Best way to partition my hard drive

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gary King

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Messages
313
What's the best way to partition my hard drives? I'm going to reformat, and have 2 drives:

Drive 1: 60 GB
Drive 2: 80 GB

Thanks!
 
Gary King said:
What's the best way to partition my hard drives? I'm going to reformat, and have 2 drives:

Drive 1: 60 GB
Drive 2: 80 GB

Thanks!

Partition Magic
 
I would make one and only one primary partition on each drive.
 
why not just use the partition utility thats already bulit into an XP CD?

(I assume you are going to use XP?)
 
on the first drive (master) create one primary partition that will be large enough to house the OS and applications. The rest of the drive should be an extended partition. the second hard drive I'd make into an extended partition. so here's my suggestion:
Disk 1:
primary partition: 15 gig (OS and apps)
extended partition 45 gig
Disk 2:
extended partition: 80 gig

Having the OS and its applications on its own partition provides for improved reliability.
 
What if I use the Drive #1 for O/S and apps and Drive #2 for data?

I actually have a lot of applications, games etc. and 60 GB probably would be around what I need - hopefully I don't need much more than that :)
 
darkpark said:
Disk 1:
primary partition: 15 gig (OS and apps)
extended partition 45 gig
Disk 2:
extended partition: 80 gig

Having the OS and its applications on its own partition provides for improved reliability.

How is it more reliable??
 
I personally give windows a 3-4 gig partition and use the other partition for my profile and for applications
 
Whatsisname said:
I personally give windows a 3-4 gig partition and use the other partition for my profile and for applications
Which offers zero benefit, because in the event of a rebuild, you still have to install your apps and games anyway. I'm not sure why people preach this method. Apps are meant for C:\Program Files, and there's no benefit to moving them elsewhere.

Keep the drives partitioned as one single partition. No need to add more unless your dual booting OSes, etc. 60 GB for the C drive with apps, OS, and games, 80 GB for all your storage. Then if something happens to the C drive, all your data is safe, and you can easily rebuild and be back where you started.
 
Well, you do have to put some effort into it (specifically exporting registry keys) and you have to make sure that your apps partition is mounted the same way in the new Windows install as the old one, but now I don't have to sit through 5.5GB to reinstall UT2K4.

Export HKLM\Software\"vendor or product name here" and HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall\"program name here" to preserve the uninstall info, and copy the start menu folder to the backup as well.

After you reformat your OS volume, import the registry keys back in, and move the strat menu folder back. No more patching and redownloading all of the custom levels for me :D
 
Partitioning is WAY overrated and more often than not will only hinder you. Don't partition.

Assuming the speeds are the same set the 60GB as your OS drive, faster drive as the OS if not.

 
pigster said:
How is it more reliable??

reliable in that if Windows craps out and takes the partition down with it than your data is still in tact.

i still prefer the OS and applications (not games) to be on a single/seperate partition. 15 GB formats faster than 100 GB, for example. so if i decide to do a clean re-install, i don't have to format the entire drive. additionally, you can use symantec's ghost to create an image of the partition and restore later if things go awry. creating an image from a 80 or 100 GB drive would take long and be very large.
for me, 15 GB is enough for windows xp and all my applications. everything else goes on other partitions/drives.

to Phoenix86: how will partitioning hinder?
 
darkpark said:
reliable in that if Windows craps out and takes the partition down with it than your data is still in tact.

i still prefer the OS and applications (not games) to be on a single/seperate partition. 15 GB formats faster than 100 GB, for example. so if i decide to do a clean re-install, i don't have to format the entire drive. additionally, you can use symantec's ghost to create an image of the partition and restore later if things go awry. creating an image from a 80 or 100 GB drive would take long and be very large.
for me, 15 GB is enough for windows xp and all my applications. everything else goes on other partitions/drives.

to Phoenix86: how will partitioning hinder?
OK, first, the OS is software. The HDD is hardware. With VERY few exceptions, software does not corrupt hardware. So "if windows craps out" it will NOT "take the partition down with it". If a partition gets corrupted, it gets corrupted and off to data recovery you go. Doubling the # of partitions isn't going to help, in fact it's giving you x2 the number of partitions that can fail.

Now, if things do go down the crapper on the OS, and you have your data partitioned, your still just a fucked as with a single partition. Lets examine your scenario closer.

