition of a just as fast
> or faster hard drive is acceptable. Just let windows decide
> the swapfile size. Am using a 4GB partition for that here.

> You can divide your data between folders on one partition, or
> partitions on a separate hard drive. Makes little difference.

Makes quite a bit of difference, actually. With separate partitions
for different types of data make it very hard to decide what is the
appropriate size for each of them, particularly over time, and the
free space gets split over the partitions. And its risky to change
partition sizes without full backup of the data in them. Doesnt
happen with a single data partition using folder trees.

> Stick with NTFS.


> "JayD" <scatman@jazzy.org> wrote in message
> news:1126702258.948203.258200@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> I just purchased a new computer running XP that came with a 160GB HD,
>> and picked up a 2nd
>> 160GB HD as it was only $39 (after rebates).
>> I have a few questions re partitioning -
>> I plan on dividing the second HD into seperate partitions for
>> Data/Downloads/Photos/Music/.
>> I was also thinking of making a small partition at the beginning of
>> the drive to use for swap/paging.
>>
>> Is it best to leave the primary drive intact, or make a seperate
>> partition for the OS, so if/when I need to do any maintenance, I only
>> need to deal with a 10GB drive.
>> Does it make sense to have a seperate drive for programs (install to
>> D:/program files instead of
>> C:/program files)?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jay D
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 6:48:16 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:hAZVe.2691$6Z1.624569@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> So if you have a backup of a data volume, why do you care if data
partition
> is affected or not?

Because you can't have too many copies, and the HDD is more reliable than
most backup media.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add
2 more zeros and remove the obvious.
September 16, 2005 6:48:17 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> > So if you have a backup of a data volume, why do you care if data
> partition
> > is affected or not?
>
> Because you can't have too many copies, and the HDD is more reliable than
> most backup media.

That's right. Backup usually is a first copy of data. And it needs to be
verified to be sure it can be reliably read back.
Too many copies?
Yes, HDDs are often more reliable than most backup media. So what? They tend
to fail from time to time. And HDDs can be used as a backup media too.
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 10:02:37 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Hi,

Lost data can be recovered with Active@ Undelete tool. It has grand
restore methods, you should really experience it's power yourself!
http://www.active-undelete.com/
!