Re: Do I need to partition? [Archive]

JAX

February 14th 04, 07:01 AM

Hi Kelly,

I know you come back to check your posts, so, this is as good a place as any
for this question. It is in topic.

Some say that there is too much search time if you have your programs
installed on a separate partition than the OS. What are your thoughts about
this? I find, it saves a lot of time on maintenance if I have it that way,
do you think I loose in the long run?

Party time in LA, JAX

"Kelly" > wrote in message
...
> Excellent idea and I wouldn't run Windows without them. In my case: I
use
> one for my system only, one for a share drive, one for downloads and one
for
> backups, etc. And do similar on my second hard drive.
>
> --
> All the Best,
> Kelly
>
> MS-MVP Win98/XP
> [AE-Windows® XP]
>
> Troubleshooting Windows XP
> http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com
>
> Utilities for Windows XP
> http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/xp_u.htm#xp_util
>
>
> "Neptoone" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I just bought a new PC with Wind XP HE and 80 GB. However, as soon as I
> got it, I bought and had installed a slave 160 GB HD. I had the tech set 4
> partitions at 40GB. However, I am having second thoughts is this a good
idea
> or should I remove it? Would appreciate to learn more about the pros and
> cons and if I should remove it how do I go about it
> > Thanks
>
>

Donald McDaniel

February 14th 04, 07:21 AM

Neptoone wrote:
> I just bought a new PC with Wind XP HE and 80 GB. However, as soon as
> I got it, I bought and had installed a slave 160 GB HD. I had the
> tech set 4 partitions at 40GB. However, I am having second thoughts
> is this a good idea or should I remove it? Would appreciate to learn
> more about the pros and cons and if I should remove it how do I go
> about it Thanks

*** Question 1*** Are you planning on dualbooting with another OS?
--- If the answer is "Yes", then create one 40gig partition during the
installation of XP, and install XP there, leaving 40gig free for a second
OS.
--- If the answer is "No", then just create one partition using the entire
free space when you install XP.

*** Question 2*** Will you be saving huge files? (videos, movies)
--- If the answer is "Yes", then repartition the 160gig HD to into one -
160gig partition. To do this, use XP's Disk Management utility to delete
the 4 partitions, then create one new one, and use all free space for it.
This presupposes that you have XP SP1 installed, and a motherboard which
will allow for LBA formatted HD's. If you don't have those two things, XP
will not display the entire 160gig. It will only display 137gig
--- If the answer is "No", then 4 - 40gig partitions is a fair size, and a
good division of that HD.

--
Donald L McDaniel
Post all replies to the Newsgroup,
so that all may be informed.
Remove the obvious to reply by email.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Kelly

February 14th 04, 07:22 AM

Hi Jax,

I don't know it any other way. I have been set up in this way for years.
:o) But to answer your question, even though XP does have 'search' issues,
I have not noticed any difference at all.

If you are speaking from the prefetch perspective and others, my answer and
results are still the same. Besides, is too easy to having to repair a
system without loosing any of the good stuff (mail, etc included as I share
it amongst all OS installed here).

> Party time in LA.....

As for the above, it sure is: Mardi Gras is in the house! :o)
--
All the Best,
Kelly

MS-MVP Win98/XP
[AE-Windows® XP]

Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com

Utilities for Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/xp_u.htm#xp_util

"JAX" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Kelly,
>
> I know you come back to check your posts, so, this is as good a place as
any
> for this question. It is in topic.
>
> Some say that there is too much search time if you have your programs
> installed on a separate partition than the OS. What are your thoughts
about
> this? I find, it saves a lot of time on maintenance if I have it that way,
> do you think I loose in the long run?
>
> Party time in LA, JAX
>
> "Kelly" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Excellent idea and I wouldn't run Windows without them. In my case: I
> use
> > one for my system only, one for a share drive, one for downloads and one
> for
> > backups, etc. And do similar on my second hard drive.
> >
> > --
> > All the Best,
> > Kelly
> >
> > MS-MVP Win98/XP
> > [AE-Windows® XP]
> >
> > Troubleshooting Windows XP
> > http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com
> >
> > Utilities for Windows XP
> > http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/xp_u.htm#xp_util
> >
> >
> > "Neptoone" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I just bought a new PC with Wind XP HE and 80 GB. However, as soon as
I
> > got it, I bought and had installed a slave 160 GB HD. I had the tech set
4
> > partitions at 40GB. However, I am having second thoughts is this a good
> idea
> > or should I remove it? Would appreciate to learn more about the pros and
> > cons and if I should remove it how do I go about it
> > > Thanks
> >
> >
>
>

JAX

February 14th 04, 07:41 AM

I have to stand by my guns on that issue, I have been, and probably will
always be, an advocate of a programs partition. Some will tell you they want
to be away from the OS, PhotoShop is one. Just to make it a little more
clear, I was asking about HD issues with seek time. Search was not the
correct term.

