Making two partition copies in turn
 

I'm maintaining two (maybe even 3) copies of my C: drive.

I've been copying everything from C to F and to H, but I'm thinking,
maybe it would be better to copy C to F and then F to H.

It would lessen the wear on the C drive, especially when I copy every
single file (except the ones I don't copy.)

Any reason not to do it this indirect way?

Any reason to do it besides saving wear on the C: drive?

What say ye?

Making two partition copies in turn
 

Micky,

Any reason not to do it this indirect way?

Yes. If the first copy somehow gets mucked-up the second copy will also
have that mucked-up file (read: will have no chance to make a good copy).

Any reason to do it besides saving wear on the C: drive?

Nope.

And to be honest, if you think you need to worry about wear-and-tear while
*reading* a drive you've really got a problem with whomever is the
manufacturer of it.

If you are worrying about wear-and-tear of the C: drive than also remember
that Windows is doing a good job of doing burn-in testing on it, day after
day (just think of the registry and or page files). :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


-- Origional message:
micky schreef in berichtnieuws
...
I'm maintaining two (maybe even 3) copies of my C: drive.

I've been copying everything from C to F and to H, but I'm thinking,
maybe it would be better to copy C to F and then F to H.

It would lessen the wear on the C drive, especially when I copy every
single file (except the ones I don't copy.)

Any reason not to do it this indirect way?

Any reason to do it besides saving wear on the C: drive?

What say ye?

Making two partition copies in turn
 

On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 08:33:45 -0400, micky
wrote:

I'm maintaining two (maybe even 3) copies of my C: drive.

I've been copying everything from C to F and to H, but I'm thinking,
maybe it would be better to copy C to F and then F to H.

It would lessen the wear on the C drive, especially when I copy every
single file (except the ones I don't copy.)

Any reason not to do it this indirect way?

Any reason to do it besides saving wear on the C: drive?

What say ye?


Why are you doing this? Is it for backup purposes?

If so, it's better than no backup at all, but just barely. It's the
worst possible way to backup.

I don't recommend backup to a second non-removable hard drive because
it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original and
backup to many of the most common dangers: severe power glitches,
nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks, even theft of the computer.

Even worse is what you are doing--backing up to partitions on the same
hard drive. If the drive dies, all your backups die with it.

In my view, secure backup needs to be on removable media, and not kept
in the computer. For really secure backup (needed, for example, if the
life of your business depends on your data) you should have multiple
generations of backup, and at least one of those generations should be
stored off-site.

Making two partition copies in turn
 

In message , "Ken Blake,
MVP" writes
On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 08:33:45 -0400, micky
wrote:

I'm maintaining two (maybe even 3) copies of my C: drive.

I've been copying everything from C to F and to H, but I'm thinking,
maybe it would be better to copy C to F and then F to H.

It would lessen the wear on the C drive, especially when I copy every
single file (except the ones I don't copy.)

Any reason not to do it this indirect way?

Any reason to do it besides saving wear on the C: drive?

What say ye?


Why are you doing this? Is it for backup purposes?

If so, it's better than no backup at all, but just barely. It's the
worst possible way to backup.

I don't recommend backup to a second non-removable hard drive because
it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original and
backup to many of the most common dangers: severe power glitches,
nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks, even theft of the computer.

Even worse is what you are doing--backing up to partitions on the same
hard drive. If the drive dies, all your backups die with it.

In my view, secure backup needs to be on removable media, and not kept
in the computer. For really secure backup (needed, for example, if the
life of your business depends on your data) you should have multiple
generations of backup, and at least one of those generations should be
stored off-site.

The OP doesn't say whether drives F and H are internal or external. As
you say, external would be preferred, but I wouldn't have thought that
the data on the C-drive would be get corrupted if it wasn't being
written to (which presumably it isn't - especially if the
cloning/imaging program is running from a CD or DVD). Of course, damage
from things like lightning strikes is a different matter, and there's a
limit on what you can do.

As for copying C to F and C to H, and C to F, then F to H, I can't see
it making much difference. The latter has the advantage of allowing you
to use the computer when you're doing F to H (although this will
probably slow it down).


--
Ian

Making two partition copies in turn
 

In message , micky
writes:
I'm maintaining two (maybe even 3) copies of my C: drive.

I've been copying everything from C to F and to H, but I'm thinking,
maybe it would be better to copy C to F and then F to H.