So your install software to partitions other than your OS (no way in hell your getting OS+apps on 15GB). Lets just put some numbers here. Assume single drive 60GB.

c:\ 15GB (OS)
d:\ 45GG (Apps+user data)

OS fails.

Now you re-format the 15GB and install a new OS there. But you have 0 programs installed to *that* OS, they were installed on the previous install. Now all the shared .DLLs, registry entries, settings, dependancies are lost, since the OS went down the crapper. Now you need to reinstall all the Apps. Of course since they are already installed on d:\ you create some cute scenarios with mixed file versions (patched files on d:\ from some update differ from the install media's version).

So you have to format/install the OS, and still have to re-install the apps. What did partitioning buy you again?

If you want to talk imaging, you make this a worse scenario than hand installs. Ghost only helps the single partition re-format scenario. Why? You say copying a large ghost image is difficult? No worse than having to find every apps CD and install those by hand.

What your missing is the fact that no matter what, when the OS fails, you still have to re-install the apps. That marries the OS to the apps, so they might as well be on the same partition.

Why is partitioning bad? Well, outside of increased restore times (the very thing they are supposed to help with), you can also get screwed if you run out of space on the OS's partition.

15GB is enough today, but when XP came out people were using 5GB OS partitions. Umm, why did it change from 5GB to 15GB? Because people ran out of space.

It's the whole 640k outta be enough line of thinking.

15GB outta be enough, just like 5GB was when XP came out.

 
I'd like to see someone backup/restore ANY of my system with this method. I guarantee it would take longer.

The Office keys alone would be a PIA, heck that'd take over 30 minutes alone.

Oh, and what if a corrupt registry IS the problem?

 
^^ Alright, granted I actually don't do the Registry Key thing, but I do use the repair function and it works just as well.
 
The Repair function doesn't quite seem as 'fresh' and as 'clean' an install, though :(
 
Gary King said:
The Repair function doesn't quite seem as 'fresh' and as 'clean' an install, though :(
It's not... See mixed file hell I describe above. The same is true with windows and office, but at least you have windowsupdate.com and officeupdate.com to fix the patch versions.

Maybe I'm not seeing something here, but how does windows repair touch 3rd party apps? How is it going to fix .DLL issues for those?

 
Yep, thanks for the confirmation Phoenix,

I definitely side with you all the way on all your posts in this thread. It all makes sense :)

Anyhow, data files are always the most important items on most computers. Applications can be installed later (anyways, aren't we reformatting usually because we have too MANY applications? :D)
 
Woah..

I just re-read my post. Being half-alive ISN'T Good when posting on forums. I combined like three different train of thoughts into one jumble of garbage. Wow..yes, yes that wouldn't work at all.

However, my second comment was based off me actually thinking about a broken program.

Wow, I'm just going to get me some sleep. Sorry for being an idiot.
 
because for non windows logo programs I keep my settings.

djnes said:
Which offers zero benefit, because in the event of a rebuild, you still have to install your apps and games anyway. I'm not sure why people preach this method. Apps are meant for C:\Program Files, and there's no benefit to moving them elsewhere.

Keep the drives partitioned as one single partition. No need to add more unless your dual booting OSes, etc. 60 GB for the C drive with apps, OS, and games, 80 GB for all your storage. Then if something happens to the C drive, all your data is safe, and you can easily rebuild and be back where you started.
 
djnes said:
Which offers zero benefit, because in the event of a rebuild, you still have to install your apps and games anyway. I'm not sure why people preach this method. Apps are meant for C:\Program Files, and there's no benefit to moving them elsewhere.

Keep the drives partitioned as one single partition. No need to add more unless your dual booting OSes, etc. 60 GB for the C drive with apps, OS, and games, 80 GB for all your storage. Then if something happens to the C drive, all your data is safe, and you can easily rebuild and be back where you started.

I don't advocate an OS only C: for recovery purposes. That's not likely to ever work.

However, if you do reinstall, when you wipe your C: drive during the process (which is the clean way to do it) you can at least still see the program files on D: so you will be able to make a quick and easy catalog of what you need to reinstall, rather than remember another app you forgot every week for the next six months.