Drink one for me, JAX

"Kelly" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Jax,
>
> I don't know it any other way. I have been set up in this way for years.
> :o) But to answer your question, even though XP does have 'search'
issues,
> I have not noticed any difference at all.
>
> If you are speaking from the prefetch perspective and others, my answer
and
> results are still the same. Besides, is too easy to having to repair a
> system without loosing any of the good stuff (mail, etc included as I
share
> it amongst all OS installed here).
>
> > Party time in LA.....
>
> As for the above, it sure is: Mardi Gras is in the house! :o)
> --
> All the Best,
> Kelly
>
> MS-MVP Win98/XP
> [AE-Windows® XP]
>
> Troubleshooting Windows XP
> http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com
>
> Utilities for Windows XP
> http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/xp_u.htm#xp_util
>
>
> "JAX" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hi Kelly,
> >
> > I know you come back to check your posts, so, this is as good a place as
> any
> > for this question. It is in topic.
> >
> > Some say that there is too much search time if you have your programs
> > installed on a separate partition than the OS. What are your thoughts
> about
> > this? I find, it saves a lot of time on maintenance if I have it that
way,
> > do you think I loose in the long run?
> >
> > Party time in LA, JAX
> >
> > "Kelly" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Excellent idea and I wouldn't run Windows without them. In my case:
I
> > use
> > > one for my system only, one for a share drive, one for downloads and
one
> > for
> > > backups, etc. And do similar on my second hard drive.
> > >
> > > --
> > > All the Best,
> > > Kelly
> > >
> > > MS-MVP Win98/XP
> > > [AE-Windows® XP]
> > >
> > > Troubleshooting Windows XP
> > > http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com
> > >
> > > Utilities for Windows XP
> > > http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/xp_u.htm#xp_util
> > >
> > >
> > > "Neptoone" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > I just bought a new PC with Wind XP HE and 80 GB. However, as soon
as
> I
> > > got it, I bought and had installed a slave 160 GB HD. I had the tech
set
> 4
> > > partitions at 40GB. However, I am having second thoughts is this a
good
> > idea
> > > or should I remove it? Would appreciate to learn more about the pros
and
> > > cons and if I should remove it how do I go about it
> > > > Thanks
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Kelly

February 14th 04, 08:42 AM

Gotcha and will do.

--
All the Best,
Kelly

MS-MVP Win98/XP
[AE-Windows® XP]

Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com

Utilities for Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/xp_u.htm#xp_util

"JAX" > wrote in message
...
> I have to stand by my guns on that issue, I have been, and probably will
> always be, an advocate of a programs partition. Some will tell you they
want
> to be away from the OS, PhotoShop is one. Just to make it a little more
> clear, I was asking about HD issues with seek time. Search was not the
> correct term.
>
> Drink one for me, JAX
>
> "Kelly" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hi Jax,
> >
> > I don't know it any other way. I have been set up in this way for
years.
> > :o) But to answer your question, even though XP does have 'search'
> issues,
> > I have not noticed any difference at all.
> >
> > If you are speaking from the prefetch perspective and others, my answer
> and
> > results are still the same. Besides, is too easy to having to repair a
> > system without loosing any of the good stuff (mail, etc included as I
> share
> > it amongst all OS installed here).
> >
> > > Party time in LA.....
> >
> > As for the above, it sure is: Mardi Gras is in the house! :o)
> > --
> > All the Best,
> > Kelly
> >
> > MS-MVP Win98/XP
> > [AE-Windows® XP]
> >
> > Troubleshooting Windows XP
> > http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com
> >
> > Utilities for Windows XP
> > http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/xp_u.htm#xp_util
> >
> >
> > "JAX" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Hi Kelly,
> > >
> > > I know you come back to check your posts, so, this is as good a place
as
> > any
> > > for this question. It is in topic.
> > >
> > > Some say that there is too much search time if you have your programs
> > > installed on a separate partition than the OS. What are your thoughts
> > about
> > > this? I find, it saves a lot of time on maintenance if I have it that
> way,
> > > do you think I loose in the long run?
> > >
> > > Party time in LA, JAX
> > >
> > > "Kelly" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Excellent idea and I wouldn't run Windows without them. In my case:
> I
> > > use
> > > > one for my system only, one for a share drive, one for downloads and
> one
> > > for
> > > > backups, etc. And do similar on my second hard drive.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > All the Best,
> > > > Kelly
> > > >
> > > > MS-MVP Win98/XP
> > > > [AE-Windows® XP]
> > > >
> > > > Troubleshooting Windows XP
> > > > http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com
> > > >
> > > > Utilities for Windows XP
> > > > http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/xp_u.htm#xp_util
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Neptoone" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > I just bought a new PC with Wind XP HE and 80 GB. However, as soon
> as
> > I
> > > > got it, I bought and had installed a slave 160 GB HD. I had the tech
> set
> > 4
> > > > partitions at 40GB. However, I am having second thoughts is this a
> good
> > > idea
> > > > or should I remove it? Would appreciate to learn more about the pros
> and
> > > > cons and if I should remove it how do I go about it
> > > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Alex Nichol