Why and how are you doing this? If for backup purposes, then I hope
you're doing it from outside Windows, using an imaging or cloning
software (e. g. Macrium or Acronis) on something bootable (Macrium will
fit on a mini-CD).

It would lessen the wear on the C drive, especially when I copy every
single file (except the ones I don't copy.)

As others have said, it wouldn't make that much difference compared to
the general use of the C: that Windows is doing all the time anyway.
(The point about hoping that F: and H: aren't just partitions on the
same drive as C: is also a good one; you haven't said what F: and H:
are.)
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I think we'd all qualify for Heaven - even Richard Dawkins, if only to
severely p*ss him off. Imagine? An eternity of knowing you were wrong.
- Nick Odell, in UMRA 2011-5-22

Making two partition copies in turn
 

On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 16:15:23 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , "Ken Blake,
MVP" writes
On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 08:33:45 -0400, micky
wrote:

I'm maintaining two (maybe even 3) copies of my C: drive.

I've been copying everything from C to F and to H, but I'm thinking,
maybe it would be better to copy C to F and then F to H.

It would lessen the wear on the C drive, especially when I copy every
single file (except the ones I don't copy.)

Any reason not to do it this indirect way?

Any reason to do it besides saving wear on the C: drive?

What say ye?


Why are you doing this? Is it for backup purposes?

If so, it's better than no backup at all, but just barely. It's the
worst possible way to backup.

I don't recommend backup to a second non-removable hard drive because
it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original and
backup to many of the most common dangers: severe power glitches,
nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks, even theft of the computer.

Even worse is what you are doing--backing up to partitions on the same
hard drive. If the drive dies, all your backups die with it.

In my view, secure backup needs to be on removable media, and not kept
in the computer. For really secure backup (needed, for example, if the
life of your business depends on your data) you should have multiple
generations of backup, and at least one of those generations should be
stored off-site.

The OP doesn't say whether drives F and H are internal or external.


He doesn't quite say it, but from the subject line, where he talks
about partitions, I assumed they were partitions on a single drive he
has.

And even if they aren't partitions on a single drive, he calls them F
and H, which almost certainly indicates that they are internals. If
they were external, they would be F and F, since they wouldn't likely
both be plugged in at once. And if they were both plugged in at once,
they would be something like F and G, not F and H.

Making two partition copies in turn
 

In message , "Ken Blake,
MVP" writes
On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 16:15:23 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:




The OP doesn't say whether drives F and H are internal or external.

He doesn't quite say it, but from the subject line, where he talks
about partitions, I assumed they were partitions on a single drive he
has.

Ah, yes. You're absolutely correct. Although there is still some virtue
in backing-up to the same drive, an overall failure of the drive will
obviously render your backups inaccessible.




--
Ian

Making two partition copies in turn
 

In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Sun, 9 Aug 2015 14:55:21
+0200, "R.Wieser" wrote:

Micky,

Any reason not to do it this indirect way?

Yes. If the first copy somehow gets mucked-up the second copy will also
have that mucked-up file (read: will have no chance to make a good copy).

Good point.

Any reason to do it besides saving wear on the C: drive?

Nope.

And to be honest, if you think you need to worry about wear-and-tear while
*reading* a drive you've really got a problem with whomever is the
manufacturer of it.

If you are worrying about wear-and-tear of the C: drive than also remember
that Windows is doing a good job of doing burn-in testing on it, day after
day (just think of the registry and or page files). :-)

Okay. You've convinced me. It's amazing how hard they work, and how
fast.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


-- Origional message:
micky schreef in berichtnieuws
...
I'm maintaining two (maybe even 3) copies of my C: drive.

I've been copying everything from C to F and to H, but I'm thinking,
maybe it would be better to copy C to F and then F to H.

It would lessen the wear on the C drive, especially when I copy every
single file (except the ones I don't copy.)

Any reason not to do it this indirect way?

Any reason to do it besides saving wear on the C: drive?

What say ye?

Making two partition copies in turn
 

In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Sun, 9 Aug 2015 16:15:23
+0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

In message , "Ken Blake,
MVP" writes
On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 08:33:45 -0400, micky
wrote:

I'm maintaining two (maybe even 3) copies of my C: drive.

I've been copying everything from C to F and to H, but I'm thinking,
maybe it would be better to copy C to F and then F to H.

It would lessen the wear on the C drive, especially when I copy every
single file (except the ones I don't copy.)

Any reason not to do it this indirect way?

