If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Partitioning a 2tb hd for Windows 7 64 bit
dweebken wrote
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote For most people, yes, since at least some data is irreplaceable. However, for some, having a quickly-restorable working system is also pretty important. I just have one partition nowadays. And 8 GB ram on a Win 7 x64 system. Swap file has been set to the same as the RAM, but it never gets used (I monitor it). The 4 GB extra memory over my base system cost me something like $40. Also I replaced the 720 RPM HDD with an SSD. Sure lots more expensive per GB, but it simply flies like a rocket. I have a 64 GB SanDisk USB backup stick plugged in all the time backing up my daily data. Once a week or so I image the whole dataset to a USB3 External HDD using AllwaySync which easliy lets me set up different data locations and allows me to back up data from different places with one click (the Sync All button). And once a month or so I clone the SSD to an external USB3 disk which I can use to re-create my system any time in no time flat. I have an older copy of the clone drive just in case I screw up when making a new clone, and every now and then I do a duplicate of my full data backup too. These duplicate clones and backup disks are kept in separate buildings 99% of the time in case of theft or house fire. And for good measure, all my family photos are on Skydrive in the cloud. Think I'm reasonably safe. And with the RAM and SSD, the PC is just so very very fast (and will never get a head crash with vibration & shock). But can have a problem with a mains failure that you wont see with a hard drive. My experience with separate partitions was it's a nuisance trying to separate the data from the system, it ends up with wasted space on the HDD too, and achieves nothing I can't do better with AllwaySync. But each to their own. I'm not preaching one solution over another. Just saying. YMMV |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Partitioning a 2tb hd for Windows 7 64 bit
On 5/25/2012 5:36 PM, Alias wrote:
On 5/25/2012 8:16 PM, GreyCloud wrote: On 5/25/2012 11:32 AM, Alias wrote: On 5/25/2012 7:06 PM, John Williamson wrote: Alias wrote: On 5/25/2012 6:25 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: On 5/25/2012 10:50 AM, Daniel Prince wrote: What is the best way to partition a 2tb hard drive for Windows 7 64 bit? I am thinking of a small "C" drive for Windows and programs and a big "D" for all my data. Another possibility is a small "C" drive for Windows. A medium sized "D" for my programs and a big "E" for all my data. Which do you think is better? What size do you think I should make each logical drive? Thank you in advance for all replies. Why partition ? One drive = one partition in my book. Lynn I agree, at least for Windows. For Linux, it's a different story. I always partition a drive with a few dozen Gig for the system drive, and the rest for data. It makes life a lot less risky when Windows suffers a brainfart and dies. Your data is still safe. If you don't partition the drive, when Windows barfs, your data, which is on the same drive, will normally be deleted when you restore windows unless you're very careful. I also keep all the install programs and licence information in a directory on the data drive to make it quicker to restore the system. If you can, it's also worth having a small, very fast drive reserved for the swapfile. And *always* have a backup somewhere else, with an image of the working OS as installed on it. I don't keep large amounts of data on my Windows machines. I use Linux for that. Are you using ext4? You could lose data then. Data loss occurs due to memory errors, data chip errors, cable drop outs, and hard drive data drops. Unless you have ECC memory and other hardware that detects these errors and corrects them, then you won't have any guarantees. I also back up everything to an external hard drive and two internal hard drives. I've haven't lost anything since 1997. Just as long as you haven't done an upgrade on line of course. There is one that has that problem... Ubuntu. Maybe this is of interest to you: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/dr...;siu-container Hopefully this url isn't munged up too bad. But the article is rather clear about using non ECC memory. You can blame Intel on this problem, as they have yet to really address this problem properly and at a low cost for the consumer. A lot of people don't know about this and aren't even aware of it. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Partitioning a 2tb hd for Windows 7 64 bit
"Rod Speed" wrote in