February 14th 04, 04:01 PM

Neptoone wrote:

>I just bought a new PC with Wind XP HE and 80 GB. However, as soon as I got it, I bought and had installed a slave 160 GB HD. I had the tech set 4 partitions at 40GB. However, I am having second thoughts is this a good idea or should I remove it? Would ap
preciate to learn more about the pros and cons and if I should remove it how do I go about it

Some partitioning is a good thing, but an arbitrary 4x40 probably is
not. You need to think out the way they will be used, in segregating
system/programs/data of different types, with particular regard to the
way you will use backup (you might well use a partition on the second
drive to hold backup from the first. See discussion at
http://aumha.org/win5/a/parts.htm - written before drives got so big but
good on principles

--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K. (remove the D8 bit)

Neptoone

February 14th 04, 09:41 PM

Thanks Kelly, you know I never thought about putting my downloads in a separate HD. I think I'll be doing that if I am downloading a trial program. On my master HD I don't put any partions. My other PC that was replaced with the new one with WindXP, I have
2 HD.

It has been more than practical putting all my data on my slave HD. I had to reformat Wind98 several times, and never had to be worried about jeopardizing my data. All I had to do was to reformat the entire C drive and that was it.

However, one thing that I ran into a bit of a challenge was, in cases where I installed a program on my master HD but then wanted my data to go on the slave drive. Well, the program wouldn't let me do that. Do you have any suggestions?
But in cases when I'm trying a new program I'll be placing it on the slave drive.

Neptoone

February 14th 04, 10:02 PM

Alex,

Thanks for the information, wow that is quite a site, but I'm wondering why you said that dividing my HD four ways with 40GB is not a good arbitrary number

Bob Dietz

February 14th 04, 10:41 PM

Neptoone wrote:
> Alex,
>
> Thanks for the information, wow that is quite a site, but I'm wondering why you said that dividing my HD four ways with 40GB is not a good arbitrary number

Because it's arbitrary. Why not 3 x 53.33Gb or 5 x 32Gb.

You have the empty shell of a building. When you partion it, you're
putting in walls - creating rooms. It's probably not a great floor plan
if the livingroom and the broom closet are both the same size.

You put the page file on a separte partion so it won't get fragmented.
You put temp folder on another partion, 'cause just the frequent
creation and deletion of temp files accelerates fragmentation. You put
static data that you only access infrequenctly ( clip-art, digital
photos ...) on a partion on the inner tracks of the HD 'cause that's the
slowest part of the HD. ( But a whole lot faster than CD or DVD ). How
big any partion should be depends on the amount of stuff you expect to
have to put there.

Bob

Bob Dietz

February 15th 04, 01:43 AM

In-Reply-To: >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: >
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
NNTP-Posting-Host: host-96-82-230-24.midco.net 24.230.82.96
Lines: 1
Path: kermit!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!nx02.iad01.news hosting.com!newshosting.com!newshosting.com!nx01.i ad01.newshosting.com!140.99.99.194.MISMATCH!newsfe ed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!pln-w!lotsanews.com!sjc-feed.news.verio.net!s
ea-feed.news.verio.net!news.microsoft.com!msrtrans!TK 2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl
Xref: kermit microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:962889

Neptoone wrote:

> Bob
> Point well taken, since I've never done this I'm a bit overwhelmed and need to breeze in and take it and see how I'm going to accomplish this,i.e., trying to assign those folder that you had indicated. I don't think that I could re-size the partions I do
n't know how to do that.

For non-destructively resizing, you need a program like Partion Magic.
But this is a brand new drive - presuably not stuffed full of data.
Backup any data you've already got on the drive.
(If there is room on the old drive, just copy it using Explorer.)

