If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
On 16/09/2013 22:23, Ed Cryer wrote:
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 Why would you want to recover something from an image anyway IF you can have a copy of the file sitting ready to work with on another HD as you get with xcopy or xxcopy OR indeed Robocopy which has been mentioned here before? Imaging makes sense with your directory containing your OS and program files. Most people that I know these days keep their user files on the D, rather than the C Drive these days. -- choro ***** |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 22:23:09 +0100, Ed Cryer
wrote: 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. I've got ShadowProtect, which also does all of those things, plus allowing me to add a file to a mounted image, automatically take incrementals so I never have to think about backing up, and so on. Although only a home user, a tool like this is worth its weight in gold. I guess you'd agree. -- Robin Bignall Herts, England |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
On 16/09/2013 23:37, Juan Wei wrote:
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"? :-) Yes, but it is something aking to a Chinese answer to an English question. The image has got to be re-interpreted back to what we know as files (with an S) and folders. One image file is one file of the whole partition or disk or what have you. You could create ONE image of FOUR partitions or HDs etc. It is compressed and its got to be "translated" back to the various components that were used in making that image. That's what they mean. The image file will re-create an exact copy of your dud partitions/drives etc. -- choro ***** |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
On 16/09/2013 17:53, R. C. White wrote:
Hi, Bob. You can "name" any folder as a drive letter. Yes, you can. Just be sure you don't use a Label to rename a Drive (partition) as a drive letter. That usually is a very confusing thing to do! As Paladin said, "You can name your foot a hand", too, but that serves no real purpose that he (or I) can see. But it reminds me of the famous Abraham Lincoln story: Abe: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Answer: Five. Abe: No, four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. And calling Drive C:, "Drive F:" just invites confusion! A recent conversation in another newsgroup concerned a user who was trying to reorganize her partitions simply by Naming them D:, E:, etc., by using Labels. She wound up with things like: D:\Drive F: or D:\F: Some people are just like that. They will complicate and mess up everything they touch! -- choro ***** But naming a FOLDER as a drive letter can sometimes be a useful tool - or so I've heard. I haven't done it myself. I can see it coming very handy to refer to a folder with a very long pathname. But the SUBST command might be a better way to handle that job by creating a "virtual drive"; type "subst /?" in a Command Prompt window to see the usage. RC -- R. C. White, CPA San Marcos, TX Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-2010) Windows Live Mail 2012 (Build 16.4.3508.0205) in Win8 Pro "Bob I" wrote in message ... 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. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
choro has written on 9/16/2013 7:18 PM:
On 16/09/2013 23:37, Juan Wei wrote: 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"? :-) Yes, but it is something aking to a Chinese answer to an English question. The image has got to be re-interpreted back to what we know as files (with an S) and folders. One image file is one file of the whole partition or disk or what have you. So how is it that the image of a partition is smaller than the partition itself? That's what they mean. The image file will re-create an exact copy of your dud partitions/drives etc. "Dud"? |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 00:13:19 +0100, choro wrote:
Why would you want to recover something from an image anyway IF you can have a copy of the file sitting ready to work with on another HD as you get with xcopy or xxcopy OR indeed Robocopy which has been mentioned here before? I'll mention one reason. A clone or an Xcopy, XXcopy, or RoboCopy backup will have one copy of each file, the latest version. A set of images will have several images of a file that has been changed between incremental backups. You can get the third one back if you have screwed things up in the last two versions of a file. -- Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch) |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 00:08:23 +0100, choro wrote:
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 ***** A non-contiguous file has the same size as the contiguous version of it. A four volume book has the same total size whether or not it's put contiguously on the shelf. The analogy is exact. -- Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch) |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 19:12:48 -0400, Juan Wei wrote:
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. Aren't we making bootable images here? No. 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. xxcopy defrags? Really? A copy operation copies items to available sectors (duh!). If you start out with an empty destination drive, the results will naturally be defragged. Otherwise, it's anybody's guess. -- Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch) |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 20:07:43 -0400, Juan Wei wrote:
Yes, but it is something aking to a Chinese answer to an English question. The image has got to be re-interpreted back to what we know as files (with an S) and folders. One image file is one file of the whole partition or disk or what have you. So how is it that the image of a partition is smaller than the partition itself? There are only two reasons, both major, one obvious, one already explained upthread. 1. The unused sectors (allocation blocks) on the source drive are not copied into the image. 2. Most imaging programs compress the resulting file. That's what they mean. The image file will re-create an exact copy of your dud partitions/drives etc. "Dud"? Broken, i.e., the ones you need to restore. -- Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch) |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:37:58 -0400, Juan Wei wrote:
