View Single Post
  #32  
Old March 8th 18, 08:12 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Ken Blake[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,221
Default Explaining the file system hierarchy.

On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 17:27:00 +0100, "R.Wieser"
wrote:

But I also recommend the user have their data on different
partitions/drives. with drives being the preferred route.


Yesteryear, when drives could hold *much* less than today, that was my
preferred setup too. But nowerdays with its 2 Terra byte smallest size and
my *total* usage (OS and all of my data partitions) of not even 50 GByte it
would be silly to use two of them.




2 Terabytes may be the smallest drive *you* have, but it's far from
being the smallest one available.

And if you are using less than 50GB, that's an unusually small amount.
I use about 800GB, and I know many people who use substantially more.
Even my wife, who does next to nothing on her computer, uses about
70GB.

You say data *partitions* (plural). Why do you have more than one of
them? What is each one for, and how big is each one?



Also, I'm not quite sure what nowerdays the benefits of having two physical
drives would be (for a single-OS configuration).



I have three physical drives: one 1GB SSD for Windows and installed
programs, one 2TB HD for data, one 2TB HD for data backup.

Two points about why I have the disk configuration I have:

1. Yes, it's much more disk space than I need. But I want substantial
extra space for growth. I don't want to have to buy more or larger
drives as my needs increase in the future, largely because I don't
want to have to argue with my wife about spending the money.

2. Yes, I often post messages warning people about the risks of
backing up to an internal HD. That's why the second 2TB HD is not my
primary place for backup. I regularly backup to an external drive, and
use the internal one as another, more frequent, layer of backup. I
actually have five layers of backup.
Ads