In Explorer, one by one, right click each and every existing partion and
choose Properties. On the General tab, in the unlabeled box at the tob
give the partion a meaningful name. You could accomplish the same thing
in the next step, but presumably you know what's what in Explorer.

Open XP's Disk Management console -
START > Run... > diskmgmt.msc

At the top of the lower section, you'll see Disk 0 with a list of the
partions contained on it. That's your old 80 Gb drive. Just below that
you'll see Disk 1 with a list of the partions contained on it.

Before you do anything else, think again. Have I backed up all of my
data on Drive 1. If you can answer yes to that question, you'll want to
start deleting partions on Drive 1. Click on the partion you want to
delete. Diagonal lines drawn through the rectangle representing the
partion indicate that it's the selected partion. On the menu bar -
Action > All Tasks > Delete Logical Partion

Think one more time, 'Is this data backed up?', then answer Yes.

BOOM! The partion is gone. If you now have a sudden panic feeling and
realize that dispite everything you've just managed to delete
irreplacable data, there are commercial programs to restore deleted
partions. But you were careful and we don't have to worry about that.

Select the free space you just created.
Action > All Tasks > New Logical Drive.
Next >
* Logical drive
Next >
Partion size in MB: 1000
( takes time to create a partion, lets keep this on small.)
Next >
Assign the following drive Letter: <use the default>
Next >
Format this partion with the following settings <use defaults>
Next >
Finish

It will take a few moments to format the new partion.
A new partion will appear on the left side of the free space.
( Partion Magic would let you choose left or right.)

Repeat the above procedure, but this time leave the partion size at it's
default value which will fill the whole free space. It will take a while
to format this larger partion. Go get coffee and a sandwich.

That's how you do it. Now just make a plan about how much space you need
for what. It won't be a perfect plan. (They never are.) But it will be a
much better plan than 4 equal size partions.

Bob

Kelly

February 15th 04, 05:26 AM

>Well, the program wouldn't let me do that. Do you have any suggestions?

For those, I let them have their way. :o)

--
All the Best,
Kelly

MS-MVP Win98/XP
[AE-Windows® XP]

Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com

Utilities for Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/xp_u.htm#xp_util

"Neptoone" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks Kelly, you know I never thought about putting my downloads in a
separate HD. I think I'll be doing that if I am downloading a trial program.
On my master HD I don't put any partions. My other PC that was replaced with
the new one with WindXP, I have 2 HD.
>
> It has been more than practical putting all my data on my slave HD. I had
to reformat Wind98 several times, and never had to be worried about
jeopardizing my data. All I had to do was to reformat the entire C drive and
that was it.
>
> However, one thing that I ran into a bit of a challenge was, in cases
where I installed a program on my master HD but then wanted my data to go on
the slave drive. Well, the program wouldn't let me do that. Do you have any
suggestions?
> But in cases when I'm trying a new program I'll be placing it on the slave
drive.

Donald McDaniel

February 15th 04, 05:43 AM

Bob Dietz wrote:
> Neptoone wrote:
>> Alex,
>>
>> Thanks for the information, wow that is quite a site, but I'm
>> wondering why you said that dividing my HD four ways with 40GB is
>> not a good arbitrary number

> Because it's arbitrary. Why not 3 x 53.33Gb or 5 x 32Gb.
>
I hate to tell you this, Bob, but dividing a HD into 3x52gb or 5x32gb
partitions is also "arbitrary". So using the term "arbitrary" in a
negative sense, as you are doing is not a proper usage of the English
language.

> You have the empty shell of a building. When you partion it, you're
> putting in walls - creating rooms. It's probably not a great floor
> plan
> if the livingroom and the broom closet are both the same size.
>

A hard drive is not a house, and the "walls" are not laid out in the shapes
of a parallelograms. The fact is, ANY division of a hard drive is going to
be "arbitrary"

There is no hard and fast rule for subdividing a Hard Drive. There are as
many theories for dividing up a HD as there are users. Personally, I prefer
not to divide my HDs into partitions, unless I am using the partitions for
other Operating Systems. Fragmentation is no problem, because my defragger
can defrag system areas of the HD, as well as user areas. As for speed:
Modern hard drives and their controllers are approaching and surpassing the
speed of the Bus as it is. When hard drive platters are in danger of
blowing apart from the extreme rotational speeds approached nowadays, any
talk of "faster" is more along the lines of comparing the sizes of sexual
organs.

