A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » System Manufacturers & Vendors » Dell Computers
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How to install 2nd HDD with Partition Magic 6.0 partitions under Windows ME?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 21st 04, 02:32 PM
Phred
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to install 2nd HDD with Partition Magic 6.0 partitions under Windows ME?

G'day mates,

I'm looking for a simple recipe to ensure success when trying to
install a second HDD on a Dell Dimension 4100 under Windows ME
(or even just mention of "gotchas" to avoid would be helpful .

Current 20GB drive is partitioned C, D, E, F using PM 6.0

I want to install a 2nd HDD (WD 120GB) either as slave on the same
cable, or on the second cable as master or slave (see below).

I also have a CDRW drive (as G), and will be looking to install a
combo DVD/CDRW *or* a DVD writer "soon". So provision needs to be
made for both these optical drives too.

For compatibility with another ("managed") system, I need to keep the
same HDD partitions, but would see C and D as being on the present
master HDD with E and F on the new one, if this is possible.

An alternative that would be nearly as convenient would be to have C
and F on the present drive with D and E on the new one. In fact, any
combination that left C on the present master (no doubt the only
possibility anyway!) and E plus another partition on the other drive,
would be acceptable (though that may mean some playing around with
existing batch files if the CDRW drive designation is changed, and I
would prefer not to have to do that -- but it could be done.)

There is also the issue of the best allocation of the HDDs and the
optical drive(s) to the cables. I've seen this recommended and argued
both ways: (1) keep the HDDs separate from the CDs so that HDD
activity is not so likely to interfere during CD writing; and (2) put
the CDs on separate cables so direct copy will work better.

The main uses would be:
1. Existing drive stays as the system/applications drive (C), and may
contain a second partition (D or F) that would serve as a data backup
area.

2. New drive would be the main working drive (E) but would also
contain a partition to hold maybe 2 or 3 "Ghosts" of the system drive
(probably at least a vanilla system installation and a second one with
the main application software freshly installed too). [Or maybe I
don't really need a partition for that as the "Ghosts" are basically
just files aren't they?]

3. The CDRW would mostly be used for backups and other copies of data
from E, and also for backup copies of program CDs (and that may
involve direct CD to CD copies in future when I get the second optical
drive). It would usually only need to interact with C during program
installations.

4. A temporary consideration is the best (i.e. most convenient) way of
getting nearly 8GB of data off the present E partition onto the new
drive and into the new "E". I can think of possibilities with PM, but
it may come down to CD shuffling in the end. :-(

Hints, guidance, recommendations, links most welcome.

Thank you for listening.


Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

  #2  
Old January 21st 04, 08:26 PM
Rod Speed
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Phred wrote in message
...

I'm looking for a simple recipe to ensure success when trying to
install a second HDD on a Dell Dimension 4100 under Windows ME


Pay me to do it |-)

(or even just mention of "gotchas" to avoid would be helpful .


Current 20GB drive is partitioned C, D, E, F using PM 6.0


Urk. Thats mad.

I want to install a 2nd HDD (WD 120GB) either as slave on the
same cable, or on the second cable as master or slave (see below).


I also have a CDRW drive (as G), and will be looking to
install a combo DVD/CDRW *or* a DVD writer "soon". So
provision needs to be made for both these optical drives too.


You sure the effect on the cheap plonk supply is warranted ? |-(

For compatibility with another ("managed") system,
I need to keep the same HDD partitions,


Why ? Thats a madly complicated config.

but would see C and D as being on the present master
HDD with E and F on the new one, if this is possible.


Thats pretty mad too. You'd normally want to have the
boot drive on the new drive, just because it would normally
be much faster than the original old dinosaur 20GB drive.

An alternative that would be nearly as convenient would be to
have C and F on the present drive with D and E on the new one.


I'd bin that complicated scheme myself.

In fact, any combination that left C on the present
master (no doubt the only possibility anyway!)


Nope, you can have it on the 120GB drive and should.

and E plus another partition on the other drive, would be
acceptable (though that may mean some playing around with
existing batch files if the CDRW drive designation is changed,
and I would prefer not to have to do that -- but it could be done.)


You really should cut to the chase and have a much simpler
partitioning scheme, and the boot drive on the new 120GB drive.

There is also the issue of the best allocation of the HDDs and the
optical drive(s) to the cables. I've seen this recommended and
argued both ways: (1) keep the HDDs separate from the CDs so
that HDD activity is not so likely to interfere during CD writing; and
(2) put the CDs on separate cables so direct copy will work better.


The short story is that you are unlikely to be able to pick
the difference between those two configs with a proper
double blind trial and so its normally best to do whats
mechanically more convenient, and thats usually with
both hard drives on the same ribbon cable, and both
optical drives on the same ribbon cable. Just because
both hard drives are normally in the 3.5" bay stack and
both optical drives are normally in the 5" bay stack and
most ribbon cables dont have enough space between
the drive connectors to mix drives in different bay stacks.

The main uses would be:
1. Existing drive stays as the system/applications drive (C),


Not a good idea, see above.

and may contain a second partition (D or F)
that would serve as a data backup area.


Its generally best to have the data backup on a different
physical drive to the drive that its backing up, obviously
so you dont lose everything on a single drive failure.

And the stuff thats absolutely irreplaceable
should be on multiple CDs as well.

2. New drive would be the main working drive (E)


Its normally best as the boot drive too, because it will be much faster.

but would also contain a partition to hold maybe 2 or 3 "Ghosts"
of the system drive (probably at least a vanilla system installation


No reason why that cant be on the physical drive since its
mostly protecting you against a service pack install ****ing
the boot drive up or an app install etc doing the same.

and a second one with the main application software freshly
installed too). [Or maybe I don't really need a partition for
that as the "Ghosts" are basically just files aren't they?]


Correct. Image files are, anyway. You can also clone partitions and
drives but there isnt normally any real point in doing that for backup.

3. The CDRW would mostly be used for backups and
other copies of data from E, and also for backup copies
of program CDs (and that may involve direct CD to CD
copies in future when I get the second optical drive).


I dont normally do it that way even when I do have the drives
that allow that. Its generally best to have the copy program
just copy it to the hard drive auto and use the same drive for
both the original and the copy. Modern burners are so much
faster that that approach has little effect on the total copy time
now. And you dont actually do that that much so there isnt
any point in getting all anal about the time it takes anyway.

It would usually only need to interact
with C during program installations.


And you cant normally even measure any difference in the total install
time with the two drives on different ribbon cables for variour reasons.

4. A temporary consideration is the best (i.e. most convenient)
way of getting nearly 8GB of data off the present E partition
onto the new drive and into the new "E".


Most convenient to use ghost or drive image. You appear to
want to use that for boot partition backup anyway so you might
as well use it for the reconfig at new hard drive install time too.

