Disk Partitioning

Ed Cryer has written on 9/16/2013 3:26 PM:
Juan Wei wrote:
choro has written on 9/15/2013 3:34 PM:
On 15/09/2013 19:28, wrote:
"Ken Blake" wrote in message

You might want to read this article I've written:
http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=326

Nice sensible advice. Thx!

The only problem with imaging a single partition HD is the size of the
image. Don't you run out of space on the destination drive pretty
quickly? (I've inferred that imaging copies the entire partition rather
than just the blocks that are in use.)

No; just the used parts.

So the image is smaller than the partition?

On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 03:00:44 +0100, choro wrote:

And because I have the commands on a Word doc file with a shortcut on my
desktop, all I have to do is open the Word document, click in the margin
of the command line to select and copy the command and then paste the
command at the Command prompt. The possibilities are more or less
limitless. It is all done by choosing your parameters.

Or you could put the commands into a batch file and run that.

Seems more efficient to me.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:31:13 +0000 (UTC), Dave wrote:


And does anyone "proof" there posts and replies anymore?

Stef

Apparently no.

Yeah, that was kind of funny.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 17:51:27 +0100, John wrote:

I don't think Clorox sells in UKland.

Have you searched for Cloroux?

That's humor/humour, even if it's not actually funny.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 20:26:33 +0100, Ed Cryer wrote:

Juan Wei wrote:
choro has written on 9/15/2013 3:34 PM:
On 15/09/2013 19:28, wrote:
"Ken Blake" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:17:38 -0500, wrote:

I'm, by some quirk (anal retentive, obsessive compulsive, other ???)
of my mentality, an organizational freak. I, by nature, want things well
structured and organized logically.


Yes, separating different kinds of files on partitions is an
organizational technique, but so is separating different kinds of
files into folders. The difference is that partitions are static and
fixed in size, while folders are dynamic, changing size automatically
as necessary to meet your changing needs. That generally makes folders
a much better way to organize, in my view.


So, in XP-Pro I have the hard drive partitioned into multiple
partitions _- Office Apps, Internet Apps, Accessories, Utilities,
etc.


In my opinion, that's *way* overpartitioned.

Please don't misinterpret here, I don't mean
to be argumentative at all, but if one is partitioning
what becomes "too much" ??

I've been told that this "slows" the machine down -- but I don't do
anything (except 1 or 2 CPU-intensive math things I've programmed)
where the slow-down , if it exists, is noticeable.


With modern computers, the slowdown is very slight if it exists at
all.



You might want to read this article I've written:
http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=326

Nice sensible advice. Thx!

The only problem with imaging a single partition HD is the size of the
image. Don't you run out of space on the destination drive pretty
quickly? (I've inferred that imaging copies the entire partition rather
than just the blocks that are in use.)


No; just the used parts.

Ed

And frequently the process compresses the data as well (Macrium
definitely does).

Note that an image is a file from which the original disc can be
reconstructed, It is *not* a bit for bit copy of the original drive or
partition. I.e., it is not a clone.

That's why Macrium and its ilk can create incremental image backups.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 19:46:42 -0500, Bob I wrote:

On 9/15/2013 3:45 PM, Paladin wrote:
On 2013-09-15, Juan Wei wrote:
has written on 9/15/2013 12:17 PM:
I'm, by some quirk (anal retentive, obsessive compulsive, other ???)
of my mentality, an organizational freak. I, by nature, want things well
structured and organized logically.
So, in XP-Pro I have the hard drive partitioned into multiple
partitions _- Office Apps, Internet Apps, Accessories, Utilities,
etc.

Why not just use a directory structure? What do you gain by all those
partitions?

Alphabet soup.
Some people get off on a P:/ drive.



You can "name" any folder as a drive letter. Simply r-click it, select
Properties, Sharing, Share, Select Everyone from the pull down and set
R/W. Then in the Tools menu in Windows Explorer, select "Map network
drive" to give the letter of choice to the shared folder.

You can also mount a drive (a partition too, I think) as a folder, at
least in W7, maybe in Vista, maybe before.