: Definitely, a small C: drive with the system and programs is the way to go. Not necessarily, particularly for the simpler users. True, if they have no support at all. Glad we aren't in a news group where you could just type a message and then someone else could reply. ;-) I'd say anyone that can ask the right question in the right area, can handle it. About the only thing that would be hard, is the size you'd make the "system", and that was what was ask. It's a non trivial exercise to keep the bulk of the data files out of that even with Win7 for even quite competent users. It's very easy under Windows 7. Almost no data is stored anywhere but the "user" folder. My entire "User" folder is not even on my "System" drive. I would not recommend doing what I've done to the average Joe, but it was not "hard". I would consider myself just average, or these days, a little below. (Silly, new fangled OS! If TTY was good enough for dad, why would I need anything else!) It's on the fastest part of the disk, Yes, but that's a pretty minor consideration with modern drives. It's the only reason SSDs are faster that HDs. I'd call that a major. On a single track, most HDs can match a SSD in data output, it's when they change tracks that they truely loose the race. and "short stroked". That's not what the term means. It means a drive is artificially restricted to a smaller size than it actually is. Very true. And this is a big one for me: you can image it separately from all the data, and restore it without back-dating your data. You can do that with any decent backup app without it having its own partition. You know of a free one that's a "non trivial exercise"? Even my paid one, only a computer "geek" would know what folders NOT to select to do a real system backup, but not get the data. No you can't just exclude the "user" folder (system would not boot!). Also, you can do thinks like having My Documents on the data partition, and in such a program as Thunderbird Mail, you can have the "profile" folder with the settings and e-mail store in it, on the data partition. But that isnt that trivial to organise for simpler users. True about Thunderbird, but that's because it has 2 sets of data, and one is suppose to always be in the "user" area. A document or a picture folder is very easy to setup in Windows 7, using the "library". You can even set it as the default "save" location, and all your docs would go there. I like to put a smallish partition right after C: for heavily used data, so the heads will be short-stroking Again, you are mangling the use of that term... Agree, again. Then, the next one after that, would be a large multimedia partition, and I put one for partition images at the end. Its mad to keep the images on the drive that's got the partitions being imaged on it. Sure is, except as a tempory location for a "data" backup elsewhere!!! Most likely failure is Power supply, then HD, then everything else, on a desktop. Laptop ... I'm not going there! I actually use the portable versions of several programs (portableapps.com), so that they are totally independent from C:; I do restore C: whenever it crashes, to keep it pristine. Not really feasible if you configure the OS or apps much. Then you've never used portableapps. They have their own "data" area in the portable folder. Just like a full blown system, but no data is added to the system. True, there are some limits, like you can not use file "opens with", but if you do the "open" inside the program, it works just like any other program. I'd NEVER use it for MY system, but it's still very user friendly for "visiting" someone elses system when you don't have install rights. Friend uses it ALL the time at work. -- _______________________________________________ / David Simpson \ | | | http://www.nyx.net/~dsimpson | |We got to go to the crappy town where I'm a hero.| \_______________________________________________/ |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Partitioning a 2tb hd for Windows 7 64 bit
David Simpson wrote
Rod Speed wrote Ed Light wrote Definitely, a small C: drive with the system and programs is the way to go. Not necessarily, particularly for the simpler users. True, if they have no support at all. Glad we aren't in a news group where you could just type a message and then someone else could reply. ;-) But even in that situation, you can make a case that those users are better off with everything in a single partition, essentially because they don’t have to ask about how to do that config. I'd say anyone that can ask the right question in the right area, can handle it. Doesn’t mean that they will be able to recognise a correct answer to their question, and can do what they are told needs to be done, and can handle the situation where it doesn’t go as described, particularly if it’s the only system they have, so they don’t have any way to ask about how to get out of the mess they are in if it all goes pear shaped etc and the system is unusable until fixed etc. About the only thing that would be hard, is the size you'd make the "system", That’s not right. Its also hard to recognise what is the correct answer for them, and hard to do what needs to be done