I can think of possibilities with PM, but it may
come down to CD shuffling in the end. :-(


Nope, it never does.

Just get ghost and use it for the reconfig.

Hints, guidance, recommendations, links most welcome.



  #3  
Old January 21st 04, 10:50 PM
Neil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Wow talk about overengineering

"Phred" wrote in message
...
G'day mates,

I'm looking for a simple recipe to ensure success when trying to
install a second HDD on a Dell Dimension 4100 under Windows ME
(or even just mention of "gotchas" to avoid would be helpful .

Current 20GB drive is partitioned C, D, E, F using PM 6.0

I want to install a 2nd HDD (WD 120GB) either as slave on the same
cable, or on the second cable as master or slave (see below).

I also have a CDRW drive (as G), and will be looking to install a
combo DVD/CDRW *or* a DVD writer "soon". So provision needs to be
made for both these optical drives too.

For compatibility with another ("managed") system, I need to keep the
same HDD partitions, but would see C and D as being on the present
master HDD with E and F on the new one, if this is possible.

An alternative that would be nearly as convenient would be to have C
and F on the present drive with D and E on the new one. In fact, any
combination that left C on the present master (no doubt the only
possibility anyway!) and E plus another partition on the other drive,
would be acceptable (though that may mean some playing around with
existing batch files if the CDRW drive designation is changed, and I
would prefer not to have to do that -- but it could be done.)

There is also the issue of the best allocation of the HDDs and the
optical drive(s) to the cables. I've seen this recommended and argued
both ways: (1) keep the HDDs separate from the CDs so that HDD
activity is not so likely to interfere during CD writing; and (2) put
the CDs on separate cables so direct copy will work better.

The main uses would be:
1. Existing drive stays as the system/applications drive (C), and may
contain a second partition (D or F) that would serve as a data backup
area.

2. New drive would be the main working drive (E) but would also
contain a partition to hold maybe 2 or 3 "Ghosts" of the system drive
(probably at least a vanilla system installation and a second one with
the main application software freshly installed too). [Or maybe I
don't really need a partition for that as the "Ghosts" are basically
just files aren't they?]

3. The CDRW would mostly be used for backups and other copies of data
from E, and also for backup copies of program CDs (and that may
involve direct CD to CD copies in future when I get the second optical
drive). It would usually only need to interact with C during program
installations.

4. A temporary consideration is the best (i.e. most convenient) way of
getting nearly 8GB of data off the present E partition onto the new
drive and into the new "E". I can think of possibilities with PM, but
it may come down to CD shuffling in the end. :-(

Hints, guidance, recommendations, links most welcome.

Thank you for listening.


Cheers, Phred.

--
LID



  #4  
Old January 22nd 04, 03:35 PM
Phred
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Phred wrote in message
...

I'm looking for a simple recipe to ensure success when trying to
install a second HDD on a Dell Dimension 4100 under Windows ME


Pay me to do it |-)


While that would be very convenient and enlightening, I don't think
it's very practical with you allegedly being down in the deep south in
that seedy drug city -- and that's not to mention the hole it would
make in my cheap plonk budget. %-)

(or even just mention of "gotchas" to avoid would be helpful .


Current 20GB drive is partitioned C, D, E, F using PM 6.0


Urk. Thats mad.


Yeah. Well, I'm inclined to agree and in fact I'd be more than happy
to ping off that "F". But C is not negotiable; D is the CDROM drive
on that "managed" machine I mentioned so is unchangeable; so I need a
"drive" E to align with the other's data drive and (because I'm
running Windows ME) I assume I can only get that by having a D of my
own somewhere on a HDD (the slave?).

I want to install a 2nd HDD (WD 120GB) either as slave on the
same cable, or on the second cable as master or slave (see below).


I also have a CDRW drive (as G), and will be looking to
install a combo DVD/CDRW *or* a DVD writer "soon". So
provision needs to be made for both these optical drives too.


You sure the effect on the cheap plonk supply is warranted ? |-(

For compatibility with another ("managed") system,
I need to keep the same HDD partitions,


Why ? Thats a madly complicated config.


See above.

but would see C and D as being on the present master
HDD with E and F on the new one, if this is possible.


Thats pretty mad too. You'd normally want to have the
boot drive on the new drive, just because it would normally
be much faster than the original old dinosaur 20GB drive.


But that would mean partitioning the new drive as say 20GB for system
and applications and the rest for data and working space. [One
problem I thought may exist with that approach may not exist if I've
understood one of your comments further down (q.v.).]

An alternative that would be nearly as convenient would be to
have C and F on the present drive with D and E on the new one.


I'd bin that complicated scheme myself.


I'm happy to bin F, but I need E. So, can I have C and E on the new
[let's assume master] drive with D on the old one as slave?

In fact, any combination that left C on the present
master (no doubt the only possibility anyway!)


Nope, you can have it on the 120GB drive and should.


Okay, okay... ;-)

and E plus another partition on the other drive, would be
acceptable (though that may mean some playing around with
existing batch files if the CDRW drive designation is changed,
and I would prefer not to have to do that -- but it could be done.)


You really should cut to the chase and have a much simpler
partitioning scheme, and the boot drive on the new 120GB drive.

There is also the issue of the best allocation of the HDDs and the
optical drive(s) to the cables. I've seen this recommended and
argued both ways: (1) keep the HDDs separate from the CDs so
that HDD activity is not so likely to interfere during CD writing; and
(2) put the CDs on separate cables so direct copy will work better.


The short story is that you are unlikely to be able to pick
the difference between those two configs with a proper
double blind trial and so its normally best to do whats
mechanically more convenient, and thats usually with
both hard drives on the same ribbon cable, and both
optical drives on the same ribbon cable. Just because
both hard drives are normally in the 3.5" bay stack and
both optical drives are normally in the 5" bay stack and
most ribbon cables dont have enough space between
the drive connectors to mix drives in different bay stacks.


Sounds reasonable. I was just a bit concerned about whether the CD
drives would do CD to CD copy reliably if both on the same cable
(bearing in mind the 4100 is only a P3 1.1GHz machine). But I
certainly don't want to get into the ribbon stretching game!

The main uses would be:
1. Existing drive stays as the system/applications drive (C),


Not a good idea, see above.

and may contain a second partition (D or F)
that would serve as a data backup area.


Its generally best to have the data backup on a different
physical drive to the drive that its backing up, obviously
so you dont lose everything on a single drive failure.


That was the idea! The data on E on the new drive and the backup on D
on the old one.

And the stuff thats absolutely irreplaceable
should be on multiple CDs as well.