Mostly what I advocate D: for program files for is so you don't have to worry about running out of space on your boot drive due to a program writing unexpected data/logs/etc., or simply by being a chowderhead and installing a 4GB application when you've only got 3GB of space left. It's also VERY easy to move your applications to another, larger drive later if you need to. I'll stick with:

C: 20GB - OS
D: 40GB - Program Files
E: 80GB - Data Files

Can't go wrong with that.
 
I don't need a list of programs to re-install. I have DVDs created for each of my machines with the drivers and software ready to be re-installed if needed. I also use Ghost to back my machines up and restore them if necessary. I'll stick to my side, that there's absolutely no possible reason to justify installing the applications away from the default, expected. Anytime I see some noob do this, they got many errors complaining about invalid paths and missing files. Not with major apps, like Office, but with smaller, utility like apps. Again, no reason to, so why play russian roulette when you don't have to? Why is it that no OEM anywhere installs their PCs that way? Common sense.

C:\ OS, apps, games.
D:\ Data files, music, docs, etc.

This way, in the event of a crash or catastrophy, the system can be re-installed without worrying about data files. Especially those of us who use Ghost. I can pull down the Ghost image of C: and be totally restored in 5 minutes, without losing or worrying about any data whatsoever.
 
For reinstall purposes, splitting the OS and apps does not help. Ease of reinstall is the #1 reason I hear for partitioning, and it's not a good reason at all. If you want to do it for other reasons, have at it.

The best system for reinstalls is to have the OS + apps on the same partition/drive and the user's data on another one. Then you can simply image the OS+apps, fix the machine, and leave the user's data alone.

In corporate environments you don't save data to the PC, you save it to the network (not only so it can be backed up, but incase the PC fails). Think about a second drive/partition like this network share. The same system of keeping system data and user data seperate works at home too.

 
Russian roulette by installing your apps on D:? That's a ridiculous assertion. Where's the evidence to support that?

I like the backhanded implication that folks who put program files on D: are noobs. Way to score argument points.

C: = OS Only = Good idea

Another advantage, you're not making a whole lot of changes to the C: filesystem, and therefore you're less likely to encounter filesystem issues on your boot drive.

You have a predictable amount of space reserved for the OS, and you need not worry about getting to the point where you have too many applications installed. You can install your apps and all their options and help files without concern about hosing your system.

You can Ghost and recover C: alone more quickly.

You can backup D: and E: according to different schedules.

You can hardware mirror the OS on two lower-cost, lower capacity drives and still get a big kahuna drive for program files and data files.

Who needs more than 20GB for the OS? By the time you do, you'll be running on a different computer, or at least will be rebuilding the current one from the ground up.

For the specific question that started the thread:

C: 20GB OS
D: 40GB Program Files
E: 80GB Data Files

is an excellent choice. The risk of a 60GB C: with program files and OS combined is remote, because you're not overly likely to run out of space. However, it is conceivable that you could push that parition's capacity into the 80% range easily with a bunch of games and a few heavy duty applications with big-ass help files installed. With a 20GB OS only partition you virtually guarantee that the OS drive will run on a partition that's 50% free and therefore much easier to maintain and much more likely to run problem free. You can backup and restore that 20GB partition much easier and much more quickly than the 60GB partition.

Arguments against a D: program files volume are not convincing. They are correct that there is a lot of wishful thinking about the state of the applications if you do a clean OS install. They are overlooking the fact that D: is highly advantageous in the case of an OS restore, and a multitude of other operational issues.

Should your grandmother use this scheme? Of course not. But the person who posted the question undoubtedly should consider it as a possibility.
 
You didn't give any real evidence either as far as why your solution is better than anyone else's, but why break your tradition now? It's pure and simple common sense, to leave certain things default, as in the, the way they were meant to be. You can repost and argue until your blue in the face, but quite simply there's no reason for NOT leaving them where they are. As Phoenix86 said, why over-partition when it's not needed? If something isn't necessary, and offers zero benefits, why do it? There are many poorly written software apps that don't function correctly when moved out of the default locations. That's why it's called a "default location".

Pure and simple logic says, if there's no good reason to move the apps, why bother? You have done nothing to prove against convention. I don't have to give you any proof, because I'm on the side of convention. C:\Program Files is where they're intended to go, and there's no reason to do anything otherwise. Facts are facts.
 
rcolbert,

Maybe I'm missing some things here... (I'm bolding questions I'm wanting answers to)

First how do you get around not having to install apps when the OS crashes?