Partitioning is, in my opinion, a relic of the '80s and early '90s, when the
Operating System would only address 2gig. As a result, hard drives larger
than 2gig HAD to be divided into several partitions. Not only that, the OS
could not handle the file structure of a huge HD.

With modern Operating Systems, this is not necessary: Most Operating
Systems will address huge volumes easily, so further partitioning is not, in
the strictest sense, needed. Unless, of course, you are booting multiple
Operating Systems.

--
Donald L McDaniel
Post all replies to the Newsgroup,
so that all may be informed.
Remove the obvious to reply by email.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bob Dietz

February 15th 04, 02:04 PM

Donald McDaniel wrote:

> Bob Dietz wrote:
>
>>Neptoone wrote:
>>
>>>Alex,
>>>
>>>Thanks for the information, wow that is quite a site, but I'm
>>>wondering why you said that dividing my HD four ways with 40GB is
>>>not a good arbitrary number
>
>
>>Because it's arbitrary. Why not 3 x 53.33Gb or 5 x 32Gb.
>>
>
> I hate to tell you this, Bob, but dividing a HD into 3x52gb or 5x32gb
> partitions is also "arbitrary". So using the term "arbitrary" in a
> negative sense, as you are doing is not a proper usage of the English
> language.

It might have been clearer, had I said, "It's not a good number, because
it's an arbitrary number."

>>You have the empty shell of a building. When you partion it, you're
>>putting in walls - creating rooms. It's probably not a great floor
>>plan
>>if the livingroom and the broom closet are both the same size.
>>
>
>
> A hard drive is not a house, and the "walls" are not laid out in the shapes
> of a parallelograms. The fact is, ANY division of a hard drive is going to
> be "arbitrary"

Of course it's a house - it's a split level ranch with a patio, garage
and swimming pool.

Dictionary.com
> ar·bi·trar·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärb-trr)
> adj.
>
> 1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.

If the division of my hard drive is based upon a reasoned analysis of
how I intend to use it, then I don't think you can say the division is
arbitrary. My reasoning may be incorrect and the division may be less
than optimal to my purpose, but it is not arbitrary.

> There is no hard and fast rule for subdividing a Hard Drive. There are as
> many theories for dividing up a HD as there are users. Personally, I prefer
> not to divide my HDs into partitions, unless I am using the partitions for
> other Operating Systems. Fragmentation is no problem, because my defragger
> can defrag system areas of the HD, as well as user areas. As for speed:
> Modern hard drives and their controllers are approaching and surpassing the
> speed of the Bus as it is. When hard drive platters are in danger of
> blowing apart from the extreme rotational speeds approached nowadays, any
> talk of "faster" is more along the lines of comparing the sizes of sexual
> organs.

Controllers are approaching the speed of the Bus; hard drives are not!
http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/index.html
^^^ Review of WD360 Raptor - Serial ATA - 10K RMP drive.
http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20031119/index.html
^^^ Four SCSI Ultra320 Drives With 15,000 RPM reviewed.
http://www.lostcircuits.com/hdd/
^^^ Read all five parts of "As the Hard Disc Spins"
http://www.storagereview.com/

> Partitioning is, in my opinion, a relic of the '80s and early '90s, when the
> Operating System would only address 2gig. As a result, hard drives larger
> than 2gig HAD to be divided into several partitions. Not only that, the OS
> could not handle the file structure of a huge HD.
>
> With modern Operating Systems, this is not necessary: Most Operating
> Systems will address huge volumes easily, so further partitioning is not, in
> the strictest sense, needed. Unless, of course, you are booting multiple
> Operating Systems.

Or maybe you want to segregate your data for easier back-up. Or maybe
you don't worry about backing up the data on that 160 Gb drive?

While putting the paging file on the first partion of a secondary drive
and placing temp folder in their own partion has negligible effect it's
not a non-existant effect. If you make enough tiny optimizations, they
eventually add up. If I'm going to partion anyway, I don't see a draw back.

Bob

Donald McDaniel

February 15th 04, 06:02 PM

Xref: kermit microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:963594

Bob Dietz wrote:
> Donald McDaniel wrote:
>
>> Bob Dietz wrote:
>>
>>> Neptoone wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alex,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the information, wow that is quite a site, but I'm
>>>> wondering why you said that dividing my HD four ways with 40GB is
>>>> not a good arbitrary number
>>
>>
>>> Because it's arbitrary. Why not 3 x 53.33Gb or 5 x 32Gb.
>>>
>>
>> I hate to tell you this, Bob, but dividing a HD into 3x52gb or 5x32gb
>> partitions is also "arbitrary". So using the term "arbitrary" in a
>> negative sense, as you are doing is not a proper usage of the
>> English
>> language.
>
> It might have been clearer, had I said, "It's not a good number,
> because
> it's an arbitrary number."