Pretty well *all* my junk is on 4 (if not 6 CDs -- *finding* the
"irreplaceable" will be the problem if the time comes. 8-)

2. New drive would be the main working drive (E)


Its normally best as the boot drive too, because it will be much faster.

but would also contain a partition to hold maybe 2 or 3 "Ghosts"
of the system drive (probably at least a vanilla system installation


No reason why that cant be on the physical drive since its
mostly protecting you against a service pack install ****ing
the boot drive up or an app install etc doing the same.


Okay, here's where I may have been too pessimistic. I thought the
clones of C would have to be on a different physical drive. Are you
saying the "Ghosts" can simply be "files" on a separate partition of
the same physical drive as C? If so, that certainly would make a
difference to my approach, and remove that objection to having the new
drive as the master.

But one other thought occurs: Doing it this way is going to mean a
*lot* of thrashing of the drive whenever creating or using one of
these images, given that it would mean the transfer of maybe 20GB of
stuff from one place to another on the same physical drive each time.

and a second one with the main application software freshly
installed too). [Or maybe I don't really need a partition for
that as the "Ghosts" are basically just files aren't they?]


Correct. Image files are, anyway. You can also clone partitions and
drives but there isnt normally any real point in doing that for backup.


I was thinking of two or three clones of C he
1. Just the system and very basic stuff like drivers etc. installed.

2. The above plus the "standard" applications (MS Office, graphics,
and basic utilities for mail, web, FTP etc.).

And maybe,
3. The above plus other stable installations as they are required.
(This one would be "temporary" in that it could be overwritten by new
versions when other stuff is added. I'm thinking I should probably
start with this one for my present working system so I can recover
somewhat if I have problems with that fresh install approach.)

3. The CDRW would mostly be used for backups and
other copies of data from E, and also for backup copies
of program CDs (and that may involve direct CD to CD
copies in future when I get the second optical drive).


I dont normally do it that way even when I do have the drives
that allow that. Its generally best to have the copy program
just copy it to the hard drive auto and use the same drive for
both the original and the copy. Modern burners are so much
faster that that approach has little effect on the total copy time


True. But you do have to swap CDs that way, and it's been my habit to
do this sort of copying while doing other (non-computer) things. So
the thought of just loading the drives and coming back later to a job
done instead of half done, is pretty appealing.

now. And you dont actually do that that much so there isnt
any point in getting all anal about the time it takes anyway.

It would usually only need to interact
with C during program installations.


And you cant normally even measure any difference in the total install
time with the two drives on different ribbon cables for variour reasons.

4. A temporary consideration is the best (i.e. most convenient)
way of getting nearly 8GB of data off the present E partition
onto the new drive and into the new "E".


Most convenient to use ghost or drive image. You appear to
want to use that for boot partition backup anyway so you might
as well use it for the reconfig at new hard drive install time too.


I'm starting to see a lot of "gotchas" looming here for the neophyte!
And if it all goes pear shaped I won't have access to the USENET "help
desk" of collective wisdom to sort it out! (That's one reason I was
hoping for a pointer to a "recipe book" of instructions for doing this
sort of thing. I clearly need to give the actual approach rather more
thought. The idea of installing a second HDD seemed pretty simple at
the time. 8-)

I can think of possibilities with PM, but it may
come down to CD shuffling in the end. :-(


Nope, it never does.

Just get ghost and use it for the reconfig.

Hints, guidance, recommendations, links most welcome.


Thanks very much for your input, Rod.


Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

  #5  
Old January 22nd 04, 04:51 PM
Ogden Johnson III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Phred) wrote:

G'day mates,

I'm looking for a simple recipe to ensure success when trying to
install a second HDD on a Dell Dimension 4100 under Windows ME
(or even just mention of "gotchas" to avoid would be helpful .

Current 20GB drive is partitioned C, D, E, F using PM 6.0

[Snip complexities]

My recommendation would be, since I am not sure of how Win
versions before XP handle the drive designations [my prior
installs of a second drive, under DOS and Win9x versions, always
insisted on their primary partition assuming the D: designation,
with their extended partition with logical drives took their
designations following the first drive's extended partition
logical drive designations], to move up to Win XP [either Home or
Pro] and PM 8.0 [6.0 won't do XP]. I have had no problem
installing a second drive, and picking any drive letters [other
than C:] for the drives I put on that physical HD.

My first HD is C:, F:, G:, H:, I:, J:.
CD's are D: and E:
My second HD picked up L: [I have an external Zip 100 that is K:]
automagically when installed, and I used PM to split it into
several drives. But I could have reordered my drive designations
in any fashion [other than the sacrosanct C:] I chose. Keeping
conscious, of course, of potential screw ups in any drive
designations "hard-wired" into a registry entry, program, etc.
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]
  #6  
Old January 22nd 04, 08:01 PM
Colin Wilson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Current 20GB drive is partitioned C, D, E, F using PM 6.0
Urk. Thats mad.

Yeah. Well, I'm inclined to agree


I don`t know... kids these days - i`ve still use a 20Gb boot drive in 4
partitions (using a newer 80Gb drive as a filestore), and this was a
luxury compared to my old 3.2Gb drive.

That was a luxury compared to... snip waffle

Anyway... back when I ran an Amiga, I had a 20Mb (megabyte) drive split
into 4 partitions when my primary 130Mb (?) drive failed. That was plenty
to run a full gui / multitasking OS etc.

I think it had a faulty cache chip on the drive, so any file transfers
larger than about 300k were liable to be trash, and by keeping data in
smaller partitions I was able to carry on running a successful bulletin
board and still had ~200 files available for download :-p

Ahhhh those were the days :-p

--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
* old email address "btiruseless" abandoned due to worm-generated spam *
--- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---
  #7  
Old January 22nd 04, 09:49 PM
Rod Speed
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Phred wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote
Phred wrote


I'm looking for a simple recipe to ensure success when trying to
install a second HDD on a Dell Dimension 4100 under Windows ME


Pay me to do it |-)


While that would be very convenient and enlightening,
I don't think it's very practical with you allegedly being
down in the deep south in that seedy drug city


Where we've recently had one of the drug kings executed, literally.

-- and that's not to mention the hole it
would make in my cheap plonk budget. %-)


True, that would have those real downsides.

(or even just mention of "gotchas" to avoid would be helpful .


Current 20GB drive is partitioned C, D, E, F using PM 6.0


Urk. Thats mad.


Yeah. Well, I'm inclined to agree and in fact I'd
be more than happy to ping off that "F". But C
is not negotiable; D is the CDROM drive on that
"managed" machine I mentioned so is unchangeable;


You appeared to be saying that the 20GB
drive had been paritioned into 4 partititions.

Which version is due to too much cheap plonk ?

so I need a "drive" E to align with the other's data drive


Cant understand this bit.

and (because I'm running Windows ME) I assume I can only get
that by having a D of my own somewhere on a HDD (the slave?).


Or this.