Next, if the machine crashes, why do you assume the apps are kosher. If your re-formatting, you want a *clean* system. Just re-imaging the OS and leaving the apps doesn't sound clean. How can you ensure a clean system with leaving 1/2 of the system files (apps) on the PC?

You can Ghost and recover C: alone more quickly.
True, but irrelevant on two different levels. First, if your OS hoses, you *still* have to reinstall the apps, so you would just wind up re-imaging C:\ and D:\. Next, if we're talking images, time is nearly irrelevant. Next, what's the difference between 5 minutes and 20 when ghosting? Your loading an OS, not performing a calculation. This is a one time process, also, ghost is automated. Fire and forget, it's not like the additional time is your time, it's the PCs.

Who needs more than 20GB for the OS?
I already answered, but here goes again. When XP first came out 15-20GB was *NOT* the size recommended by people who suggest c:\OS only. It was more like 4-5GB and that was several years ago. Fast forward to today, and 5GB is not enough. If 5GB was good enough when XP came out, why is 20GB enough today?

Multiple partitions=increased chance of losing partitions due to patition specific data corruption. I'll admit this is a low chance to begin with, but I have seen it more than once. This is akin to the argument that RAID0=increased chance of data loss due to multiple failure points.


They are overlooking the fact that D: is highly advantageous in the case of an OS restore, and a multitude of other operational issues.
Explain the scenario. I have laid out how the restore would work above, and it doesn't include saving the apps because of DLLs, and registry settings, not to mention add-on programs that hook into other programs specifically 3rd party IE apps like adobe, *toolbars, flash, etc.

 
rcolbert said:
I don't advocate an OS only C: for recovery purposes. That's not likely to ever work....

...I'll stick with:

C: 20GB - OS
D: 40GB - Program Files
E: 80GB - Data Files

Can't go wrong with that.
rcolbert said:
C: = OS Only = Good idea

For the specific question that started the thread:

C: 20GB OS
D: 40GB Program Files
E: 80GB Data Files

is an excellent choice.

WTF?

 
djnes said:
I would make one and only one primary partition on each drive.

Agreed. Having more will only decrease performance when all are in use. It also complicates things. You could have a second partition for storage though. For example I have 2 partitions. The first is for OS, games, apps etc. The 2nd one is for storage which includes MP3's and stuff. If I need to reformat for some reason I could just format the first partition and still have all my music.

I don't suggest making a second partition for stuff that is really important though. That stuff belongs backed up on a CD in a safe place.
 
Good questions, by the way...

First how do you get around not having to install apps when the OS crashes?


That all depends on the recovery method. In the case of a restore of a backup of the OS partition, the application information stored in the registry comes back when you restore the system state and all the OS files. The program files themselves on D: are simply pointed to. This assumes a system restore process that's valid.

How can you ensure a clean system with leaving 1/2 of the system files (apps) on the PC?

Typically, program files and OS files don't have much bearing on one another. Internet Explorer and the like are notable exceptions. The situations that warrant a clean OS reinstall usually don't have much overlap with application files. If it's just a non-invasive application, then usually the problem goes away with an uninstall of the app, deletion of its files and registry keys and so forth. In other words, OS problems and application problems are often different animals. I don't advocate the wipe the OS method for both types of problems, only for the OS related.

You can Ghost and recover C: alone more quickly. True, but irrelevant on two different levels. First, if your OS hoses, you *still* have to reinstall the apps...

Not true. See answer to the first question. Very relevant because the logistics of backing up a small set of data is different than a larger set of data. You may have plenty of space to store a 10GB backup, but insufficient space for a 40GB backup. You also may be willing to run backups for 1/2 and hour, but unwilling to run them for three hours. It all depends.

If 5GB was good enough when XP came out, why is 20GB enough today?

20GB is an arbitrary number that allows sufficient room for service packs and uninstall files, as well as providing headroom for the filesystem since we all agree that as filesystems approach their capacity limit their performance and stability decreases. Much of this number is relative to the availability of low-cost, high capacity storage now versus a few years ago.

