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 | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
On 3/8/18 9:27 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
Ken, A cardboard box, trimmed [snip] We definitily have a different way of looking at it. I myself imagine the boxes closed, with a name ontop (living room, bedroom, attick). You have to really open them to see what is inside (files and/or more folders. Maybe even empty). It also allows you to stack them (into a container/transport vehicle). Ah, a box in a box thing, now I get it. Reading your explanation I get the image of of a filing cabinet: Each drawer represents a folder, and each file represents ... well, a file. :-) Although I have used the analogy too, it does not scale all that well to folders-within-folders. But I got away with that by designate a filing room as the "parent" folder, and a halway with filing rooms as the grandparent folder. Add floors to get a great-grandparent. Normally that is as far as most people need to go to imagine another layer of folders onto of that. Does that make more sense? Make sense to me, but I think folder actually work better, because the icons are... well... folders. LOL And the icons for a document may look like a piece of paper I don't go as deep as you i figure if they don't understand it by the 3rd level, they aren't going to get it at that point in time. And I don't think it's a good idea to leave open the possibility of them thinking you can do the "box in a box" thing an unlimited number of levels deep. While I don't know if there's a limit on the number of levels, there is the limit in the length of the path. Yes, it does. I hope your story includes storage shelves though (but as representation for what ?), as I would not want to see those stacked. :-) (have seen them stacked in real life, and you don't want to need to search in there. :-\ ) I use shelves when I explain Libraries. Too keep it short, the items you see under Libraries is the same as in the old fashioned library card files. The thumbnail you see is not real, it's just a pictured of the item you want, which is stored in the bowels of the library (their hard drive). Binders=boot record??? In my explanation ? Nope, not really. The boot record is followed by a File Allocation Table (FAT for short), which is used to indicate which sectors (sheets) belong to which binder (file) (and ofcourse which sectors are still free, but thats thats not part of our visualisation). While in the computer the name of a file is present in the folder structure, it only contains an index to the first-used sector (or cluster actually) of a file. With it you need to look into the FAT to find the next one. (My apologies this already known to you). No apologies necessary, I did know this. But another reader may not. Back in my 8-bit days, I'd spent hours typing a document for the local fire department. Then, in exhaustion, deleted it. After some good sleep, I learned how the system linked one sector to another. It too about 2 hours with a sector editor, but I got it all back. It was not a windows/DOS box, and I didn't know of any other way of doing it. It sure beat retyping, though. LOL When I read binders, my mind with straight to 3 ring binders. Yes, that where *exactly* the ones that I ment (well, I always imagine the 18-ring ones, as those kept my papers whole, even when I mistreated them :-) ) 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. Also, I'm not quite sure what nowerdays the benefits of having two physical drives would be (for a single-OS configuration). Just to see if I could do it, I built my newest computer when 8.0 came out. 2 drives, with the boot drive being SSD, the data drive is a mechanical. Reason 1: The SSD would give me faster boot times. Reason 2: I always assume the worst, that malware will try to infect the data. But, if you do things in a non-standard way, I.E. on a separate drive, maybe a particular malware won't go looking for that and infect/damage your data. Reason 3: It's a lot quicker to reinstall the OS if you have already eliminated having to deal with your data. But, still do backups. I'm much better at doing backups on the Mac with Time Machine than I do on any of my Windows systems. It's just so damned much easier. If I knew of any or a competent Windows backup that worked the way Time Machine does, I'd jump right on that. -- Ken Mac OS X 10.11.6 Firefox 53.0.2 (64 bit) Thunderbird 52.0 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 17:03:22 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: In message , R.Wieser writes: Ken, A cardboard box, trimmed [snip] We definitily have a different way of looking at it. I myself imagine the boxes closed, with a name ontop (living room, bedroom, attick). You have to really open them to see what is inside (files and/or more folders. Maybe even empty). It also allows you to stack them (into a container/transport vehicle). Reading your explanation I get the image of of a filing cabinet: Each drawer represents a folder, and each file represents ... well, a file. :-) Although I have used the analogy too, it does not scale all that well to folders-within-folders. But I got away with that by designate a filing room as the "parent" folder, and a halway with filing rooms as the grandparent folder. Add floors to get a great-grandparent. Normally that is as far as most people need to go to imagine another layer of folders onto of that. You're going up; I want to go down. Explaining that you can make folders within folders within folders ad infinitum is the other thing I want to do. You can certainly have multiple layers of folders within folders, but definitely not ad infinitum. Also, I'm not quite sure what nowerdays the benefits of having two physical drives would be (for a single-OS configuration). See above: if something kills your OS, your data is _probably_ still safe, unless what killed it was ransomware or similar. Certainly the risk to your data is lessened if it's on a separate physical drive. But "_probably_" might be too strong a word. All the drives in your computer are still at risk to simultaneous loss to user error, severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks, even theft of the computer. Many people think that having their data on a separate physical drive removes the need for backup. As far as I'm concerned, they are completely wrong; regular backup to an external drive should still be done. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