I want to install a 2nd HDD (WD 120GB) either as slave on the
same cable, or on the second cable as master or slave (see below).


I also have a CDRW drive (as G), and will be looking to
install a combo DVD/CDRW *or* a DVD writer "soon". So
provision needs to be made for both these optical drives too.


You sure the effect on the cheap plonk supply is warranted ? |-(


For compatibility with another ("managed") system,
I need to keep the same HDD partitions,


Why ? Thats a madly complicated config.


See above.


See above.

but would see C and D as being on the present master
HDD with E and F on the new one, if this is possible.


Thats pretty mad too. You'd normally want to have the
boot drive on the new drive, just because it would normally
be much faster than the original old dinosaur 20GB drive.


But that would mean partitioning the new drive as say 20GB for
system and applications and the rest for data and working space.


Yes, but that is normally the best approach if you say want to
ghost the OS and apps boot partition before doing any install
or service pack install, so you can restore gracefully from the
image if it all goes completely pear shaped. Basically have a
reasonable sized OS and app partition thats reasonably quick
to image to encourage you to image it just before the install
and to not just decide that the risk is small with the install of
something and dont bother to image the OS and app partition first.

[One problem I thought may exist with that approach may not
exist if I've understood one of your comments further down (q.v.).]


Not into those greasy greek abbreviations thanks.

An alternative that would be nearly as convenient would be to
have C and F on the present drive with D and E on the new one.


I'd bin that complicated scheme myself.


I'm happy to bin F, but I need E.


Spell out why.

So, can I have C and E on the new [let's assume
master] drive with D on the old one as slave?


Yes. With the Win9x/ME family you control that with the
type of partition you create. Primary dos partitions get a
letter first, then logical drives within extended dos partitions
get lettered after that, and with both sets, the physical
boot drive gets lettered before the other drive.

So you can get that result by having a primary dos partition
on the old drive. You have to have one on the new drive to
boot from, so that will see the C and D letters allocated
the way you want and the rest of the new drive will have
to be a logical drive in an extended dos partition and so it
will get the E letter, because its not a primary dos partition.

In fact, any combination that left C on the present
master (no doubt the only possibility anyway!)


Nope, you can have it on the 120GB drive and should.


Okay, okay... ;-)


and E plus another partition on the other drive, would be
acceptable (though that may mean some playing around with
existing batch files if the CDRW drive designation is changed,
and I would prefer not to have to do that -- but it could be done.)


You really should cut to the chase and have a much simpler
partitioning scheme, and the boot drive on the new 120GB drive.


There is also the issue of the best allocation of the HDDs and the
optical drive(s) to the cables. I've seen this recommended and
argued both ways: (1) keep the HDDs separate from the CDs so
that HDD activity is not so likely to interfere during CD writing; and
(2) put the CDs on separate cables so direct copy will work better.


The short story is that you are unlikely to be able to pick
the difference between those two configs with a proper
double blind trial and so its normally best to do whats
mechanically more convenient, and thats usually with
both hard drives on the same ribbon cable, and both
optical drives on the same ribbon cable. Just because
both hard drives are normally in the 3.5" bay stack and
both optical drives are normally in the 5" bay stack and
most ribbon cables dont have enough space between
the drive connectors to mix drives in different bay stacks.


Sounds reasonable. I was just a bit concerned
about whether the CD drives would do CD to
CD copy reliably if both on the same cable


Yep, modern burnproof burners are fine with that.

(bearing in mind the 4100 is only a P3 1.1GHz machine).


I did it fine in a 586/133.

But I certainly don't want to get into the ribbon stretching game!


Yeah, you can get one made for the other
config but its not worth the farting around.

The main uses would be:
1. Existing drive stays as the system/applications drive (C),


Not a good idea, see above.


and may contain a second partition (D or F)
that would serve as a data backup area.


Its generally best to have the data backup on a different
physical drive to the drive that its backing up, obviously
so you dont lose everything on a single drive failure.


That was the idea! The data on E on the new
drive and the backup on D on the old one.


Yes, except for the image of the boot OS and app partition,
done to allow a convenient step back to the situation before
an install. Thats fine onto another partition on the big new
drive, because its not protecting against drive failure.

If you do want to be able to recover quickly from a
hardware failure by just restoring the boot OS and
apps partition, its best to put that on CDs or DVDs
because you can see both hard drives killed by a
power supply failure or just theft of the system etc.

Its not actually a fantastically viable approach tho
because with the standard Win config, the email
files and other stuff like shortcuts and favorites
are normally on the boot partition too and so the
image file will be well out of date by the time you
want to use the image file for hard drive failure or theft.

What you can do is put the image of that partition on
the CDs or DVDs and in addition use a real backup
prog to save whats changed to CDs since the image
file was created. Then on say a hard drive failure,
you restore the image file, then restore the real
incremental backup too and you are back where
you were when the last incremental backup was done.

And the stuff thats absolutely irreplaceable
should be on multiple CDs as well.


Pretty well *all* my junk is on 4 (if not 6 CDs -- *finding*
the "irreplaceable" will be the problem if the time comes. 8-)


Yeah, worth giving one set to a mate etc for safe
keeping, just in case the place burns down etc.

In your case you could leave them
down the pub if you have no mates.

These are best done separately to the image of the boot partition.

2. New drive would be the main working drive (E)


Its normally best as the boot drive too, because it will be much faster.


but would also contain a partition to hold maybe 2 or 3 "Ghosts"
of the system drive (probably at least a vanilla system installation


No reason why that cant be on the physical drive since its
mostly protecting you against a service pack install ****ing
the boot drive up or an app install etc doing the same.


Okay, here's where I may have been too pessimistic. I thought
the clones of C would have to be on a different physical drive.


Clones do, image files dont. Image files are generally best.
You can keep more than one, with compression being possible
with image files but not with clones, with only a slightly slower
restore time if you need to do a restore.

Are you saying the "Ghosts" can simply be "files" on
a separate partition of the same physical drive as C?


Yes, ghost image files can be. You can use image files,
or true partition clones. Normally image files are best.

If so, that certainly would make a difference
to my approach, and remove that objection
to having the new drive as the master.


Yeah, its generally the best approach with a single drive too.
Two partitions, one for the boot OS and apps partition so
you can image that before installs to make it easy to go
back if the install goes pear shaped, the other partition for
all the data files and the image files. I just included this for
the other pervers at this traffic that may only have one drive.

But one other thought occurs:


Dangerous business, can end in tears before bedtime.

Doing it this way is going to mean a *lot* of thrashing of
the drive whenever creating or using one of these images,
given that it would mean the transfer of maybe 20GB of stuff
from one place to another on the same physical drive each time.


In practice that doesnt happen because the imaging programs
buffer the image file in ram until a big chunk has been done
and then dumps it into the image file in the second partition.