Multiple partitions=increased chance of losing partitions due to patition specific data corruption

I disagree with that. The events that cause this corruption are specific in nature. It's not valid to say that your odds double that you'll encounter partition corruption because you have twice as many partitions. Physical attributes of the system come into play, as do software issues. I will say that the liklihood of a partition event causing irrepairable damage to your system partition are much lower when you only have OS files on the system partition due to the reduced amount of change on that partition, and the better management of free space and fragmented files implicit in that arrangement.


As for the post #29, I'm saying the same thing twice in order to get back on topic to answer the specific question.

Overall the only real differences we have are a misunderstanding about my position on recovery technique and which side of things we bet on when we predict what might go wrong.
 
This is just anecdotal, I realize, but here's a situation that I encounter somewhat often. In this case an app developer/support person wanted to ensure that a dev box they have was backed up in case something went wrong with an activity they had planned. Here's the email thread, in full, and just based on the content, think about how my options are substantially more open with the C:, D:, and E: scenario. Note, I don't have any idea what Vish did to jack-up the server, but in reality, I don't need to at this point. The backup tapes are on the way and I'll let you all know tomorrow how it goes.

In any case, I hope you find this amusing.

From: Shenoi, Vish (HQP)
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 2:13 PM
To: Colbert, Richard (HQP)
Subject: RE: hqpas067

Rich,
Please have hqpas067 restored ASAP.

Regards,
-Vish
-----Original Message-----
From: Colbert, Richard (HQP)
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 4:07 PM
To: Shenoi, Vish (HQP)
Subject: RE: hqpas067


The registry is backed up. The E: Drive is a separate physical partition, but is not SAN attached on HQPAS067. For all intents and purposes it’s no different than SAN attached though since it is it’s own separate array.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Shenoi, Vish (HQP)
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 3:58 PM
To: Colbert, Richard (HQP)
Subject: RE: hqpas067



Question for you, I think the registries are all backed up right? E drive should be SAN storage right?

-----Original Message-----
From: Colbert, Richard (HQP)
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 3:52 PM
To: Shenoi, Vish (HQP)
Subject: RE: hqpas067

I went ahead and backed up the C: and D: drive. Let me know if you want me to get E: this weekend or not. If not, you’re free to use the server at any time.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Shenoi, Vish (HQP)
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 3:34 PM
To: Colbert, Richard (HQP)
Subject: RE: hqpas067



Thats fine lets go ahead. Please let me know as to when I could have 067 for use, Monday may be?

-----Original Message-----
From: Colbert, Richard (HQP)
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 3:22 PM
To: Shenoi, Vish (HQP)
Subject: RE: hqpas067

OK, final question. I can do the C: and D: drive now since they only have a few gigs in use. If you want the E: drive backed up as well that will have to wait until this weekend since E: has about 130 GB of data on it.



Let me know.



Thanks




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Shenoi, Vish (HQP)
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 3:17 PM
To: Colbert, Richard (HQP)
Subject: RE: hqpas067



You could now PCA into it, my bad:)

-----Original Message-----
From: Colbert, Richard (HQP)
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 3:16 PM
To: Shenoi, Vish (HQP)
Subject: RE: hqpas067

So when is HQPAS067 going to be free for me to log on via pcAnywhere so I can install the backup client in order to get to the point where I can reboot?



Thanks!




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Shenoi, Vish (HQP)
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 3:15 PM
To: Colbert, Richard (HQP)
Subject: RE: hqpas067



Please do the reboot now. Thanks

-----Original Message-----
From: Colbert, Richard (HQP)
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 3:15 PM
To: Shenoi, Vish (HQP)
Subject: RE: hqpas067

So when can I do the reboot?



Thanks




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Shenoi, Vish (HQP)
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 3:11 PM
To: Colbert, Richard (HQP)
Subject: RE: hqpas067



Thanks Rich.

-----Original Message-----
From: Colbert, Richard (HQP)
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 2:56 PM
To: Shenoi, Vish (HQP)
Subject: RE: hqpas067

We can. Is there a time when I can reboot the server in order to complete the backup agent installation?