correctly too. and that was what was ask. And even harder to identify the correct answer on that, particularly when he never said much about how the system will be used apps wise etc. It's a non trivial exercise to keep the bulk of the data files out of that even with Win7 for even quite competent users. It's very easy under Windows 7. Nope, not to move the My Documents folder alone, let alone the other folders like Downloads and the mail folders. Almost no data is stored anywhere but the "user" folder. But it isnt a trivial exercise to move that and have everything completely transparently keep all data out of the OS and apps partition in the future. And quite a bit of data isnt in the users folder anyway, most obviously with Temporary Internet Files, Temp etc etc etc. My entire "User" folder is not even on my "System" drive. Sure, but it isnt a trivial exercise for the sort of simple user that has to ask about whether to partition their hard drive to do that, and no one actually suggested he do that anyway. I would not recommend doing what I've done to the average Joe, And that’s just as true of having a separate OS and apps partition with no data in it. but it was not "hard". It is for the sort of simple user that has to ask about whether to partition their hard drive to do that. I would consider myself just average, You arent anything like that, whatever you consider yourself to be. or these days, a little below. Even sillier. (Silly, new fangled OS! If TTY was good enough for dad, why would I need anything else!) It's on the fastest part of the disk, Yes, but that's a pretty minor consideration with modern drives. It's the only reason SSDs are faster that HDs. Wrong. I'd call that a major. More fool you. On a single track, most HDs can match a SSD in data output, But not for reads. it's when they change tracks that they truely loose the race. That’s just plain wrong. and "short stroked". That's not what the term means. It means a drive is artificially restricted to a smaller size than it actually is. Very true. And this is a big one for me: you can image it separately from all the data, and restore it without back-dating your data. You can do that with any decent backup app without it having its own partition. You know of a free one that's a "non trivial exercise"? Yep, for the sort of simple user that has to ask about whether to partition their hard drive to do that. Even my paid one, only a computer "geek" would know what folders NOT to select to do a real system backup, but not get the data. No you can't just exclude the "user" folder (system would not boot!). That’s not right. The users folder would still be what it was before the restore and so it would still boot fine after the restore. Also, you can do thinks like having My Documents on the data partition, and in such a program as Thunderbird Mail, you can have the "profile" folder with the settings and e-mail store in it, on the data partition. But that isnt that trivial to organise for simpler users. True about Thunderbird, but that's because it has 2 sets of data, and one is suppose to always be in the "user" area. A document or a picture folder is very easy to setup in Windows 7, using the "library". But the sort of simple user that has to ask about whether to partition their hard drive to do that doesn’t know that. You can even set it as the default "save" location, and all your docs would go there. But that doesn’t necessarily determine where all the apps put the data. I like to put a smallish partition right after C: for heavily used data, so the heads will be short-stroking Again, you are mangling the use of that term... Agree, again. Then, the next one after that, would be a large multimedia partition, and I put one for partition images at the end. Its mad to keep the images on the drive that's got the partitions being imaged on it. Sure is, except as a tempory location for a "data" backup elsewhere!!! Most likely failure is Power supply, then HD, then everything else, on a desktop. Not necessarily with some OSs. And most desktop power supply failures don’t risk your data, so the hard drive should be first on the list. Laptop ... I'm not going there! Its hardly ever the power supply with those. A power supply failure doesn’t normally risk your data with those. Theft is much more likely to be the reason to need the backup. I actually use the portable versions of several programs (portableapps.com), so that they are totally independent from C:; I do restore C: whenever it crashes, to keep it pristine. Not really feasible if you configure the OS or apps much. Then you've never used portableapps. Doesn’t help with the OS config. They have their own "data" area in the portable folder. Just like a full blown system, but no data is added o the system. True, there are some limits, like you can not use file "opens with", Which is why I don’t use it. I use that almost exclusively. but if you do the "open" inside the program, No thanks, much too clumsy. it works just like any other program. I'd NEVER use it for MY system, Me neither. but it's still very user friendly for "visiting" someone elses system when you don't have install rights. I don’t ever want to do that. Friend uses it ALL the time at work. I don’t. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Partitioning a 2tb hd for Windows 7 64 bit