You do notice a difference if you are cloning a partition
instead of making an image file of it, but cloning isnt
normally the best approach for various reasons.

and a second one with the main application software freshly
installed too). [Or maybe I don't really need a partition for
that as the "Ghosts" are basically just files aren't they?]


Correct. Image files are, anyway. You can also clone partitions and
drives but there isnt normally any real point in doing that for backup.


I was thinking of two or three clones of C he


These are actually images, not clones.

1. Just the system and very basic stuff like drivers etc. installed.


Yes, I normally do create a few images during an OS install.
Mainly to minimise the effort if I stuff something up later in
the apps install particularly, I can just restore an image
instead of completely restarting the OS and apps install.

I normally make the first image of just the OS itself,
before any drivers are added, just because the addition
of drivers can produce a mess with some hardware.

Then when all the hardware drivers have been
installed, image that before installing any of the
apps. Just so that if that goes pear shaped, its
easy to get back to the bare OS and drivers config.

2. The above plus the "standard" applications (MS Office,
graphics, and basic utilities for mail, web, FTP etc.).


Yep.

And maybe,
3. The above plus other stable installations as they are required.
(This one would be "temporary" in that it could be
overwritten by new versions when other stuff is added.


Yeah, I normally create an image before installing anything,
and keep previous images too, basically because that simplifys
things if the problem with the latest install doesnt become
visible for a few days etc and it wont uninstall cleanly.

I basically only delete images when I need more
space for the latest one. No point in deleting any
image until you need the space it occupys.

I'm thinking I should probably start with this one for my
present working system so I can recover somewhat
if I have problems with that fresh install approach.)


That approach has its downsides, restoring that image
before doing an additional install. Basically Win keeps
quite a bit of stuff in the boot partition, email, favorites,
shortcuts, all sorts of minor config stuff like what
display format is used in particular folders etc.

So you dont normally want to restore before a new install.

3. The CDRW would mostly be used for backups and
other copies of data from E, and also for backup copies
of program CDs (and that may involve direct CD to CD
copies in future when I get the second optical drive).


I dont normally do it that way even when I do have the drives
that allow that. Its generally best to have the copy program just
copy it to the hard drive auto and use the same drive for both
the original and the copy. Modern burners are so much faster
that that approach has little effect on the total copy time now.


True. But you do have to swap CDs that way,
and it's been my habit to do this sort of copying
while doing other (non-computer) things.


You'll find that with modern burners on lower horsepower
PCs like that that the system isnt that usable while the
copy is being done, very sluggish, and that the burn is over
so quickly that I dont usually try to do much while it happens.

Tho admittedly I copy CDs on the test machine now.

So the thought of just loading the drives and coming back
later to a job done instead of half done, is pretty appealing.


Yes, but the system will be surprisingly sluggish with
modern fast burners and a lower horsepower PC like
that. I find it a bit irritating to even play freecell while
the copy happens, let alone say browse newsgroups.

Thats the main reason I copy CDs on the test machine.

And you dont actually do that that much so there isnt
any point in getting all anal about the time it takes anyway.


It would usually only need to interact
with C during program installations.


And you cant normally even measure any difference in the total install
time with the two drives on different ribbon cables for variour reasons.


4. A temporary consideration is the best (i.e. most convenient)
way of getting nearly 8GB of data off the present E partition
onto the new drive and into the new "E".


Most convenient to use ghost or drive image. You appear to
want to use that for boot partition backup anyway so you might
as well use it for the reconfig at new hard drive install time too.


I'm starting to see a lot of "gotchas" looming here for the neophyte!


Yeah, well worth thinking thru the config before implementing it.
You're gunna be using it for quite a while in the new config.

And if it all goes pear shaped I won't have access to the
USENET "help desk" of collective wisdom to sort it out!


Yeah, I'd never go back to just one PC again voluntarily.

So convenient to be able to drop an error
message into google and resolve it in minutes.

(That's one reason I was hoping for a pointer to a
"recipe book" of instructions for doing this sort of thing.


Trouble is that there isnt much agreement
on the best config so thats not that feasible.

You dont even get much of that with the basic question
of the best partitioning for a single and dual drive configs.

I clearly need to give the actual approach rather
more thought. The idea of installing a second
HDD seemed pretty simple at the time. 8-)


Yeah, computing has always been like that |-)

I can think of possibilities with PM, but it may
come down to CD shuffling in the end. :-(


Nope, it never does.


Just get ghost and use it for the reconfig.


Hints, guidance, recommendations, links most welcome.


Thanks very much for your input, Rod.


No probs, happy to keep discussing the detail for as long as it takes.


  #8  
Old January 23rd 04, 02:40 PM
Phred
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Phred wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote
Phred wrote


I'm looking for a simple recipe to ensure success when trying to
install a second HDD on a Dell Dimension 4100 under Windows ME

[...]
(or even just mention of "gotchas" to avoid would be helpful .


Current 20GB drive is partitioned C, D, E, F using PM 6.0


Urk. Thats mad.


Yeah. Well, I'm inclined to agree and in fact I'd
be more than happy to ping off that "F". But C
is not negotiable; D is the CDROM drive on that
"managed" machine I mentioned so is unchangeable;


You appeared to be saying that the 20GB
drive had been paritioned into 4 partititions.


Yes.

Which version is due to too much cheap plonk ?


Dunno about "too much". [We had a farmhand years ago from the other
side of the planet, but still very practical. He always said you
can't have too much to drink because you fall down when you've had
enough. ] However, I admit that most things after dinner are
probably influenced by cheap plonk to some extent. %-)

so I need a "drive" E to align with the other's data drive


Cant understand this bit.


There are two machines: mine and the corporate "managed" machine. I
have no influence over the config of the latter, but it would be very
convenient for the sort of stuff I do (and the nifty little batch
utils etc. I've written to facilitate this) if I could keep some sort
of one to one relationship as I have now. Essentially, this comes
down to having a drive "E" for data and working, and from what you've
said below there's probably no problem here if I use the new drive
with primary C and logical E and the old one as primary D. (The
complication will be getting the present C, D, E, and F on the old
drive combined/deleted/transferred/whatever to achieve the desired new
config with two physical drives, without screwing things up.)

and (because I'm running Windows ME) I assume I can only get
that by having a D of my own somewhere on a HDD (the slave?).


Or this.


Just saying that under Windows ME I assumed I would have to have C and
D in order to have E (i.e. I can't just have C and E). [This is
rather irrelevant anyway, as we're both now agreed that the new drive
will have to have two partitions (C for system and apps; E for data
and working) and the old drive will also need a designation -- which
would be D if all is right in the world.]

I want to install a 2nd HDD (WD 120GB) either as slave on the
same cable, or on the second cable as master or slave (see below).