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"? :-) The OED is not a technical reference manual. In one sense they are almost correct - it (sort of) has everything that is on the source, and an exact copy can be reconstructed from the image - but it is not a literal exact copy. This has been explained many times, including a time or two upthread. -- Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch) |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
On 17/09/2013 01:45, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 00:13:19 +0100, choro wrote: Why would you want to recover something from an image anyway IF you can have a copy of the file sitting ready to work with on another HD as you get with xcopy or xxcopy OR indeed Robocopy which has been mentioned here before? I'll mention one reason. A clone or an Xcopy, XXcopy, or RoboCopy backup will have one copy of each file, the latest version. A set of images will have several images of a file that has been changed between incremental backups. You can get the third one back if you have screwed things up in the last two versions of a file. I must admit you've got a point there. But is it worth all the bother of having to restore one or several (!!!) just to be able to pick up the right earlier version of a file? Why not then use a much simpler method. Like I am editing a book right now which is, as you might imagine pretty important and critical work. Thus I have XXX.doc. Follow up files are named XXX_Edit-01.doc, Edit-02.doc, Edit-03.doc. You must agree this is a far more elegant solution than having to go to all the bother of recovering something from not one but several images. BTW, a stupid thing has just happened. What I am saying is actually true. And the stupid software has just come up with notifying me that it's found an Edit-02.doc and asking me to OK such an addition which would in effect release right here the Edit-02 version of the English translation of a book that has already been recently published in its original language. As you can guess I am at the moment actually working on the book's translation into English. What a stupid idea! IF I wanted to add such an attachment I'd prefer to do it knowingly and deliberately myself rather than do it accidentally or absent mindedly by clicking a stupid button. I've just had to alter the file names slightly in my response just so that this stupid software does not keep pestering me to click the button to attach the document! -- choro ***** |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
On 17/09/2013 01:48, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 00:08:23 +0100, choro wrote: 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 ***** A non-contiguous file has the same size as the contiguous version of it. A four volume book has the same total size whether or not it's put contiguously on the shelf. The analogy is exact. Not in MY experience. An original file saved umpteen times each time with additions to the text may NOT be contiguous. Whereas if that file is saved under another name and the original deleted it may well take up less HD space EVEN THOUGH the actual file size might be the same. This has got to do with wasted space with each addition or amendment to the file. I always thought filesize and space taken on HD are two different things though not necessarily all that far apart in space taken. -- choro ***** |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
On 17/09/2013 01:07, Juan Wei wrote:
choro has written on 9/16/2013 7:18 PM: On 16/09/2013 23:37, Juan Wei wrote: 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"? :-) Yes, but it is something aking to a Chinese answer to an English question. The image has got to be re-interpreted back to what we know as files (with an S) and folders. One image file is one file of the whole partition or disk or what have you. So how is it that the image of a partition is smaller than the partition itself? That's what they mean. The image file will re-create an exact copy of your dud partitions/drives etc. "Dud"? Can't you guess it, man? I mean a partition that has gone dud, kaput! Otherwise why would you want to image it and then restore it? Or are you trying to be funny? OK, let me re-word it. To recreate the partition onto the existing or new disk FROM an esisting image file/s! THERE! Satisfied now?! As to why an image file takes up less space than the individual files on the partition, COMPRESSION is the answer as Gene has already explained, as to why image files are smaller. You obviously haven't been following the thread! KOM-PRES-SIO(H)-NE(H)! (Said out loud and clear!) Another reason is that in an image all the files are lumped into ONE file and there isn't any wasted cluster/sector space which is part and parcel of saving files. One dot that doesn't fit into a cluster/sector uses up another whole cluster/sector. Even without compression an image file would thus avoid all this wasted HD space and therefore occupy less HD space. -- choro ***** |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
On 17/09/2013 00:12, Juan Wei wrote:
choro has written on 9/16/2013 7:02 PM: 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. Aren't we making bootable images here? 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. xxcopy defrags? Really? Are you trying to be funny or are you just plain daft? Every time you save a file onto another directory, it saves a pristine copy of it in that new directory. It has not been saved upteen times like some original copies of the original file where in subsequent saves the file is saved in increments recording just the alterations to the file. -- choro ***** |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|