Ken Blake wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2012 23:32:21 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: In message , Ken Blake writes: On Fri, 25 May 2012 18:06:05 +0100, John Williamson wrote: [] 3. What is most important is that if you rely on your partitioning scheme to protect your data, that suggests that you do not regularly back your data up to external media. That's playing with fire. True. But some people seem to assume that just _because_ you have partitions, you _are_ relying on them for data protection, which does not follow. Yes, that's exactly my point! What you said was "I always partition a drive with a few dozen Gig for the system drive, and the rest for data. It makes life a lot less risky when Windows suffers a brainfart and dies. Your data is still safe. If you don't partition the drive, when Windows barfs, your data, which is on the same drive, will normally be deleted when you restore windows unless you're very careful. That suggests that having a separate partition for data is adequate protection. My point is that it is *not* adequate protection, and that therefore it is *not* a good reason for having a second partition for data. It might suggest that it is an adequate backup to you, it doesn't to me, which is why I also recommended backups on other devices (Note the plurals). The separation of data and programs is only for convenience when restoring a corrupt Windows installation. Backups are a whole different subject. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Partitioning a 2tb hd for Windows 7 64 bit
Rod Speed wrote:
Snip rubbish http://tinyurl.com/883xp7v It seems things don't change. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Partitioning a 2tb hd for Windows 7 64 bit
John Williamson
desperately attempted to bull**** its way out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Partitioning a 2tb hd for Windows 7 64 bit
On 5/26/2012 3:52 AM, GreyCloud wrote:
I also back up everything to an external hard drive and two internal hard drives. I've haven't lost anything since 1997. Just as long as you haven't done an upgrade on line of course. There is one that has that problem... Ubuntu. I always to a clean install and use Linux Mint. Maybe this is of interest to you: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/dr...;siu-container Hopefully this url isn't munged up too bad. But the article is rather clear about using non ECC memory. You can blame Intel on this problem, as they have yet to really address this problem properly and at a low cost for the consumer. A lot of people don't know about this and aren't even aware of it. The RAM I use is CE by Kingston. I haven't had any of the problems your link refers to. -- Alias |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Partitioning a 2tb hd for Windows 7 64 bit
On 26/05/2012 11:49 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
But can have a problem with a mains failure that you wont see with a hard drive. Not really. My laptop keeps going on battery for hours after a mains failure, and everything else is on a UPS that's good for about 90 mins. Home type UPSs aren't so expensive these days. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Partitioning a 2tb hd for Windows 7 64 bit
En el artículo , Rod Speed
escribió: [snip boilerplate - woddles has it programmed into a macro and trots it out when he's losing the argument] Rod Speed FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/883xp7v -- (\_/) (='.'=) (")_(") |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
how to mount an external 2TB USB HD on 32-bit XP | cpliu | Storage (alternative) | 19 | June 16th 10 03:48 AM |
64 bit - Windows Liberty 64bit, Windows Limited Edition 64 Bit, Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition 64 Bit, IBM DB2 64 bit - new ! | vvcd | AMD x86-64 Processors | 0 | September 17th 04 09:07 PM |
64 bit - Windows Liberty 64bit, Windows Limited Edition 64 Bit, Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition 64 Bit, IBM DB2 64 bit - new ! | vvcd | General | 0 | September 17th 04 09:01 PM |
64 bit - Windows Liberty 64bit, Windows Limited Edition 64 Bit,Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition 64 Bit, IBM DB2 64 bit - new! | TEL | Overclocking AMD Processors | 0 | January 1st 04 06:59 PM |
64 bit - Windows Liberty 64bit, Windows Limited Edition 64 Bit,Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition 64 Bit, IBM DB2 64 bit - new! | TEL | Intel | 0 | January 1st 04 06:25 PM |