Substititing "It's not a good number, because it's an arbitrary number" for
"it's a bad number, because it is arbitrary" is saying the same thing, Bob.
As I said, "4 x 40" is no more "arbitrary" than "3 x 53.33Gb" or "5 x 32Gb".
The usage of "arbitrary" in a negative connotation when applied to the
division of hard drives is senseless, since ALL divisions of a HD are
"arbitrary" (and highly subjective), no matter HOW you say it.

--
Donald L McDaniel
Post all replies to the Newsgroup,
so that all may be informed.
Remove the obvious to reply by email.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Donald McDaniel

February 16th 04, 04:01 AM

neptoone wrote:
> Thanks guys for taking the time to address my issue. Donald, I think
> you made your point, even though I'm not technical as you guys are.
> But I think you are right that the partition methodology came from
> the early years. In my case, after reading your comments, I think
> that partion is not a requirement for my needs.
>
> I am not planning to boot up with dual OS to begin with. As I
> mentioned the slave HD with 160GB which I already partitioned is my
> slave drive. My master has 80 GB and would not have any data. I had a
> great experience recently with my other PC, I had to re-installed
> Wind998 and never touched my data, thanks goodness !
>
> Donald, but have a question for you. Since I usually place most of my
> programs on my master HD, if I am trying to run the program I would
> rather have the data go into the slave drive, but most of the time
> the program would not let me do that. Do you think that I should only
> have Windows on that drive and any other programs and drives on the
> secondary drive, or just leave them all as one happy family?

Usually, programs will allow you to set the volume where your data is saved.
In the case of the great majority of Windows programs, this is usually
hardwired as "C:\Documents and Settings", but can be almost always be
changed for individual files. It is possible to change these hardwired
folders in the Registry. However, I say out of the Registry as much as
possible.

Some like to separate their System volume from their programs and data.
While this seems reasonable, because of the possibility of system crashes
requiring reinstallation of the OS, it takes a lot of work, since most
Windows programs are hardwired to use C:\Program Files and C:\Documents and
Settings for programs, settings, and data. I am fairly lazy. By the way,
each time I do a defrag of my page file, it seldom has more than 1 or 2
fragments, so the excuse of moving the page file to a different paritition
than the System partition to avoid excess fragmentation doesn't wash with me

Personally, I install all programs in C:\Program Files, save all data in
C:\Documents and Settings\, keep all my media files in C:\Documents and
Settings\Music, or C:\Documents and Settings\pictures, and keep all my
downloaded program files on my secondary drive, along with backups of all
other necessary data, such as Outlook data files, Internet Explorer
favorites, my music files, and family pictures, and any other file I want
backed up. You might want to do it differently. Each person has his own
ideas about these things. Usually, people buy large HD's for storage of
media files, disk images, etc. Another use for a huge secondary HD is as a
base for virtual CDs (using a third party program).

This makes it easy to restore my system in the event that Windows gets
corrupted or crashes so bad I have to reinstall the system. I always
install Windows "clean" (and do so every few months or so), so a backup of
of my data files is necessary.

By the way, an 80gig HD with only system files on it is a TERRIBLE waste of
disk space, since the most XP and its data files is going to need is 5gig
max.

So, in a nutshell, I use C: for the system files, programs, and their data
and settings, and D: (secondary drive) for backups of those files, and
always do clean installs of XP. This requires that I reinstall my program
files each time, but I really don't mind.

--
Donald L McDaniel
Post all replies to the Newsgroup,
so that all may be informed.
Remove the obvious to reply by email.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Donald McDaniel

February 19th 04, 07:40 PM

In article >,
says...
> Donald
> Your suggestion is well taken. I think I get now some ideas as to how and where I would place my data files etc. I think you misundertood me. I intent do put all of my Programs including Windows on C, and yes I know that it's a big HD, but I like the ide
a of having plenty of room in the even that I keep adding more programs.
>
> I know exactly what you mean, to keep all data files in your slave drive when it comes time to install Windows clean. I had to do that several times and it was very practical and time savings.

Sir or Madam:
I neither understood, nor misunderstood what you were saying. I simply
shared my strategy for partitioning multiple Hard drives and backing up
data, since this was what you were asking about.