I also have a CDRW drive (as G), and will be looking to
install a combo DVD/CDRW *or* a DVD writer "soon". So
provision needs to be made for both these optical drives too.


You sure the effect on the cheap plonk supply is warranted ? |-(


For compatibility with another ("managed") system,
I need to keep the same HDD partitions,


Why ? Thats a madly complicated config.


See above.


See above.

but would see C and D as being on the present master
HDD with E and F on the new one, if this is possible.


Thats pretty mad too. You'd normally want to have the
boot drive on the new drive, just because it would normally
be much faster than the original old dinosaur 20GB drive.


But that would mean partitioning the new drive as say 20GB for
system and applications and the rest for data and working space.


Yes, but that is normally the best approach if you say want to
ghost the OS and apps boot partition before doing any install
or service pack install, so you can restore gracefully from the
image if it all goes completely pear shaped. Basically have a
reasonable sized OS and app partition thats reasonably quick
to image to encourage you to image it just before the install
and to not just decide that the risk is small with the install of
something and dont bother to image the OS and app partition first.


Sounds very reasonable, and is pretty much what I had in mind. The
main uncertainty is assigning the size of that partition. (What did
Bill say? "640KB is enough for anyone"? My present C is roughly
5GB, and it's bloody tight. 20GB may do for awhile I guess. How good
is the compression with Ghost or Drive Image for images of sparsely
populated partitions?

[One problem I thought may exist with that approach may not
exist if I've understood one of your comments further down (q.v.).]


Not into those greasy greek abbreviations thanks.

An alternative that would be nearly as convenient would be to
have C and F on the present drive with D and E on the new one.


I'd bin that complicated scheme myself.


I'm happy to bin F, but I need E.


Spell out why.


See above -- and it's really becoming irrelevant anyway, if I'm
starting to understand all this.

So, can I have C and E on the new [let's assume
master] drive with D on the old one as slave?


Yes. With the Win9x/ME family you control that with the
type of partition you create. Primary dos partitions get a
letter first, then logical drives within extended dos partitions
get lettered after that, and with both sets, the physical
boot drive gets lettered before the other drive.

So you can get that result by having a primary dos partition
on the old drive. You have to have one on the new drive to
boot from, so that will see the C and D letters allocated
the way you want and the rest of the new drive will have
to be a logical drive in an extended dos partition and so it
will get the E letter, because its not a primary dos partition.


That's good, and basically solves that aspect.

In fact, any combination that left C on the present
master (no doubt the only possibility anyway!)


Nope, you can have it on the 120GB drive and should.


Okay, okay... ;-)


and E plus another partition on the other drive, would be
acceptable (though that may mean some playing around with
existing batch files if the CDRW drive designation is changed,
and I would prefer not to have to do that -- but it could be done.)


You really should cut to the chase and have a much simpler
partitioning scheme, and the boot drive on the new 120GB drive.


There is also the issue of the best allocation of the HDDs and the
optical drive(s) to the cables. I've seen this recommended and
argued both ways: (1) keep the HDDs separate from the CDs so
that HDD activity is not so likely to interfere during CD writing; and
(2) put the CDs on separate cables so direct copy will work better.


The short story is that you are unlikely to be able to pick
the difference between those two configs with a proper
double blind trial and so its normally best to do whats
mechanically more convenient, and thats usually with
both hard drives on the same ribbon cable, and both
optical drives on the same ribbon cable. Just because
both hard drives are normally in the 3.5" bay stack and
both optical drives are normally in the 5" bay stack and
most ribbon cables dont have enough space between
the drive connectors to mix drives in different bay stacks.


Sounds reasonable. I was just a bit concerned
about whether the CD drives would do CD to
CD copy reliably if both on the same cable


Yep, modern burnproof burners are fine with that.

(bearing in mind the 4100 is only a P3 1.1GHz machine).


I did it fine in a 586/133.

But I certainly don't want to get into the ribbon stretching game!


Yeah, you can get one made for the other
config but its not worth the farting around.

The main uses would be:
1. Existing drive stays as the system/applications drive (C),


Not a good idea, see above.


and may contain a second partition (D or F)
that would serve as a data backup area.


Its generally best to have the data backup on a different
physical drive to the drive that its backing up, obviously
so you dont lose everything on a single drive failure.


That was the idea! The data on E on the new
drive and the backup on D on the old one.


Yes, except for the image of the boot OS and app partition,
done to allow a convenient step back to the situation before
an install. Thats fine onto another partition on the big new
drive, because its not protecting against drive failure.


Yeah. I was assuming there wouldn't be room on the old 20GB anyway,
which is another reason why my original plan involved keeping that as
the primary drive. If the image files are happy on the same physical
drive, there's no problem.

If you do want to be able to recover quickly from a
hardware failure by just restoring the boot OS and
apps partition, its best to put that on CDs or DVDs
because you can see both hard drives killed by a
power supply failure or just theft of the system etc.


Good idea. Will do that too. (Eventually. ;-)

Its not actually a fantastically viable approach tho
because with the standard Win config, the email
files and other stuff like shortcuts and favorites
are normally on the boot partition too and so the
image file will be well out of date by the time you
want to use the image file for hard drive failure or theft.


I back up mail and favourites regularly anyway. (Favourites routinely
[because I want to transfer them between the two machines I mentioned]
and Mail when I think of it -- at least once/month.)

What you can do is put the image of that partition on
the CDs or DVDs and in addition use a real backup
prog to save whats changed to CDs since the image
file was created. Then on say a hard drive failure,
you restore the image file, then restore the real
incremental backup too and you are back where
you were when the last incremental backup was done.


Certainly worth thinking about. I'm using simple old XCOPY for
backups at the moment. Maybe a dedicated backup program would be
worth it. (I still haven't found out how to backup (or even copy)
MSIE offline files with XCOPY, or anything else I've tried!)

And the stuff thats absolutely irreplaceable
should be on multiple CDs as well.


Pretty well *all* my junk is on 4 (if not 6 CDs -- *finding*
the "irreplaceable" will be the problem if the time comes. 8-)


Yeah, worth giving one set to a mate etc for safe
keeping, just in case the place burns down etc.

In your case you could leave them
down the pub if you have no mates.


They're all at the pub anyway.

These are best done separately to the image of the boot partition.

2. New drive would be the main working drive (E)


Its normally best as the boot drive too, because it will be much faster.


but would also contain a partition to hold maybe 2 or 3 "Ghosts"
of the system drive (probably at least a vanilla system installation


No reason why that cant be on the physical drive since its
mostly protecting you against a service pack install ****ing
the boot drive up or an app install etc doing the same.


Okay, here's where I may have been too pessimistic. I thought
the clones of C would have to be on a different physical drive.


Clones do, image files dont. Image files are generally best.
You can keep more than one, with compression being possible
with image files but not with clones, with only a slightly slower
restore time if you need to do a restore.