I found it handy as a work-around dealing with some sync program or
other that couldn't recognize an external drive or card when it got
assigned a different letter.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 13:35:30 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 17:51:27 +0100, John wrote:

I don't think Clorox sells in UKland.

Have you searched for Cloroux?

That's humor/humour, even if it's not actually funny.


I think it's founny.

On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 10:13:31 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 03:04:10 +0100, choro wrote:

Now if only they used the Chinese character set instead of the English
alphabet! I gather there are 20,000 characters in the Chinese alphabet.

The number isn't clear, but it's considerably more than 20,000.
Probably somewhere in the 40,000 - 80,000 range.

I looked it up a year or two back, since I also believed that the number
was around 20,000. What I learned is that it's in the hundreds of
thousands if you count everything. Apologies: I have forgotten all the
details and where I found it. It must have involved Google - but I'm not
apologetic enough to look today :-)

And note that this isn't an alphabet. Those characters aren't letters;
they are actually much more like words.

But still, wouldn't be nice to have a drive whose "letter" means
"Revenge" or "True Love"?

I just looked at those supposedly totally arbitrary choices I wrote
down. Boy, wouldn't Freud have a field day with me?

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 13:49:36 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 13:35:30 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 17:51:27 +0100, John wrote:

I don't think Clorox sells in UKland.

Have you searched for Cloroux?

That's humor/humour, even if it's not actually funny.

I think it's founny.

Good one!

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Juan Wei wrote:
Ed Cryer has written on 9/16/2013 3:26 PM:
Juan Wei wrote:
choro has written on 9/15/2013 3:34 PM:
On 15/09/2013 19:28, wrote:
"Ken Blake" wrote in message

You might want to read this article I've written:
http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=326

Nice sensible advice. Thx!

The only problem with imaging a single partition HD is the size of the
image. Don't you run out of space on the destination drive pretty
quickly? (I've inferred that imaging copies the entire partition rather
than just the blocks that are in use.)

No; just the used parts.

So the image is smaller than the partition?


Exactly. I have a 1GB C partition. Windows shows it as having 87GB used.
The latest Paragon saved image is 74GB. I have several saved images.
I also take Windows images. The latest is 80GB.

Ed

Ed Cryer wrote:
Juan Wei wrote:
Ed Cryer has written on 9/16/2013 3:26 PM:
Juan Wei wrote:
choro has written on 9/15/2013 3:34 PM:
On 15/09/2013 19:28, wrote:
"Ken Blake" wrote in message

You might want to read this article I've written:
http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=326

Nice sensible advice. Thx!

The only problem with imaging a single partition HD is the size of the
image. Don't you run out of space on the destination drive pretty
quickly? (I've inferred that imaging copies the entire partition rather
than just the blocks that are in use.)

No; just the used parts.

So the image is smaller than the partition?


Exactly. I have a 1GB C partition. Windows shows it as having 87GB used.
The latest Paragon saved image is 74GB. I have several saved images.
I also take Windows images. The latest is 80GB.

Ed


The images cover all the recovery I could want.
1. They can be mounted as virtual drives; and then I can pick off any
file I like.
2. They can be restored in full; initiated either from within Windows or
from a boot disk.
This latter covers hard drive fail, malware infestation, OS corruption.

Ed

Ed Cryer has written on 9/16/2013 5:17 PM:
Juan Wei wrote:
Ed Cryer has written on 9/16/2013 3:26 PM:
Juan Wei wrote:
choro has written on 9/15/2013 3:34 PM:
On 15/09/2013 19:28, wrote:
"Ken Blake" wrote in message

You might want to read this article I've written:
http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=326

Nice sensible advice. Thx!

The only problem with imaging a single partition HD is the size of the
image. Don't you run out of space on the destination drive pretty
quickly? (I've inferred that imaging copies the entire partition rather
than just the blocks that are in use.)

No; just the used parts.

So the image is smaller than the partition?


Exactly. I have a 1GB C partition. Windows shows it as having 87GB used.
The latest Paragon saved image is 74GB. I have several saved images.
I also take Windows images. The latest is 80GB.