--
Donald L McDaniel
Post all replies to the Newsgroup,
so that all may be informed.
Remove the obvious to reply by email.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Donald McDaniel

February 19th 04, 07:56 PM

Donald McDaniel

February 19th 04, 08:04 PM

Alex Nichol

February 20th 04, 11:41 AM

Donald McDaniel wrote:

>Usually, programs will allow you to set the volume where your data is saved.
>In the case of the great majority of Windows programs, this is usually
>hardwired as "C:\Documents and Settings", but can be almost always be
>changed for individual files. It is possible to change these hardwired
>folders in the Registry. However, I say out of the Registry as much as
>possible.
>
>Some like to separate their System volume from their programs and data.
>While this seems reasonable, because of the possibility of system crashes
>requiring reinstallation of the OS, it takes a lot of work, since most
>Windows programs are hardwired to use C:\Program Files and C:\Documents and
>Settings for programs, settings, and data. I am fairly lazy.

Note that it is easy to move your My Documents - and hence the vast
amount of data it contains, and I would advise anyone setting up
partitions to have it on a different one. It does not involve your
editing the registry. Open a My Computer on C:\Documents and settings
to show it; another on the drive where you want it (or possibly a
folder in that if you want to keep different users separate) and then
*right* drag it across, taking *Move* here. This updates the registry
and thereafter all references to My Documents for that account will go
there. It is also easy to move Temp Internet Files (Its settings button
in Internet Options) and the store folder for Outlook Express.

Then whenever you install a new program take a custom install, and
decide where *you* want it, which need not be in Program Files. You may
find that essential for some extremely badly behaved programs that put
their data files in with them - and hence in Program files if you do
nothing. I found a friend's machine had a auction manager for eBay
which had done that - to the tune of 1,9 *GB* of obsolete data. That is
inexcusable.

--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K. (remove the D8 bit)

cquirke (MVP Win9x)

February 22nd 04, 01:21 PM

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 08:57:52 -0800, "Donald McDaniel"
>Bob Dietz wrote:
>> Donald McDaniel wrote:
>>> Bob Dietz wrote:
>>>> Neptoone wrote:

>>>>> Thanks for the information, wow that is quite a site, but I'm
>>>>> wondering why you said that dividing my HD four ways with 40GB is
>>>>> not a good arbitrary number

>>>> Because it's arbitrary. Why not 3 x 53.33Gb or 5 x 32Gb.

>>> I hate to tell you this, Bob, but dividing a HD into 3x52gb or 5x32gb
>>> partitions is also "arbitrary". So using the term "arbitrary" in a
>>> negative sense, as you are doing is not a proper usage of the
>>> English language.

Yep. The reason why I don't like "4 x 40G" (or the other suggestions,
for that matter) is because they aren't head-travel-friendly.

The idea is to minimize head travel for material you use the most
often, and park seldom-used but important material far away from head
travel so that it's more likely to survive progressive HD failure
patterns. Ideally, head travel should be less than it would have been
if you'd gone for "one big C:", even though each volume's free space
pads the distance from one volume to the next.

That is the "intelligent" part of "intelligent partitioning" :-)

FWIW, here's what I do...

7.99G FAT32 C: for Windows, core code, swap, temp
2G FAT16 D: for small user data
laaaarge FAT32 E: for nearly everything else
2G FAT16 F: for "cold storage"

I avoid NTFS because the tools to maintain it (formal malware
management, data recovery, user-controlled repair) are currently poor.

The sizes are NOT arbitrary. 7.99G is the smallest FAT32 with
swap-friendly 4k clusters, and I chose the 2G FAT16 in order to have
large clusters with an eye to data recovery.

Most head travel will be within the first 10G of the HD, and most of
the rest will go as far as the fringe of E: - only F: will be really
slow, and that's OK because the stuff in F: is there to keep it safe
and to prevent the heads having to traverse it when otherwise busy.

>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Consumer Asks: "What are you?"
Market Research: ' What would you like us to be? '
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Alex Nichol

February 23rd 04, 01:41 PM

cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:

>The idea is to minimize head travel for material you use the most
>often, and park seldom-used but important material far away from head
>travel so that it's more likely to survive progressive HD failure
>patterns. Ideally, head travel should be less than it would have been
>if you'd gone for "one big C:", even though each volume's free space
>pads the distance from one volume to the next.
>
>That is the "intelligent" part of "intelligent partitioning" :-)

To me the major point is to make for logical organisation of files for
backup policy. By keeping C to 7.5 GB, and about 5.5 typically in it
once surplus restore points and the like are cleared, I can (and do) bak
it up *regularly* as an image, which I normally do to a second drive,
but will also make less frequent copies to a single DVD-R disk (cost
now down around a dollar)

>FWIW, here's what I do...
>
>7.99G FAT32 C: for Windows, core code, swap, temp
>2G FAT16 D: for small user data
>laaaarge FAT32 E: for nearly everything else
>2G FAT16 F: for "cold storage"
>
>I avoid NTFS because the tools to maintain it (formal malware
>management, data recovery, user-controlled repair) are currently poor.
>
>The sizes are NOT arbitrary. 7.99G is the smallest FAT32 with
>swap-friendly 4k clusters, and I chose the 2G FAT16 in order to have
>large clusters with an eye to data recovery.

