Best utilization of two separate Hard Drives

[Gene E. Bloch]

I read all of Ken's posts in the thread, and I see nothing about
"static versus dynamic size allocation" unless he is referring
to the fact that if you have ten 100GB partitions you might run
out of space on one of them...

Thus my use of the term "paraphrase".

BTW, Ken in his reply to the same post thought my paraphrasing wasn't
too bad.

Also see my response to another post of yours where I translate YMMV
into French.

It's clear that those of us who like fewer partitions will not be happy
with the method that you like, and of course the reverse is true.

However, by presenting our disagreements publicly, we provide ideas for
another person to decide which side of the fence has grass of the right
color for him or her. And I would be happy to learn that there are
readers falling into both camps.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

I agree keeping data drives as one big fat partition is the way to go.
However, I used to follow the same philosophy for the boot partition,
the C: drive. I kept following this philosophy from the days of DOS, all
of the way upto XP and Win7, through larger and larger upgraded drives
over time. Then one day I had a C: drive that was 800GB! Now do you want
to imagine backing up or imaging that monster? Keep the boot partition
small, split it up if you must into boot and data partitions, but that's
the only one you really need to partition up.

Yousuf Khan

Mine's 1TB and I happily back it up two different ways.

 

[Yousuf Khan]

I had a power supply event several years ago that took out my
main HD, the HD I was using as a backup drive, and the second
IDE channel.

So yes, backing up to an HD in the same PC is not too bright.

Backing up to another internal HD on the same PC is the fastest way to
backup. Depending on how many gigs you have to backup (meaning anything
non-trivial), backing upto an external USB HD isn't too bright either.
Your backups could easily go for several hours, if not several dozen hours.

Backing upto an internal drive followed by an batch copy of the images
to an external overnight might be a solution. Best solution would be to
copy to an eSATA or USB 3.0 HD.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Yousuf Khan]

Nowadays you don't necessarily need drive letters.

I use Win 7's ability to mount a drive (HD, USB, SD) to an empty NTFS
folder so that I can use a file synchronization program without worrying
about drive letter changes confusing the synchronizer. At least SyncToy
gets confused, but lately I've been using Allway Sync and am happier. I
think it might not get confused by changes in drive letters, but I
already had the mount points set up...

It's in Disk Management.

Of course, it makes your system look like folders instead of drives

I attempted to move to an all-mount-points setup here on my system, as I
have 6 internal drives (and 3 externals, which I kept as drive letters).
One problem I noticed with the mount-point setup is that Windows 7
Resource Monitor stops monitoring hard drives that are mounted this way.

Also, another problem I found was that the Windows 7 file indexing
stopped working across the drives mounted on mount points. I pretty much
had to revert back to a drive letter system within a week, there were
too many disadvantages with it. Windows is not Unix, where this
mount-point system originated, so it looks like the ability to mount to
mount points was just hacked onto Windows without a lot of forethought.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Yousuf Khan]

Mine's 1TB and I happily back it up two different ways.

Have you tried restoring it?

Yousuf Khan

 

[Ken Blake]

I don't have much "off site" space available. I live full time in a 37'
motor home, so under the passenger seat is where the backup disk lives.

Oh, the MH is protected by a SurgeGuard surge protector at the input
source, so I'm "kind of" safe in the electrical department.

Several points:

1. I didn't suggest that everyone should store backups off-site. I
mostly suggested that businesses should. I don't, for example.

2. "Off-site" mean not in your own home. There are companies that
store backups for you, if you are willing to pay for it. Another
choice is a bank's safe-deposit box. Or you could store it in a
relative's or friend's house.

3. The "electrical department" is only one of the several kinds of
risks if you backup to a second internal hard drive.

4. If you think a surge protector protects you against all electrical
problems, you are kidding yourself. Yes, it protects you against some
problems, but does nothing against a nearby lightning strike. Also
note that lightning strikes can hit you via your internet connection
line--telephone, cable, etc.--not just the power line.

 

[Bob Hatch]

Several points:

1. I didn't suggest that everyone should store backups off-site. I
mostly suggested that businesses should. I don't, for example.

Then you and I do the same thing.

2. "Off-site" mean not in your own home. There are companies that
store backups for you, if you are willing to pay for it. Another
choice is a bank's safe-deposit box. Or you could store it in a
relative's or friend's house.

For the past several years I've spent at least 7 months on the road. For
most of that time I used HughesNet as my internet provider and my daily
download allotment was 375mb per day. While there was no upload limit,
the upload rate was so slow it would have taken days to backup my D:
drive. The other options are not an option when you're on the road.

3. The "electrical department" is only one of the several kinds of
risks if you backup to a second internal hard drive.
True.


4. If you think a surge protector protects you against all electrical
problems, you are kidding yourself. Yes, it protects you against some
problems, but does nothing against a nearby lightning strike. Also
note that lightning strikes can hit you via your internet connection
line--telephone, cable, etc.--not just the power line.

Since I don't have a land line phone, don't have cable and a lot of
other things that are lightning prone, my risk is less than a house. My
internet connection now is a radio signal from a tower about 2 miles
away. Small antenna on the back of a shed, cable to a router in the RV,
all PC's connected wireless.

For what my situation is now, I'm pretty comfortable with the
system/method I use. That said I sure wouldn't use 20 partitions.



--
I respect that you have an opinion. Don't confuse that
respect with really giving a crap what it is.
"Anon"
http://www.bobhatch.com
http://www.tdsrvresort.com

 

[Thip]

Running Win 7 Ultimate X64 and the following HDD setup:

Drive C: 160Gg 10Krpm SATA primary drive
Drive F: 750Gg SATA 7200rpm secondary drive

My question:
How best could I split data, files and programs for max efficiency? or
does it even make a noticeable difference?

FWIW, I've had 2 hard drives since forever. I use one for my OS and
installations, and the other to hold My Documents/Pictures, downloads, and
aaaalllll that software I cannot live without if my primary drive goes.
That said, I also have a 1 TB external drive; *everything* is backed up to
that and kept in another location outside my home. Redundant, but better
safe than sorry.

 

[Ken Blake]

On 7/2/2011 8:26 AM, Ken Blake wrote:

For the past several years I've spent at least 7 months on the road. For
most of that time I used HughesNet as my internet provider and my daily
download allotment was 375mb per day. While there was no upload limit,
the upload rate was so slow it would have taken days to backup my D:
drive. The other options are not an option when you're on the road.

Ah! That's what you mean by a "motor home"! OK, point taken. But let
me point out that my advice was meant as general advice, not for you
or anyone else in particular.

Since I don't have a land line phone, don't have cable and a lot of
other things that are lightning prone, my risk is less than a house. My
internet connection now is a radio signal from a tower about 2 miles
away. Small antenna on the back of a shed, cable to a router in the RV,
all PC's connected wireless.

OK.


For what my situation is now, I'm pretty comfortable with the
system/method I use.

OK. Forgive me for repeating myself, but again, my advice was not
meant for you in particular. And we are probably closer together in
our views on this than I thought at first.

That said I sure wouldn't use 20 partitions.

We are 100% together on that!

 

[Ken Blake]

FWIW, I've had 2 hard drives since forever. I use one for my OS and
installations, and the other to hold My Documents/Pictures, downloads, and
aaaalllll that software I cannot live without if my primary drive goes.
That said, I also have a 1 TB external drive; *everything* is backed up to
that and kept in another location outside my home. Redundant, but better
safe than sorry.

That kind of redundancy is wisdom.

 

[Bob Hatch]

Ah! That's what you mean by a "motor home"! OK, point taken. But let
me point out that my advice was meant as general advice, not for you
or anyone else in particular.

OK. Understood and it was/is good advice.

--
I respect that you have an opinion. Don't confuse that
respect with really giving a crap what it is.
"Anon"
http://www.bobhatch.com
http://www.tdsrvresort.com

 

[Seth]

I agree keeping data drives as one big fat partition is the way to go.
However, I used to follow the same philosophy for the boot partition, the
C: drive. I kept following this philosophy from the days of DOS, all of
the way upto XP and Win7, through larger and larger upgraded drives over
time. Then one day I had a C: drive that was 800GB! Now do you want to
imagine backing up or imaging that monster? Keep the boot partition small,
split it up if you must into boot and data partitions, but that's the only
one you really need to partition up.

Like I said, I don't believe in imaging a system for backup purposes (I use
imaging at work, but only a base system containing the minimum base of
applications with zero data on it for deployment purposes) so how long it
takes to image an 800GB drive doesn't concern me. My data folders are
backed up nightly to an off system file store which is then copied off-site.

 

[Ken Blake]

Like I said, I don't believe in imaging a system for backup purposes (I use
imaging at work, but only a base system containing the minimum base of
applications with zero data on it for deployment purposes) so how long it
takes to image an 800GB drive doesn't concern me. My data folders are
backed up nightly to an off system file store which is then copied off-site.

And if I may add to what you say, even if you back up 800GB, if you do
it at night (which is what I recommend to almost everyone), how long
it takes is hardly ever an issue.

I have a total of about 250GB on my three drives here, and it's backed
up every night. It takes under an hour, so multiply that by three to
get around 800GB, and it's only around three hours. How long it takes
while we're asleep is irrelevant to almost everyone.

 

[Ken Blake]

OK. Understood and it was/is good advice.

Thanks.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Have you tried restoring it?

Yousuf Khan

No, that's too scary

On this new computer I can try it, that is, I can restore to a *new*
drive and try to boot from it. I just haven't done it.

Well, more exactly, I *have* succeeded in booting from the cloned drive
mounted on an eSATA wire, I just haven't tried restoring from the image
backup.

The old computer (until ~ April 2011) was an all-in-one that I couldn't
figure out how to open - and neither could the company tech I spoke to -
so a failed restore would be a heartbreaker. (And it lacks any eSATA
ports.)

 

[Char Jackson]

Is that how you classify stuff, in ONE category? Just to make it
simple, how about "work-related", "text", "images", "music",
"movies".

That's five partitions right there...

Or better yet, five (or more) folders.

 

[BillW50]

In

I know I am going to get blasted for even suggesting
partitioning, but those who don't partition are idiots. There
are SO many advantages it's not even funny.

Oh that is so old school it isn't funny. Decades ago we had to use
partitions because were so slow and pokey. Plus OS and BIOS had limits
how large one partition could be. And I love to hear about these so
called advantages you speak of?

 

[BillW50]

In

Do you ever defragment? If I have 10 partitions on a 1TB drive,
then it means I have ten 100GB partitions to defrag (MY largest
partition is 10 GB, I can't even IMAGINE having a 20 MB
partition, and I use a real file manager!). How long will it
take to defrag a 100 GB partition vs. a 1 TB partition?

Back in the old MFM drive days, defragging could cut disk access by
half. Today with IDE drives, I only have seen a one percent improvement.
And that isn't even worth the time and effort if you ask me. And that is
*not* defragging for a couple of years.

And have you seen the temps of the hard drive in a laptop when you
defrag? They cook from the heat that is generated. How long do you think
the drive will last baking them all of the time?

Also, without really getting into it, say you have 2,000 books.
They're all in a REALLY big box in your garage. You have to find
one. Don't you think it might be easier and faster (in several
ways) to find it if you had them in ten (or 20) boxes instead of
one? And EVEN easier if you took some time and divided them into
categories and kept them in boxes BY category?

I agree WinExplorer and brand name computer makers don't exactly
encourage partitions, but that's because they are all part of
the big computer scam, non-partitioning and having to own a
couple of 1TB drives when a book fits on a floppy and 10 albums
fit on one 15 cent CD-R are just a TINY part of.


Well, you only have 25 or so to lose... Even I never got to Z
(not counting virtual drives).

You call partitions as boxes. While I call folders as boxes. But unlike
your boxes, my boxes automatically change sizes automatically. Your
boxes (partitions) are stuck at one size and it is a royal pain in the
butt to resize them.

And what you like about partitions is what I hate about them. And while
I don't use partitions as long as I don't have too, I do use multiple
drives all of the time. Probably for many of the reasons you use
multiple partitions for. And most of my drives are not even connected,
but stored. Yet it is very easy for me to swap hard drives in two
seconds. And how long does it takes you if one partition becomes toast,
or heaven forbid if the whole drive fails to spin up? A lot longer than
two seconds, eh?

 

[thanatoid]

In

Oh that is so old school it isn't funny. Decades ago we had
to use partitions because were so slow and pokey.

Partitions never made a significant difference in HD access time
taking into account overall system performance 20 years ago. And
these days, that is the LAST reason to use them.

Plus OS
and BIOS had limits how large one partition could be. And I
love to hear about these so called advantages you speak of?

Is that last sentence a statement or a question?

 

[thanatoid]

Welcome to the group.

Back in the old MFM drive days, defragging could cut disk
access by half. Today with IDE drives, I only have seen a
one percent improvement. And that isn't even worth the time
and effort if you ask me. And that is *not* defragging for
a couple of years.

Many people claim partitioning is no longer relevant, and we
both know flash drives should not be partitioned at all. When
all computers are 100% "flash driven", or the new thing IBM just
came up with, I will make a public announcement that
partitioning is dead.

And have you seen the temps of the hard drive in a laptop
when you defrag? They cook from the heat that is generated.

In 20+ years I have not heard of a single such incident.

How long do you think the drive will last baking them all
of the time?

How long do Chinese drives last to begin with?

And yes, defragging a single partition 1TB drive takes only
about a minute, we all know that. Sigh.

One of the main reasons for having partitions is that a large
amount of the HD space never, or very rarely, needs to be
defragged, and that's only if you tend to be anal-retentive
which I admit to being. So you're arguing on my side.


24 not enough for you?

You call partitions as boxes. While I call folders as
boxes. But unlike your boxes, my boxes automatically change
sizes automatically.

I get it, you don't have to use the word twice.

Your boxes (partitions) are stuck at
one size and it is a royal pain in the butt to resize them.

Ever heard of thinking ahead? I have NEVER had to resize a
partition in my life.

And what you like about partitions is what I hate about
them. And while I don't use partitions as long as I don't
have too, I do use multiple drives all of the time.

I have almost always had 2 drives in my boxes, and I had 16
partitions on a 40GB drive once. I miss that. It was VERY easy
to work with.

Probably for many of the reasons you use multiple
partitions for. And most of my drives are not even
connected, but stored.

So what do drive letters matter? Ever connect ALL your drives at
once?

Yet it is very easy for me to swap
hard drives in two seconds. And how long does it takes you
if one partition becomes toast, or heaven forbid if the
whole drive fails to spin up? A lot longer than two
seconds, eh?

It's never happened.

OK, I'll shut up. I know it's pointless to argue but I don't
have much to do. I'll try to find something else to annoy y'all
with.