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

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.

"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.|
\_______________________________________________/

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.

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.

Rod Speed wrote:

Snip rubbish

http://tinyurl.com/883xp7v

It seems things don't change.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson
desperately attempted to bull**** its way out of its
predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

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

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.

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

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")