Ha! My jargon wasn't quite with it. Yes, I'm basically thinking
image files in most of this. My mistake thinking clones~images.

Are you saying the "Ghosts" can simply be "files" on
a separate partition of the same physical drive as C?


Yes, ghost image files can be. You can use image files,
or true partition clones. Normally image files are best.

If so, that certainly would make a difference
to my approach, and remove that objection
to having the new drive as the master.


Yeah, its generally the best approach with a single drive too.
Two partitions, one for the boot OS and apps partition so
you can image that before installs to make it easy to go
back if the install goes pear shaped, the other partition for
all the data files and the image files. I just included this for
the other pervers at this traffic that may only have one drive.

But one other thought occurs:


Dangerous business, can end in tears before bedtime.

Doing it this way is going to mean a *lot* of thrashing of
the drive whenever creating or using one of these images,
given that it would mean the transfer of maybe 20GB of stuff
from one place to another on the same physical drive each time.


In practice that doesnt happen because the imaging programs
buffer the image file in ram until a big chunk has been done
and then dumps it into the image file in the second partition.

You do notice a difference if you are cloning a partition
instead of making an image file of it, but cloning isnt
normally the best approach for various reasons.

and a second one with the main application software freshly
installed too). [Or maybe I don't really need a partition for
that as the "Ghosts" are basically just files aren't they?]


Correct. Image files are, anyway. You can also clone partitions and
drives but there isnt normally any real point in doing that for backup.


I was thinking of two or three clones of C he


These are actually images, not clones.

1. Just the system and very basic stuff like drivers etc. installed.


Yes, I normally do create a few images during an OS install.
Mainly to minimise the effort if I stuff something up later in
the apps install particularly, I can just restore an image
instead of completely restarting the OS and apps install.

I normally make the first image of just the OS itself,
before any drivers are added, just because the addition
of drivers can produce a mess with some hardware.

Then when all the hardware drivers have been
installed, image that before installing any of the
apps. Just so that if that goes pear shaped, its
easy to get back to the bare OS and drivers config.

2. The above plus the "standard" applications (MS Office,
graphics, and basic utilities for mail, web, FTP etc.).


Yep.

And maybe,
3. The above plus other stable installations as they are required.
(This one would be "temporary" in that it could be
overwritten by new versions when other stuff is added.


Yeah, I normally create an image before installing anything,
and keep previous images too, basically because that simplifys
things if the problem with the latest install doesnt become
visible for a few days etc and it wont uninstall cleanly.

I basically only delete images when I need more
space for the latest one. No point in deleting any
image until you need the space it occupys.


As one of the world's great archivists, I'm completely happy with that
approach. ;-)

I'm thinking I should probably start with this one for my
present working system so I can recover somewhat
if I have problems with that fresh install approach.)


That approach has its downsides, restoring that image
before doing an additional install. Basically Win keeps
quite a bit of stuff in the boot partition, email, favorites,
shortcuts, all sorts of minor config stuff like what
display format is used in particular folders etc.

So you dont normally want to restore before a new install.


No. I was thinking more about if I stuff up the new install I can at
least go back to what I have now and ask you some more questions. It
may not be the best config, but I can at least access News. :-)

3. The CDRW would mostly be used for backups and
other copies of data from E, and also for backup copies
of program CDs (and that may involve direct CD to CD
copies in future when I get the second optical drive).


I dont normally do it that way even when I do have the drives
that allow that. Its generally best to have the copy program just
copy it to the hard drive auto and use the same drive for both
the original and the copy. Modern burners are so much faster
that that approach has little effect on the total copy time now.


True. But you do have to swap CDs that way,
and it's been my habit to do this sort of copying
while doing other (non-computer) things.


You'll find that with modern burners on lower horsepower
PCs like that that the system isnt that usable while the
copy is being done, very sluggish, and that the burn is over
so quickly that I dont usually try to do much while it happens.


That's what I was getting at. I don't try to do *anything* on the PC
while burning CDs (and I still get too many coasters). My "other
(non-computer) things" are cooking dinner and having a glass or two
(sometimes three, if there's enough left in the bottle %-) of red.

Tho admittedly I copy CDs on the test machine now.


I'll have to get one of those. I do have an old 486DX4-100, with the
last version of Windows 95, buried here somewhere; but I doubt if
that's up to the mark. [ Had visions of playing with Linux on it
and maybe using it as a firewall/print server etc. But Linux has gone
pretty much bloatware now too, so I doubt if it'll even handle that --
assuming it will start at all! ]

So the thought of just loading the drives and coming back
later to a job done instead of half done, is pretty appealing.


Yes, but the system will be surprisingly sluggish with
modern fast burners and a lower horsepower PC like
that. I find it a bit irritating to even play freecell while
the copy happens, let alone say browse newsgroups.

Thats the main reason I copy CDs on the test machine.

And you dont actually do that that much so there isnt
any point in getting all anal about the time it takes anyway.


It would usually only need to interact
with C during program installations.


And you cant normally even measure any difference in the total install
time with the two drives on different ribbon cables for variour reasons.


4. A temporary consideration is the best (i.e. most convenient)
way of getting nearly 8GB of data off the present E partition
onto the new drive and into the new "E".


Most convenient to use ghost or drive image. You appear to
want to use that for boot partition backup anyway so you might
as well use it for the reconfig at new hard drive install time too.


I'm starting to see a lot of "gotchas" looming here for the neophyte!


Yeah, well worth thinking thru the config before implementing it.
You're gunna be using it for quite a while in the new config.

And if it all goes pear shaped I won't have access to the
USENET "help desk" of collective wisdom to sort it out!


Yeah, I'd never go back to just one PC again voluntarily.

So convenient to be able to drop an error
message into google and resolve it in minutes.

(That's one reason I was hoping for a pointer to a
"recipe book" of instructions for doing this sort of thing.


Trouble is that there isnt much agreement
on the best config so thats not that feasible.

You dont even get much of that with the basic question
of the best partitioning for a single and dual drive configs.


I wasn't thinking so much about that now as about how's the easiest
way to get from what I've got (C, D, E, and F on one 20GB physical
drive) to a new config with C and E on the new 120GB drive, "leaving"
D on the old drive as slave. Bearing in mind that my resources are
Windows ME and Partition Magic 6.

I clearly need to give the actual approach rather
more thought. The idea of installing a second
HDD seemed pretty simple at the time. 8-)


Yeah, computing has always been like that |-)

I can think of possibilities with PM, but it may
come down to CD shuffling in the end. :-(


Nope, it never does.


Just get ghost and use it for the reconfig.


Hints, guidance, recommendations, links most welcome.


Thanks very much for your input, Rod.


No probs, happy to keep discussing the detail for as long as it takes.