A backup is a backup. A ghost copy is a drive image created with a tool called ghost by Symantec. Ghost is typically done with the server offline and creates a single file that represents the entire disk that is being imaged. Ghosting is often used as a mechanism to deploy a single image to multiple computers. Ghosting is also used by some folks as a backup mechanism but it is not considered a backup product.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Shenoi, Vish (HQP)
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 2:29 PM
To: Colbert, Richard (HQP)
Subject: RE: hqpas067



Hi Rich,



Could we start the back up, I need to start with the with a version upgrade of ODOC. Also, whats the difference between a back up and a ghost copy?

-----Original Message-----
From: Colbert, Richard (HQP)
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 10:12 AM
To: Phillips, Tiffany; Shenoi, Vish (HQP)
Subject: RE: hqpas067

We don’t backup HQPAS067. We can install the backup agent, reboot, and attempt a backup. Depending upon the amount of data we’re talking about this could happen either this afternoon, or if the volume is high it might have to wait until the weekend.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Shenoi, Vish (HQP)
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 9:56 AM
To: Phillips, Tiffany
Subject: hqpas067



Tiffany,

I would like to upgrade ODOC on hqpas067 test server.

Could you please let me know if there is a back up of the server? so that incase I blow up the server we could have get it back.

Thanks,

-Vish
 
djnes said:
You didn't give any real evidence either as far as why your solution is better than anyone else's, but why break your tradition now?

Protecting the OS from running out of space due to application related space consumption is a benefit I have already provided as evidence. You just choose to ignore it.

Running an OS partition with fewer changes made to the filesystem is a benefit.

The ability to move all your installed programs to a new, larger drive by simply copying them and re-assigning a drive letter is a benefit I have already given as evidence.

Shorter backup times and smaller storage requirements for the OS alone, and facilitating an OS only recovery path is a benefit..

Why break tradition indeed?


djnes said:
It's pure and simple common sense, to leave certain things default, as in the, the way they were meant to be. You can repost and argue until your blue in the face, but quite simply there's no reason for NOT leaving them where they are.

The default path of C:\Program Files is there because Windows only requires one drive partition to function. By your logic, all user profiles should be left at C:\Documents and Settings, and then all data should reside therein, or alternatively in application-specific save paths.

Should you run application servers with all the programs and data files in their default locations too? Exchange? SQL? Weblogic? Defaults are good, right? People who override them are dumb, right?

No application in the world "defaults" data paths to secondary drives, yet everyone agrees that having a drive dedicated for data is a good idea.

I not only disagree that it's common sense to leave everything default, I challenge you to demonstrate that you have any common sense in the first place.



djnes said:
As Phoenix86 said, why over-partition when it's not needed? If something isn't necessary, and offers zero benefits, why do it?

Why have Disk Manager if anything beyone one partition is "over-partitioning?" No one has demonstrated with any credibility any negative impact on creating a second partition on a drive. If I didn't find benefit to a D: drive for program files, I wouldn't do it.

djnes said:
There are many poorly written software apps that don't function correctly when moved out of the default locations. That's why it's called a "default location".

Really? It's called a "default location" because many poorly written software apps don't function correctly when they're not installed there? That's a fine argument.

I have a whole lot of applications installed and can't find one that has any issue with what drive it's installed on. Maybe you should consider the source of your software.


djnes said:
Pure and simple logic says, if there's no good reason to move the apps, why bother? You have done nothing to prove against convention. I don't have to give you any proof, because I'm on the side of convention. C:\Program Files is where they're intended to go, and there's no reason to do anything otherwise. Facts are facts.

Your assumptions are not facts, no matter how often you restate them. Convention for convention's sake doesn't prove anything. Do what you want. But try to open up to different points of view a little more. There's more than one "right" way sometimes. Fact is, you don't even read my posts with any real attempt at understanding my point. All you do is look for a way to disagree.
 
rcolbert, let's get one thing straight before we continue. Don't EVER accuse anyone else of looking for an argument. All anyone has to do is search by your username to see what your all about. You rarely ever have anything at all to say to a thread unless it's to disagree with what someone else is discussing. That's all you do on here, and honestly, coming from a long long long time poster here, this is not how you build a reputation or credibility.

You, my friend, are the one that needs to learn about not always being right. Phoenix86 and I don't know everything about everything, and we're both always eager to learn something new. But, speaking for myself, if I'm not sure about something, I don't post it.

