Partitioning a 2tb hd for Windows 7 64 bit

On 5/26/2012 8:52 PM, David Simpson wrote:
"Rod wrote in
:

David wrote
"Rod wrote

OK, I give up.

Great, hang yourself thoughtfully.

reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old could
leave for dead flushed where it belongs

ROFLMAO


:-))

Looks like you guys have one of those kind of posters around.
It appears he is posting somewhere in Germany or near there.

These types are a real hoot tho.

On 5/26/2012 7:38 PM, Paul wrote:

The built-in defragmenter in Windows 7, will not defrag files of
50MB in size or larger. This is part of the reason it is so much
faster. Nothing in your video folder would be of interest to it.

But a third-party tool would still be interested. If you pay
$39.95 for a tool to do this, it'll make everything "neat as a pin".
That's because the third-party designers, know their user community
too well.

Paul

That's very handy to know. Thanks. I was using jkdefrag gui. I'll have
to check if it can do that -- it's on another boot item from the one I'm
using at the moment. I know there is a free one on portableapps.com that
can do it. Forgot its name.
--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War and Related:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org
http://antiwar.com

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

a1pcfixer wrote
just the puerile **** that's all it can ever manage.

On 5/26/2012 7:46 PM, David Simpson wrote:
Ed wrote in
eb.com:

30 Gigs should be ok, but if you anticipate loading it up particularly
heavily with programs then you could make it 50. Especially if you run
System Restore with alot of space for many captures.

With a 2TB drive, why squish it. My dad's Vista machine is at 90GB all the
time, with system restore. (out of 1TB, because 1TB is better that 500G,
when you only use 35GB! I was not there to buy that drive. ;-) )

It's to get the ultimate speed by letting the head move around shorter
distances. But on a 2TB, it wouldn't be going very far, would it? Hadn't
thought of that.
...........

Thanks for the tutorial!

I'm definitely not hip to networking and CRC's.
But I keep a portable HD with backups in a safe deposit box.
Also, I have all my unloseable files encrypted by "backup4all portable"
to a 32G thumb drive in my pocket at all times! And those backups with
the program copied back to my system's 2nd HD.

I didn't know Roddy alters other peoples' posts. Maybe he is underworld,
and will seek each of us out in real life with a sniper rifle.

--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War and Related:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org
http://antiwar.com

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

GreyCloud wrote
Alias wrote
GreyCloud wrote
Alias wrote
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.

That is because there is nothing in software or hardware that will tell
you that you've got a problem. The article is quite firm about this.
All ram without any detection will eventually corrupt data.
This is a known fact.

I must be lucky, then, because all my data is just fine and has been
since 97. Either that or the article, firm as it may be, is incorrect.

Most likely for most, lucky in that it hasn't hit anything critical...yet.

Most likely for most, it hasn't actually hit anything at all...ever.

If you did have error detection in your hardware, you would've seen them
reported to you.

Nope. Those who religiously do CRCs on their files don't.

And those who do run ECC memory don't either.

What you don't have is detection between cpu to ram... cpu to hard disk...

That's just plain wrong with both of those with CRCs on files moved.

cable connector to cable connector...

That's just plain wrong, there are CRCs at that level.

detection on the hard drive electronics themselves...

That's just plain wrong, there are CRCs at that level.

any write error detection...

That's just plain wrong, you can turn that on with most drives if you want
to.

etc.

There is no etc.

That is why your average user PC is very low cost.

ECC systems don't cost that much more.

A good system will cost you over $10,000 easily.

Mindlessly silly.

And nowhere in linux will you see any software embedded in the kernel that
detects hardware errors let alone soft errors.

That's just plain wrong.

Same goes for the mac, in that their back up system called Time Machine
will happily backup any corrupted data to an external drive.

And if you apply CRCs to those files, you will find that they don't get
corrupted.

Nothing is done there for data verification for its validity.

That's just plain wrong and you can do that if you want to anyway.

GreyCloud wrote
Alias wrote
Mike Tomlinson wrote
wrote

I must be lucky, then, because all my data is just fine and has been
since 97

How do you know? (serious question)

I guess I don't really know for sure because I haven't tested all my
data individually but everything I use works fine. Recently I did take a
look at some really old photos and all were well and some date back to
97.

They may look fine, but I'd say that the data that comprises the whole
picture will have at least one or two pixels that don't match.

More fool you. Its completely trivial to prove that they don't.

In this case it doesn't matter, but for monetary records one bit mismatch
could be a disaster.

Fantasy. And trivial to ensure that they don't anyway.

On 5/26/2012 7:49 PM, David Simpson wrote:
Ed wrote in
eb.com:

On 5/25/2012 6:36 PM, David Simpson wrote:
I would never do the 3 partition system. Just gets in the way down
the road.
It does let you defrag system or data without having to defrag your
latest gigabytes of video
System
Data
Multimedia

Just use a newer defrag program with "zones". My multimedia files never
move, unless I screw with them. Try MyDefrag, and make a custom
script.


What do you think of Smart Defrag? It's free and appears to do that stuff.

http://www.iobit.com/iobitsmartdefrag.html

--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War and Related:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org
http://antiwar.com

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

GreyCloud wrote
Rod Speed wrote
GreyCloud wrote
Alias wrote
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.

That is because there is nothing in software or hardware that will tell
you that you've got a problem.

Wrong. There are plenty of checks that do just that.

No,

Yep

there are many places on your mobo that won't check for it.

Its completely trivial to check whether there ever is a problem anyway.

That is why servers use ECC ram.

Its just one way of checking for errors. And when they use that, they
get **** all errors that need to be corrected, so the article is wrong.

For mission critical services, you need checks not only in ram but across
the bus, between cpu to ram, between cpu to the hard drive... and between
one end of a data cable to the other end of the data cable.

That's just one way of doing it. The other approach is to do CRCs on the
files and when you do, you will find that you don't get errors showing up.

The old DEC VAXes did do this level of checking, which during its time was
rather expensive. The system also logged any errors to the system error
log and on the operator console. In the error logs you'd see which ram
address had bit loss, which register in the cpu had a bit loss problem and
which bit, problems between the data connectors to the hard drive or back
then the tape units as well.

No news to me, I ran them thanks.

Today's consumer pcs are cheap because there isn't anywhere near this
level of checking needed.

Wrong, even the systems that do have
ECC memory don't cost that much more.

But you will need it if you are doing mission critical services.

Nope, there are other ways to check if errors are happening.

The article is quite firm about this.

Its just plain wrong on that and doesn't say anything like that anyway.

It is very emphatic about it.

You're mangling what it does say.

All ram without any detection will eventually corrupt data.
This is a known fact.

But its also a known fact that there are other ways to detect that when
it happens.

Such as?

CRCs on the files.

GreyCloud wrote
David Simpson wrote
Rod wrote
David wrote
Rod wrote

OK, I give up.

Great, hang yourself thoughtfully.

reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old could
leave for dead flushed where it belongs

ROFLMAO

More puerile ****.

:-))

Looks like you guys have one of those kind of posters around.

He's one of yours

It appears he is posting somewhere in Germany or near there.

Nope, nowhere near there. Hard to be further from there in fact.

That's just where the news server happens to be.

These types are a real hoot tho.


Yours aint.

Ed Light wrote:
On 5/26/2012 7:49 PM, David Simpson wrote:
Ed wrote in
eb.com:

On 5/25/2012 6:36 PM, David Simpson wrote:
I would never do the 3 partition system. Just gets in the way down
the road.
It does let you defrag system or data without having to defrag your
latest gigabytes of video
System
Data
Multimedia

Just use a newer defrag program with "zones". My multimedia files never
move, unless I screw with them. Try MyDefrag, and make a custom
script.


What do you think of Smart Defrag? It's free and appears to do that stuff.

http://www.iobit.com/iobitsmartdefrag.html


There are two aspects to defragmenters.

1) Actual defragmentation. To defragment a file, all a file needs is to be
contiguous. There is nothing to say it has to be placed at a particular
location on the disk. An example of a "pure" defragmenter, is Sysinternals
"contig" program. It just tries to put the file into a set of clusters
next to one another, and considers the job to be done at that point. If
you then used a "defrag map", there would be green dots all over the place
(no apparent order, but no fragmentation visible).

2) The second aspect, is "optimization". For example JKDefrag would move
big files to one area of the disk, folders somewhere else and so on. These
would be "optimization policies". The Windows built-in might "push everything
to the left" as its optimization policy. Optimization is a large part of
what distinguishes the various third-party defragmenters. That, and their
execution speed.

Some defragmenters even know how to move file system metadata, which is actually
a handy feature, because it makes it easier to "shrink" the file system later.
Apparently, Microsoft doesn't know how to do this (to the same extent),
while some defragmenter developers have figured it out.

The OS has a set of APIs for defragmentation. Most defragmentation products,
will be using these, because of their "safety" aspects. A side effect of "safety",
is relatively small sized disk commands are issued, as the defragmenter works.
On my disks here (cheapo disks), I get anywhere between 1MB/sec to 3MB/sec as
the defragmenter works. Frequently, it's better to use other techniques than
defragmentation, to clean up a file system. When a defragmenter isn't finished,
after an all-night run, that's when it's time to use something other than
a defragmenter to do the job.

The Windows 7 defragmenter, finishes in no time. And even if I haven't run it
in a while, it doesn't seem to take that long to finish. It's not at all like
my WinXP experience.

Paul