So if you restored it to a new HD, would you end up with a 1GB
partition? Would you have to have that partition in place before you did
the restore? What's the difference between a Paragon image and a Windows
image?

Gene E. Bloch has written on 9/16/2013 4:40 PM:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 20:26:33 +0100, Ed Cryer wrote:

Juan Wei wrote:

The only problem with imaging a single partition HD is the size of the
image. Don't you run out of space on the destination drive pretty
quickly? (I've inferred that imaging copies the entire partition rather
than just the blocks that are in use.)


No; just the used parts.

Ed

And frequently the process compresses the data as well (Macrium
definitely does).

Note that an image is a file from which the original disc can be
reconstructed, It is *not* a bit for bit copy of the original drive or
partition. I.e., it is not a clone.

Innaresting! OED says that the computer definition of an image is "...an
exact copy of (a computer’s hard disk)

Now how do we define "an exact copy"? :-)

On 16/09/2013 20:26, Ed Cryer wrote:
Juan Wei wrote:
choro has written on 9/15/2013 3:34 PM:
On 15/09/2013 19:28, wrote:
"Ken Blake" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:17:38 -0500, wrote:

I'm, by some quirk (anal retentive, obsessive compulsive,
other ???)
of my mentality, an organizational freak. I, by nature, want
things well
structured and organized logically.


Yes, separating different kinds of files on partitions is an
organizational technique, but so is separating different kinds of
files into folders. The difference is that partitions are static and
fixed in size, while folders are dynamic, changing size automatically
as necessary to meet your changing needs. That generally makes folders
a much better way to organize, in my view.


So, in XP-Pro I have the hard drive partitioned into multiple
partitions _- Office Apps, Internet Apps, Accessories, Utilities,
etc.


In my opinion, that's *way* overpartitioned.

Please don't misinterpret here, I don't mean
to be argumentative at all, but if one is partitioning
what becomes "too much" ??

I've been told that this "slows" the machine down -- but I
don't do
anything (except 1 or 2 CPU-intensive math things I've programmed)
where the slow-down , if it exists, is noticeable.


With modern computers, the slowdown is very slight if it exists at
all.



You might want to read this article I've written:
http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=326

Nice sensible advice. Thx!

The only problem with imaging a single partition HD is the size of the
image. Don't you run out of space on the destination drive pretty
quickly? (I've inferred that imaging copies the entire partition rather
than just the blocks that are in use.)


No; just the used parts.

Ed

Further to Ed's remark I'd like to add that...
You don't even copy the used parts. You are in fact doing nothing more
the equivalent of copying and pasting i.e. resaving the files in another
folder. If the original file is greatly defragged the copy may even be
smaller than the original as it will not be defragged in its new
location. That's what xcopy or xxcopy do. Only the copy this time is on
another drive. Imaging or cloning are something altogether different.
--
choro
*****

On 16/09/2013 22:17, Ed Cryer wrote:
Juan Wei wrote:
Ed Cryer has written on 9/16/2013 3:26 PM:
Juan Wei wrote:
choro has written on 9/15/2013 3:34 PM:
On 15/09/2013 19:28, wrote:
"Ken Blake" wrote in message

You might want to read this article I've written:
http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=326

Nice sensible advice. Thx!

The only problem with imaging a single partition HD is the size of the
image. Don't you run out of space on the destination drive pretty
quickly? (I've inferred that imaging copies the entire partition rather
than just the blocks that are in use.)

No; just the used parts.

So the image is smaller than the partition?


Exactly. I have a 1GB C partition. Windows shows it as having 87GB used.
The latest Paragon saved image is 74GB. I have several saved images.
I also take Windows images. The latest is 80GB.

Ed

If I may just add...
An image file is already compressed, isn't it? So, it's got to be
smaller. Mind you the xcopy and xxcopy options I have mentioned in other
places on this thread are definitely NOT imaging. They are copies of the
original files but whereas the original might not be contiguous, the
pasted copy will be a contiguous file. And can therefore take up less
space on the HD. The more you add up something to a file and re-save it
the more defragged it can get.--
choro
*****