In this particular thread, we are discussing home, personal computers, and what's best. This is not an enterprise or corporate related discussion. That being said, our advice, along with what everone else besides you is saying, is still the best practice.

Finally, I'll give you an example of your weaker arguments. You tell me that I'm not making a good statement by claiming some utilities fail to run properly when not installed in the C:\Program Files directory. Considering that has been true over time, and there have been several posts on here with people stating this fact, you don't accept this as an argument. I didn't write the software, so I can't apologize for writing it that way, but the fact is, it has happened. And common sense will always be common sense.

All that being said, I'd welcome the opportunity to have a friendly debate about any topic, as this is a great way to learn. But, there's one thing I ask. When someone on here is asking for advice, give them the best practices answer. When the OP is having problems, the worst thing you can do is make more changes to a systems default conventional settings. Less variables means more stability.
 
Gary King

I disagree with Phoenix86 and djnes. I think partitioning the data can be an excellent idea, depending on your situation. As always, feel free to make your own conclusion.

I partition not for performance, but because it makes my backup and restore life much easier. Obviously, a hard disk failure or some destructive app is pretty much a "do over" situation. However, that is not what usually happens. What usually happens is you get some trojan or spyware that is just screwing your Windows install, or you have a bunch of app installs that don't properly cleanup after themselves.

I have restored my Windows partition about 6 times over the past 6 months, and I have not had to reinstall any applications. My total restore time has been ~ 10 minutes per restore. Tell me how that is not worth it? :cool:

This approach also means you don't have to run System Restore or some other resource sucking service, since you are taking the snapshots. I usually take a snapshot after the "virgin" install after the core drivers and apps and keep that one for as long as that install exists. Then I take supplemental snapshots about every month. Right now, I have one 4 GB Ghost image, and three 6 GB Ghost images of my C drive for the past 3 months. I also take a snapshot if I install a new, core app.

If I want to start over and reinstall all the applications, it takes 10 minutes and I am back to the fully configured virgin install. Update the drivers and I have a whole new virgin install.

The real question is how you use your machine. If you constantly swap/upgrade hardware or you are messing with various OS's on your machine, then you are probably going to be reinstalling anyway and partitioning is moot. But if you go several months between installs, I think the partitioning approach is a good idea.
 
pbj75 said:
I have restored my Windows partition about 6 times over the past 6 months, and I have not had to reinstall any applications. My total restore time has been ~ 10 minutes per restore. Tell me how that is not worth it?
It seems like you have a serious issue going on with your computer if you've had to restore your system volume that often. You make some very good points, but I wanted to clarify something. I have the ability to restore my entire system volume (OS and apps) in a matter of minutes as well, using Ghost. As Phoenix86 mentioned, when your using a restore image, it doesn't really make much of a diference in terms of size and speed if your including your apps. However, because I install my apps and games to my system volume, if I ever need to do a restore, those come along, meaning I don't have to waste time re-installing anything. It's one Ghost image, and my system is restored, because I follow the good, accepted practice of installing my apps in C:\Program Files. Restoration couldn't be any easier. Also, I have system restore disabled because it is a space hog and serves no real purpose at all besides giving certain viruses a place to hide and re-infect your system.
 
rcolbert said:
Good questions, by the way...

First how do you get around not having to install apps when the OS crashes?


That all depends on the recovery method. In the case of a restore of a backup of the OS partition, the application information stored in the registry comes back when you restore the system state and all the OS files. The program files themselves on D: are simply pointed to. This assumes a system restore process that's valid.
HA! You assume people at home have backup device outside a CD/DVD-R. You also assume nightly/weekly incremental system backups, excuse me while I laugh again...

You have now moved tagets from home environment to corporate. We're discussing home environments, as always, unless the OP states otherwise. That's just what people discuss most often, esp. when they fire off 3 sentence questions. The scenario that's comes up 95% of the time goes like this.

OP: My system is FUBAR.
P1: patch XYZ
OP: no go.
P2: check drivers.
OP: no go.
P1: system restore.
OP: no go.
P2: backup/reinstall.

At this point the OP copies crucial data to CD/DVDs or other HDDs. Formats system, moves on. They *rarely* have ghost images, and *never* have backups previous to the issue. Heck, I don't even have them. I just keep redundant copies of important data.

Let's not lose focus here.

rcolbert said:
How can you ensure a clean system with leaving 1/2 of the system files (apps) on the PC?

Typically, program files and OS files don't have much bearing on one another. Internet Explorer and the like are notable exceptions. The situations that warrant a clean OS reinstall usually don't have much overlap with application files. If it's just a non-invasive application, then usually the problem goes away with an uninstall of the app, deletion of its files and registry keys and so forth. In other words, OS problems and application problems are often different animals. I don't advocate the wipe the OS method for both types of problems, only for the OS related.
OK, so your method is useless for removing spyware that may install to d:\. It also has glaring holes for plugins to IE. I like the use of "usally don't have much overlap", that sounds very confident. Do you realize sometimes it's VERY difficult to tell the difference between software/OS/driver issues, and that very reason is why people re-format? If people knew where the problem was, they could likely fix it, but they don't and give up. I see plenty of techs get frustrated and say "I'm spending more time TSing than fixing" and ghost as opposed to finding the problem.

rcolbert said:
You can Ghost and recover C: alone more quickly. True, but irrelevant on two different levels. First, if your OS hoses, you *still* have to reinstall the apps...

Not true. See answer to the first question. Very relevant because the logistics of backing up a small set of data is different than a larger set of data. You may have plenty of space to store a 10GB backup, but insufficient space for a 40GB backup. You also may be willing to run backups for 1/2 and hour, but unwilling to run them for three hours. It all depends.
Again, I see your line of thinking, in a business environment. At home, 30min. vs. 3 hours it's moot.

As far as backup set see above. Home users don't do "backups" like at work. They backup on demand. Also, I would only be backing up the user data, not system data, which would take less time/space.

rcolbert said:
If 5GB was good enough when XP came out, why is 20GB enough today?

20GB is an arbitrary number that allows sufficient room for service packs and uninstall files, as well as providing headroom for the filesystem since we all agree that as filesystems approach their capacity limit their performance and stability decreases. Much of this number is relative to the availability of low-cost, high capacity storage now versus a few years ago.

That one flew right over your head... Think "640k ought to be enough for anyone" you're just saying 20GB ought to be enough, when in the past people said 5GB ought to be enough.

rcolbert said:
Multiple partitions=increased chance of losing partitions due to patition specific data corruption

I disagree with that. The events that cause this corruption are specific in nature. It's not valid to say that your odds double that you'll encounter partition corruption because you have twice as many partitions. Physical attributes of the system come into play, as do software issues. I will say that the liklihood of a partition event causing irrepairable damage to your system partition are much lower when you only have OS files on the system partition due to the reduced amount of change on that partition, and the better management of free space and fragmented files implicit in that arrangement.
Meh, I think this is probably splitting hairs as the cause of the failures would come in to play...

rcolbert said:
Overall the only real differences we have are a misunderstanding about my position on recovery technique and which side of things we bet on when we predict what might go wrong.
Yep, you're assuming there is a backup in place prior to the issue, which I have pretty much never seen on these board. ;)

 
Phoenix86 said:
Well normally puberty takes care of stuff like this...
Phoenix86 said:
Yep, you're assuming there is a backup in place prior to the issue, which I have pretty much never seen on these board. ;)
Really? Djnes does it.
 
O[H]-Zone said:
Well normally puberty takes care of stuff like this...

Really? Djnes does it.
You're right I do...but sadly, I'm probably in the minority on this one. I use Ghost Corporate to send an image of my machine to my server at home once a week....usually on the weekends. Ghost has proved to be an invaluable tool at work, so I trust it completely for home use as well. I've never actually had to restore an image (other than to test it out), but I can rest easily knowing I have the image if needed.

On a side note, this is why I don't argue with Phoenix86. He'll disect you like a frog in a high school science class. He's the master of the multiple quote shoot down. Same goes for GreNME.
 
O[H]-Zone said:
Well normally puberty takes care of stuff like this...

Seriously, how are you even allowed to post here? You don't add anything to the board, and throw gasoline to a fire. Sadly this isn't even a "heated" discussion like the firewall thread, where you also haven't added a damn thing to the conversation.

You're obviously still bitter from the quote in my sig and it shows every time you pop into a thread, quote me, and make one-liners.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top