Any reason to do it besides saving wear on the C: drive?

What say ye?


Why are you doing this? Is it for backup purposes?

If so, it's better than no backup at all, but just barely. It's the
worst possible way to backup.

I don't recommend backup to a second non-removable hard drive because
it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original and
backup to many of the most common dangers: severe power glitches,
nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks, even theft of the computer.

Even worse is what you are doing--backing up to partitions on the same
hard drive. If the drive dies, all your backups die with it.

In my view, secure backup needs to be on removable media, and not kept
in the computer. For really secure backup (needed, for example, if the
life of your business depends on your data) you should have multiple
generations of backup, and at least one of those generations should be
stored off-site.

I wish I had been reading to correct the misimpression earlier. I tried
to make the OP short and sweet and that causes its own problems.

The OP doesn't say whether drives F and H are internal or external. As

They're external.

you say, external would be preferred, but I wouldn't have thought that
the data on the C-drive would be get corrupted if it wasn't being
written to (which presumably it isn't - especially if the
cloning/imaging program is running from a CD or DVD). Of course, damage

Yes, from a CD.

from things like lightning strikes is a different matter, and there's a
limit on what you can do.

As for copying C to F and C to H, and C to F, then F to H, I can't see
it making much difference. The latter has the advantage of allowing you
to use the computer when you're doing F to H (although this will
probably slow it down).


F and H are on two separate HDDs but they don't have consecutive letters
because one can't buy a small HDD anymore (and it would be more money
per byte if you could). So with all the extra empty space, I put more
partitions on each drive. A backup of my laptop, etc. They are
sometimes** both plugged in because I use internal-style drives in a
BlacX double dock. So if and when my C: drive fails, I can just mount
one of the two copies inside the computer and it should be run right off
the bat.

When I set this up, I tried or at least intended to put all the data in
another partition, on another drive, but something interfered and it
didn't get done. I also tried to put all the data in one directory,
and that got done mostly. So most of my backups are just c:\. c:\data
c:\downloads and c:\...\Agent-data.

For some reason I don't remember, Agent data got stuck in a separate
directory. Well I guess I just didn't take the extra trouble to put it
in C:\data, but maybe I will eventually.


A complete backup is coming up soon because it has finally come to my
attention that open and/or locked files were likely not backed up during
all the previous backups. I've been reading articles, not all of them
of course, both in newsgroups and on the web, on PC maintenance for 20
years, and afaicr, no one really emphasized this until lately. At least
not enough for my slow mind to absorb. Maybe it's a feature of some
good backup programs, but if they mention it, they don't mention it
strongly enough that I realized the feature was missing from what I was
using. If they said they were bootable, they didn't say why that
mattered, and it didn't dawn on me. I would ask about all this the
author of the software I have been using lately, but he's been sick.


Thanks.


**They would be connected less if I could get Safely Remove Hardware to
work more often. Well, it worked just now, for the first time! and
disconnected all the partitions on both drives, even though I only
highlighted one partition. Maybe that's because they're all connected
via one USB port.

Making two partition copies in turn
 

On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 21:34:03 -0400, micky
wrote:

In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Sun, 9 Aug 2015 16:15:23
+0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

In message , "Ken Blake,
MVP" writes
On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 08:33:45 -0400, micky
wrote:

I'm maintaining two (maybe even 3) copies of my C: drive.

I've been copying everything from C to F and to H, but I'm thinking,
maybe it would be better to copy C to F and then F to H.

It would lessen the wear on the C drive, especially when I copy every
single file (except the ones I don't copy.)

Any reason not to do it this indirect way?

Any reason to do it besides saving wear on the C: drive?

What say ye?


Why are you doing this? Is it for backup purposes?

If so, it's better than no backup at all, but just barely. It's the
worst possible way to backup.

I don't recommend backup to a second non-removable hard drive because
it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original and
backup to many of the most common dangers: severe power glitches,
nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks, even theft of the computer.

Even worse is what you are doing--backing up to partitions on the same
hard drive. If the drive dies, all your backups die with it.

In my view, secure backup needs to be on removable media, and not kept
in the computer. For really secure backup (needed, for example, if the
life of your business depends on your data) you should have multiple
generations of backup, and at least one of those generations should be
stored off-site.

I wish I had been reading to correct the misimpression earlier. I tried
to make the OP short and sweet and that causes its own problems.


OK, glad I was wrong and that they are external.