7.99 is the *largest* FAT 32 for 4K clusters. Why you want enormous
clusters for 'small' user data is *not* clear to me. Overhang loss must
be huge

--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K. (remove the D8 bit)

cquirke (MVP Win9x)

February 24th 04, 12:05 AM

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:24:49 +0000, Alex Nichol
>cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:

>>The idea is to minimize head travel for material you use the most
>>often, and park seldom-used but important material far away from head
>>travel so that it's more likely to survive progressive HD failure
>>patterns. Ideally, head travel should be less than it would have been
>>if you'd gone for "one big C:"

>To me the major point is to make for logical organisation of files for
>backup policy. By keeping C to 7.5 GB, and about 5.5 typically in it
>once surplus restore points and the like are cleared, I can (and do) bak
>it up *regularly* as an image, which I normally do to a second drive,
>but will also make less frequent copies to a single DVD-R disk (cost
>now down around a dollar)

Ah. I prefer file-level backups for data, as they are browsable,
malware-cleanable etc. so I use subtrees rather than volumes there. I
do like to keep core data off the volume that Windows is constantly
writing to (C:) and that incoming material arrives on.

I only use image backups to transfer XP installations (another reason
to like a small C:) and to do data recovery from failing HDs,
especially when these are NTFS. Win9x systems are not so fragile as
XP, they can transplant at the file level without having to fret about
partition imaging, registry mount points and such garbage.

I'm doing a small batch of data recovery at the moment, and one thing
I've decided to do is to AVOID partition imaging as the first step in
recovery. Normally, one might start by imaging off from the sick HD,
paste onto a good HD, and then work on that; this lets you fight one
battle at a time, i.e. fix file system without worrying about sick HD.

Two reasons why I no longer think this is a good *first* strategy:

1) You have no idea where the holes are

Once the image is on a good HD, you can copy everything that is sanely
structured at the file system logic level. But some of the content
may be nulled or corrupted, and because no bad sector errors will come
up when those affected files are copied, you won't know which files
are intact and which aren't. Those errors showed up during the
imaging, yes, but that didn't say which files were involved!

2) It can take days, and the HD may not live that long

The access pattern is generally gentle (i.e. no head thrashing) but
BING can stick on dead sectors for ages. Keeping the head over
damaged (scored?) areas of disk for hours on end doesn't seem like a
good idea to me. If the image process fails, you have nothing you can
use, so now I prefer to start by "cherry-picking" from DOS mode.

I use Odi's LFN tools to pull from FATxx, and the free SysInternals
NTFS driver to pull from NTFS. The latter sucks by comparison; not
only does one lose LFNs, but the damn thing can't traverse the
directory tree properly, so one has to pick the twigs by hand.

Once I have the crucials off, *then* I do the image copy thing, and
after that the old HD can be beaten to death for forensics,
warranty-swapped, etc.

>>FWIW, here's what I do...

>>7.99G FAT32 C: for Windows, core code, swap, temp
>>2G FAT16 D: for small user data
>>laaaarge FAT32 E: for nearly everything else
>>2G FAT16 F: for "cold storage"

>>The sizes are NOT arbitrary. 7.99G is the smallest FAT32 with
>>swap-friendly 4k clusters, and I chose the 2G FAT16 in order to have
>>large clusters with an eye to data recovery.

>7.99 is the *largest* FAT 32 for 4K clusters.

Indeed! My bad, that's what I meant :-)

>Why you want enormous clusters for 'small' user data is *not*
>clear to me. Overhang loss must be huge

Yes, but I don't mind that. For files small enough to fit in a single
cluster, recovery is assured as long as the dir entries survive, even
if the FAT is totally trashed. The more clusters, the more the FAT
chaining info matters, etc.

On the "cold storage" F:, it's slightly different - these are usually
huge files that are written as solid slabs, so cluster slack space is
not much of an issue there.

>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Consumer Asks: "What are you?"
Market Research: ' What would you like us to be? '
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -