Partition - what for and how do I use them?

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 02:21:02 -0700, Optikn3rv
> wrote:
>
>> The main reason to use more then one partition is easy, if windows dies
>> ( and
>> that happens alot) you only need to format the windows partition and thus
>> dont lose any data or files that might be important. I have a 100gb C:
>> drive
>> for windows and 500gb D: drive for games/data
>
>
> Not only do I disagree with that statement, but I think it's
> essentially a dangerous point of view.
>
> First, Windows does *not* die a lot. I've run Windows 3.1, 3.11, 95,
> 98, 2000, XP, and now Vista, each on either two or three machines
> here, and also supported similar installations on many other machines.
> Windows has *never* died on any of my machines or on any of those I've
> supported.
>
> But most important, that point of view is dangerous because it assumes
> that your data is safe because it's on a second partition. In fact,
> your data is barely any safer there than it is on the main partition.
> On that second partition, it is still susceptible to simultaneous loss
> of the original and backup to many of the most common dangers: head
> crashes, severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, virus
> attacks, even theft of the computer.
>
> If your data is important to you, you need a program of regular backup
> to external media. Only that provides any real protection. Separating
> data on a separate partition is just kidding yourself.

I second what Ken says. Partitioning is useful to make backup easier, but
is only marginally useful for protecting data.

--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 12:21:52 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"

>If your data is important to you, you need a program of regular backup
>to external media. Only that provides any real protection. Separating
>data on a separate partition is just kidding yourself.

False. I was not suggesting separation of data across partitions as
substitute for backup, if you read what I wrote.

Backup's not the answer to everything either, as by definition it is
not the same as your live data (it survives because it is older).

So doing nothing except backing up will expose you to situations
where, because your data is on C:, it is lost when you restore a
backup too old to have included it. I could assert that "backing up
is just kidding yourself" because in this particular context, it fails
to survive your data as off-C: partitioning would have done.

Unless you use feeware tools, it is not possible to have a backup that
is both useable to replace a lost OS installation (i.e. that will
result in a bootable system when restored) AND be browsable to restore
particular lost data files.

Because XP is too fragile to survive a file-level backup, you are
obliged to image off the partition, and if you use available free
tools to do that, you'll prolly have to go outside Windows to do that.
The result is a slab of unbrowsable "everything" that has to be
restored *as* a partition somewhere if any part of it is to be
accessed - that's messy, and it's not likely to be done every day.

Which makes that sort of backup practically useless as an up-to-date
data backup. So instead, you can make data backups as files, either
"loose" or compressed into browsable archives. But restoring that
isn't going to give you a useable system on bare metal.

So the best of both worlds is to keep C: small and devoid of data, so
that it's faster to image, restore, and maintain (e.g. ChkDsk, the
AutoChk after bad exits, etc.).

The rest of the space you can use for data, non-critical large apps
(like games), and everything else; you can disable System Restore
there, as it's pointless, and backup what you need as files.

In my experience, Windows installations do not often melt down, but
with adventurous use on a poorly-maintained system, YMMV. What
happens more often, is that the file system gets corrupted, and data
is lost. When working on sick PCs (dying HDs, bad RAM or motherboard
caps that have been crashing the PC for months, etc.) I nearly always
find file corruption on C:, less often on E: (where I store "nearly
everything", less often on D: (for data only) and very seldom on F:
(target for unattended automatic data backups).

Yes, off-PC data backups are important, but they are also very likely
to be done infrequently, if at all, by most users. The closest you
can do to that, is auto-backup from one permanent storage device to
another, which may be (or have to be):
- the same physical HD, different volume
- the same volume on the same HD, different directory
- another physical HD in the same PC (nice if you have one)
- another PC on the LAN via "pull" through read-only share
- another site via some sort of Internet or WAN-based backup

Anything else needs the user to insert disks or storage, or cancel
when disks or storage are not to hand. Guess what happens more often?
With a cancel-less system, they'll just bad-exit to duck the nag and
eat the data you were trying to have them back up (death by AutoChk).

As you say, no off-HD backups is potential bad news, but the potential
is more likely to be realized if data's sharing C: with an active OS.



>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Who is General Failure and
why is he reading my disk?
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -