Partitioning - What's It Really Good For?

[BillW50]

I've been using various version of Acronis True Image for quite a few
years now and haven't had a problem with it.

There is no problem if you restore from any non-USB drive. And it will
backup to all USB drives all day. The problem pops up when you need it
the most during a restore and you are using an USB drive. As some USB
controllers it won't work, some it will work on a good day and some it
will always work.

I've used many backup programs and Acronis True Image is the only one
that has this problem. It has been there version after version and has
never gone away. Acronis knows about it and they say to just restore
from an internal drive. Sorry Acronis, that is just unacceptable to me.

My principal objection to cloning as a backup strategy is that it
requires more hard drives than it deserves. I can place multiple
backup images on a given backup drive, but that same drive would only
hold one cloned image, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

Well you could clone just partitions and you can have many of them on
one backup drive. But yes, cloning the whole drive normally means it
eats one drive per backup. But you are far better off using this method.
As your method, you are counting that your backup drive will never fail.
But we all know, that it will someday.

When I clone each backup per drive. One drive can totally fail and I
only lose one backup and not all of them. Plus I don't have to use
restore either. Thus saving an extra step. As I learned a very hard
lesson (mostly from Acronis) that restores don't always work. Thus I
have to backup and then restore to test them. Cloning takes half of the
time and is far more reliable.

 

[Char Jackson]

Well you could clone just partitions and you can have many of them on
one backup drive. But yes, cloning the whole drive normally means it
eats one drive per backup. But you are far better off using this method.
As your method, you are counting that your backup drive will never fail.
But we all know, that it will someday.

I currently have three 2TB drives dedicated to backups for all of the
computers under my control. That's plenty of space for multiple
backups for each of my computers. Using your method, I could clone 3
of them and hope for the best when it comes to the unprotected
computers, or I could clone selected partitions and get ready to pull
out the system repair disc when I need to make a restored system
bootable. If that kind of sloppy backup scheme works for you, that's
great, but it's absolutely not the way I think is best for me.

Will one of my backup drives fail one day? Probably.
Will one of your clone drives fail one day? Probably.

I fail to see how I'd be far better off with cloning but I'm glad it
works for you. It wouldn't work well at all for me.

When I clone each backup per drive. One drive can totally fail and I
only lose one backup and not all of them. Plus I don't have to use
restore either. Thus saving an extra step. As I learned a very hard
lesson (mostly from Acronis) that restores don't always work. Thus I
have to backup and then restore to test them. Cloning takes half of the
time and is far more reliable.

If you're having trouble with creating backups that work, I humbly
suggest that the problem is most likely operator error.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Malware is common enough that there are a plethora of companies making a
very good living selling software to detect and remove it.

Yes, but how much of that is a genuine problem, and how much FUD?

Not all malware is malicious and readily obvious in the sense that it
damages the OS or makes the computer unusable. Insidious, yes: It runs
secretly, innocuously doing what it is charged to do -- mostly gathering
information for its master. The only way to know it's there is to scan
for it.

Oh yes, modern malware does its best _not_ to be noticed.

Yes. Windows has always had the annoying problem of "breaking" itself.
Or being too easily broken by something else. It's underlying design has
always been flawed.

Stef

Certainly the fragility is too high, though getting better.

 

[Stefan Patric]

In message <[email protected]>, Stefan Patric
[]
True. But both a rare occurrences. Even filesystem corruption is
rare these days. But they all do happen. Much more common is malware
induced failures and corruption.

Is malware actually that common? It may seem an odd question to ask,
but in many years of supporting folk, including plenty who aren't
computer-savvy (including at least one who I'd be surprised if he
didn't look at a fair amount of porn), I can call to mind one case of
a PC that appeared to be riddled with it (not his) - and no others.
IME "broken" OSs are commoner causes of problems - though the modern
ones that have a lot of protection built in are probably improving
that.

Malware is common enough that there are a plethora of companies making a
very good living selling software to detect and remove it.

Yes, but how much of that is a genuine problem, and how much FUD?

Where Windows is concerned, quite a problem, IMO. With the average
desktop user being the most vulnerable.

Certainly the fragility is too high, though getting better.

Not much. The more Microsoft tries to make it bullet-proof, the more
vulnerable it becomes. It's, as I said, the underlying design. MS needs
to rewrite it from the kernel up with the concept of "security, stability
and reliability" instead of the current "easy of use." That's what W7
was suppose to be, a total rewrite, but it wasn't was it? Prettier
cover, same old problems.

Stef

 

[BillW50]

In

I currently have three 2TB drives dedicated to backups for all of the
computers under my control. That's plenty of space for multiple
backups for each of my computers.

I also have two Samsung Story 1.5GB external hard drives that I
purchased for backups. While Acronis True Image will backup to them all
day, Acronis True Image won't see the backup drives on restore. This is
a common problem with some USB chipsets. No problems with other backup
software though.

Using your method, I could clone 3 of them and hope for the best when
it comes to the unprotected computers, or I could clone selected
partitions and get ready to pull out the system repair disc when I
need to make a restored system bootable. If that kind of sloppy backup
scheme works for you, that's great, but it's absolutely not the way I
think is best for me.

You are thinking way too limited. I have like 8 cloned drives per
computer. Although I also own many of the same model of each and many
backups on them isn't necessary. As that would be redundant.

Will one of my backup drives fail one day? Probably.
Will one of your clone drives fail one day? Probably.

I fail to see how I'd be far better off with cloning but I'm glad it
works for you. It wouldn't work well at all for me.

That is because your way doesn't work for me. As what good is a zillion
backups if none of them will restore?

If you're having trouble with creating backups that work, I humbly
suggest that the problem is most likely operator error.

You humbly would be wrong then. As Acronis knows the problem exists. And
I am sure they know how to fix it. But for some reason they refuse to
and say to use the stock answer to restore from internal drive instead.
And not being satisfied with that solution, I asked for my money back.
And they refuse to do that too.

Nice racket, eh? Sell knowingly faulty software to unsuspecting
customers and then just keep their money when they learn it doesn't
work. :-(

 

[mechanic]

That's what W7 was suppose to be, a total rewrite, but it wasn't
was it? Prettier cover, same old problems.

So no better than Vista then?

 

[Wolf K]

So no better than Vista then?

Better. Leaner, faster, lower hardware demands, more secure, loadsa bug
fixes.

Win8 is supposedly a major rewrite, and even leaner: lean enough for
tablets/phones, and extensible enough for high horsepower desktops and
servers. We'll see.

HTH,
Wolf K.

 

[Stefan Patric]

So no better than Vista then?

Only marginally. Security is a little better, but still prone to
infection even with accessory "anti" software. Stability seems no
better. Reliability, the same. Less bloated, but still an inefficient,
resource hog of an OS. IMO.

Stef

 

[Stefan Patric]

Better. Leaner, faster, lower hardware demands, more secure, loadsa bug
fixes.

Only marginally. However, they did reduce the minimum hard drive space
requirements 50% for installation: 30GB to 16. Probably removed some of
the adware. ;-)

Win8 is supposedly a major rewrite, and even leaner: lean enough for
tablets/phones, and extensible enough for high horsepower desktops and
servers. We'll see.

Right. Rewrite. That's what Ballmer said W7 was going to be. I'll
believe it when I've verified it for myself. Microsoft has always been
more hype than truth. Sells better.


Stef

 

[Yousuf Khan]

Other than an organiational tool, what use is partitioning?
Is it any different on Win7 than previous?

For data disks, you'll generally want just one partition. But for a
system boot disk, you'll want multiple partitions, even if you don't use
Linux or another OS. Today's disks are so big, that it's overkill to use
the whole thing for a Windows' system disk. Just partition it into one
small boot partition, about 100-250GB, and the remainder for data storage.

That way if you download any large video files such as tv shows and
movies, you can keep them in the separate data partition. This way, when
you back up your system files, you won't have to back up these useless
video files, as they are usually temporary. It's important to backup
your system files just in case the disk fails, but it's not absolutely
important to back up your video files, and they can be usually replaced
readily. Keeping the system partition as small as possible is important
for imaging & restore purposes. Backing up anything else is optional.
You should also keep important data such as documents, tax returns, etc.
on the boot partition so that they too will get imaged alongside the OS.
But these sorts of files are generally much smaller and easier to backup
than videos, music, etc.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Char Jackson]

In

I also have two Samsung Story 1.5GB external hard drives that I
purchased for backups. While Acronis True Image will backup to them all
day, Acronis True Image won't see the backup drives on restore. This is
a common problem with some USB chipsets. No problems with other backup
software though.


You are thinking way too limited. I have like 8 cloned drives per
computer. Although I also own many of the same model of each and many
backups on them isn't necessary. As that would be redundant.

Let's see. I have two drives that store multiple image backups for
multiple computers, and you have as many as 8 drives *per computer*.
My backups are scheduled and automated, yours are fully manual. Dang,
man, I sympathize with you! No wonder you're bitter.

By the way, I haven't run into the USB problem you're talking about so
it doesn't affect me. Are you seeing that on all of your computers? If
it's just one, consider adding a USB controller card. Make your life
easier.