J. P.
You're going up; I want to go down. I don't think so. I'm just building upon what they already know to larger stuff. Working my way down from a building to a filing cabinet and its contents won't go down that well (of you pardon me the pun here :-) ). make folders within folders within folders ad infinitum Personally I think you're making a mistake there (which will probably bite you in the behind at some time): there *is* a limit to how many folders you can make, and this limit is influenced by the contents of each folder. Which, using my earlier suggested cardbord boxes analogy, is easy to explain and understand: there are only so many boxes you can place in a van. Even when you buy a bigger van - or even a transport truck (or cargo ship!) - you're still going to get full at some point ... But I think I know where your "ad infinitum" comes from. Thats, as I mentioned, why I suggested the cardboard boxes-within-boxes-within-boxes approach. but instead because I don't want anything which scrambles the OS partition to (have _too_ much chance to) scramble the data one. I'm not so worried about that scrambling (though it happened to me once, using a cheap drive bay). I'm more worried about an easy restore process being sabotaged because of the datafiles (on that same partition) that would get lost by it (as mentioned, for the OS partition I always assume a full partition backup/restore). I _image_ my OS-and-software partition ... but just _sync_ my data partition Same here. The OS is a clusterf*uck of interconnected files, and being able to restore them one-by-one makes little sense (could well make the problem larger instead of smaller). The datafiles on the other hand ... See above: if something kills your OS, your data is _probably_ still safe I'm sorry, but I don't see a difference between a single, multi-partition setup, or a multi-drive one here. I also would not be too sure about anything accidentally killing the OS (on its own drive) not as easily have damaged (some of) the data (on another drive). And in the case of *targetted* fauling up I would even say that the data is much more interresting than the OS: If the backups are affected too the OS can always be reinstalled. The data ? Well ... In other words, my OS-seperate-from-the-data approach is because of the difference in backup and retrieval methods, nothing more. Regards, Rudy Wieser |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
R.Wieser wrote:
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. Also, I'm not quite sure what nowerdays the benefits of having two physical drives would be (for a single-OS configuration). If all that extra space is bothering you, there are 120GB SSDs for $50. https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...82E16820242399 Then, you can use an external HDD (1TB) for backups. Paul |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
Ken,
2 Terabytes may be the smallest drive *you* have, but it's far from being the smallest one available. :-) That I have it is because that was the smallest one available in my town. At the time I even informed about a much smaller, 500GB one, but they doubted they even could still order them. And if you are using less than 50GB, that's an unusually small amount. Not to me. Than again, I'm not a run-of-the-mill computer user. You say data *partitions* (plural). Why do you have more than one of them? You mean apart from the OS and data partition ? Why do you have multiple folders on your data drive/partition ? I mean, you *can* store everything in the root, can't you. :-p What is each one for, and how big is each one? #1 - OS partition. 50 G allocated, 6 used #2 - "working" partition. 50 G allocated, 7 used #3 - "documentation" and "temp" partition. 50 G allocated, 12 used #4 - program origionals (ZIP or DVD image formats) backups. 50 G allocated, 14 used. There is still about 270 G not assigned on that drive. I do not even expect to ever use it. Two points about why I have the disk configuration I have: 1. Yes, it's much more disk space than I need. Same here, even though I've got just a single drive. 2. Yes, I often post messages warning people about the risks of backing up to an internal HD. Phew! I was already thinking of how I could rant about how ... unadvisable that would be. :-) By the way, the 2 TByte drive I spoke of earlier is actually an USB one which I use for backups. *edit* Ackkk... I just realized that I forgot to tell something that *might* make a difference: The 'puter I'm talking about in the above is my main, "work" machine. I do have another machine on which I also run games, but that one isn't that big either: 230 GB used, including DVD copies (for backup of the origionals). Not much of a gamer I'm afraid. Regards, Rudy Wieser |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 21:39:55 +0100, "R.Wieser"
wrote: Ken, 2 Terabytes may be the smallest drive *you* have, but it's far from being the smallest one available. :-) That I have it is because that was the smallest one available in my town. At the time I even informed about a much smaller, 500GB one, but they doubted they even could still order them. With sources like Amazon.com, and many others, almost everything is available in every town. And if you are using less than 50GB, that's an unusually small amount. Not to me. Than again, I'm not a run-of-the-mill computer user. You say data *partitions* (plural). Why do you have more than one of them? You mean apart from the OS and data partition ? No, you said "data partitions." I was asking why you had more than one data partition. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
In message , Ken Blake
writes: On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 17:03:22 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: In message , R.Wieser writes: Ken, A cardboard box, trimmed [snip] We definitily have a different way of looking at it. I myself imagine the boxes closed, with a name ontop (living room, bedroom, attick). You have to really open them to see what is inside (files and/or more folders. Maybe even empty). It also allows you to stack them (into a container/transport vehicle). Reading your explanation I get the image of of a filing cabinet: Each drawer represents a folder, and each file represents ... well, a file. :-) Although I have used the analogy too, it does not scale all that well to folders-within-folders. But I got away with that by designate a filing room as the "parent" folder, and a halway with filing rooms as the grandparent folder. Add floors to get a great-grandparent. Normally that is as far as most people need to go to imagine another layer of folders onto of that. You're going up; I want to go down. Explaining that you can make folders within folders within folders ad infinitum is the other thing I want to do. You can certainly have multiple layers of folders within folders, but definitely not ad infinitum. True; there's a maximum path length for a start (though I think the old subst command can circumvent that a little). But certainly for more levels than a person struggling with the concepts is likely to go to. And Microsoft themselves do rather love them ... C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\Microsoft\Assistance\Client\1.0\en-US C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Skype\Apps\login\js C:\Documents and Settings\Toshiba\Local Settings\Application Data\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Recovery\High\Last Active Also, I'm not quite sure what nowerdays the benefits of having two physical drives would be (for a single-OS configuration). See above: if something kills your OS, your data is _probably_ still safe, unless what killed it was ransomware or similar. Certainly the risk to your data is lessened if it's on a separate physical drive. But "_probably_" might be too strong a word. All the drives in your computer are still at risk to simultaneous loss to user error, severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks, even theft of the computer. Yes; really only disk death, or certain kinds of catastrophic update failure or similar software fault, will kill C: and not D:. Power glitches/lightning _might_ just kill one drive, but it could equally be either one. _Some_ viruses might only go for C:, but probably few these days. Many people think that having their data on a separate physical drive removes the need for backup. As far as I'm concerned, they are completely wrong; regular backup to an external drive should still be done. Definitely. I would never suggest otherwise! But just for data, it's easier to argue it doesn't have to be an image, just some sort of copy (ideally in a synching manner to make it a _lot_ faster), whereas - for most of us with only moderate knowledge, anyway - imaging is required for C:, if restoration of a working system (activation, all registry settings, all software settings) is being prepared for. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf I love the way Microsoft follows standards. In much the same manner that fish follow migrating caribou. - Paul Tomblin, cited by "The Real Bev", 2017-2-18. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 01:25:27 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: Many people think that having their data on a separate physical drive removes the need for backup. As far as I'm concerned, they are completely wrong; regular backup to an external drive should still be done. Definitely. I would never suggest otherwise! But just for data, it's easier to argue it doesn't have to be an image, just some sort of copy (ideally in a synching manner to make it a _lot_ faster), whereas - for most of us with only moderate knowledge, anyway - imaging is required for C:, if restoration of a working system (activation, all registry settings, all software settings) is being prepared for. Yes, I just do a simple copy. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|