Being Friday night, I won't try to go into more detail just now. ;-)
But I'll be back! And thanks again for your help.


Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

  #9  
Old January 24th 04, 05:14 AM
Rod Speed
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Phred" wrote in message ...
In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Phred wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote
Phred wrote


I'm looking for a simple recipe to ensure success when trying to
install a second HDD on a Dell Dimension 4100 under Windows ME

[...]
(or even just mention of "gotchas" to avoid would be helpful .


Current 20GB drive is partitioned C, D, E, F using PM 6.0


Urk. Thats mad.


Yeah. Well, I'm inclined to agree and in fact I'd
be more than happy to ping off that "F". But C
is not negotiable; D is the CDROM drive on that
"managed" machine I mentioned so is unchangeable;


You appeared to be saying that the 20GB
drive had been paritioned into 4 partititions.


Yes.

Which version is due to too much cheap plonk ?


Dunno about "too much". [We had a farmhand years ago from the other
side of the planet, but still very practical. He always said you
can't have too much to drink because you fall down when you've had
enough. ] However, I admit that most things after dinner are
probably influenced by cheap plonk to some extent. %-)

so I need a "drive" E to align with the other's data drive


Cant understand this bit.


There are two machines: mine and the corporate "managed" machine. I
have no influence over the config of the latter, but it would be very
convenient for the sort of stuff I do (and the nifty little batch
utils etc. I've written to facilitate this) if I could keep some sort
of one to one relationship as I have now. Essentially, this comes
down to having a drive "E" for data and working, and from what you've
said below there's probably no problem here if I use the new drive
with primary C and logical E and the old one as primary D. (The
complication will be getting the present C, D, E, and F on the old
drive combined/deleted/transferred/whatever to achieve the desired new
config with two physical drives, without screwing things up.)

and (because I'm running Windows ME) I assume I can only get
that by having a D of my own somewhere on a HDD (the slave?).


Or this.


Just saying that under Windows ME I assumed I would have to have C and
D in order to have E (i.e. I can't just have C and E). [This is
rather irrelevant anyway, as we're both now agreed that the new drive
will have to have two partitions (C for system and apps; E for data
and working) and the old drive will also need a designation -- which
would be D if all is right in the world.]

I want to install a 2nd HDD (WD 120GB) either as slave on the
same cable, or on the second cable as master or slave (see below).


I also have a CDRW drive (as G), and will be looking to
install a combo DVD/CDRW *or* a DVD writer "soon". So
provision needs to be made for both these optical drives too.


You sure the effect on the cheap plonk supply is warranted ? |-(


For compatibility with another ("managed") system,
I need to keep the same HDD partitions,


Why ? Thats a madly complicated config.


See above.


See above.

but would see C and D as being on the present master
HDD with E and F on the new one, if this is possible.


Thats pretty mad too. You'd normally want to have the
boot drive on the new drive, just because it would normally
be much faster than the original old dinosaur 20GB drive.


But that would mean partitioning the new drive as say 20GB for
system and applications and the rest for data and working space.


Yes, but that is normally the best approach if you say want to
ghost the OS and apps boot partition before doing any install
or service pack install, so you can restore gracefully from the
image if it all goes completely pear shaped. Basically have a
reasonable sized OS and app partition thats reasonably quick
to image to encourage you to image it just before the install
and to not just decide that the risk is small with the install of
something and dont bother to image the OS and app partition first.


Sounds very reasonable, and is pretty much what I had in mind.
The main uncertainty is assigning the size of that partition.


Yeah, thats the main downside with more than one partition
per physical drive, getting the sizes right. Its never easy to
predict what would be best over time with the usual demand
for more space seen with almost everything, in spades with
the OS and apps boot partition.

(What did Bill say? "640KB is enough for anyone"?


Thats very unkind |-)

My present C is roughly 5GB, and it's bloody tight.


Yeah, much too small in my opinion.

20GB may do for awhile I guess.


Yeah, thats what I currently use, and thats
with XP which needs more room than ME.

Thats another thing you should really be thinking
about with a big reconfig like this. It might not be a
bad time to change to XP too. I've not had any regrets.

How good is the compression with Ghost or Drive
Image for images of sparsely populated partitions?


Both are excellent and there isnt much in it image file size wise.

[One problem I thought may exist with that approach may not
exist if I've understood one of your comments further down (q.v.).]


Not into those greasy greek abbreviations thanks.

An alternative that would be nearly as convenient would be to
have C and F on the present drive with D and E on the new one.


I'd bin that complicated scheme myself.


I'm happy to bin F, but I need E.


Spell out why.


See above -- and it's really becoming irrelevant anyway, if I'm
starting to understand all this.


Yeah, looks like you do.

So, can I have C and E on the new [let's assume
master] drive with D on the old one as slave?


Yes. With the Win9x/ME family you control that with the
type of partition you create. Primary dos partitions get a
letter first, then logical drives within extended dos partitions
get lettered after that, and with both sets, the physical
boot drive gets lettered before the other drive.

So you can get that result by having a primary dos partition
on the old drive. You have to have one on the new drive to
boot from, so that will see the C and D letters allocated
the way you want and the rest of the new drive will have
to be a logical drive in an extended dos partition and so it
will get the E letter, because its not a primary dos partition.


That's good, and basically solves that aspect.

In fact, any combination that left C on the present
master (no doubt the only possibility anyway!)


Nope, you can have it on the 120GB drive and should.


Okay, okay... ;-)


and E plus another partition on the other drive, would be
acceptable (though that may mean some playing around with
existing batch files if the CDRW drive designation is changed,
and I would prefer not to have to do that -- but it could be done.)


You really should cut to the chase and have a much simpler
partitioning scheme, and the boot drive on the new 120GB drive.


There is also the issue of the best allocation of the HDDs and the
optical drive(s) to the cables. I've seen this recommended and
argued both ways: (1) keep the HDDs separate from the CDs so
that HDD activity is not so likely to interfere during CD writing; and
(2) put the CDs on separate cables so direct copy will work better.


The short story is that you are unlikely to be able to pick
the difference between those two configs with a proper
double blind trial and so its normally best to do whats
mechanically more convenient, and thats usually with
both hard drives on the same ribbon cable, and both
optical drives on the same ribbon cable. Just because
both hard drives are normally in the 3.5" bay stack and
both optical drives are normally in the 5" bay stack and
most ribbon cables dont have enough space between
the drive connectors to mix drives in different bay stacks.


Sounds reasonable. I was just a bit concerned
about whether the CD drives would do CD to
CD copy reliably if both on the same cable


Yep, modern burnproof burners are fine with that.

(bearing in mind the 4100 is only a P3 1.1GHz machine).


I did it fine in a 586/133.

But I certainly don't want to get into the ribbon stretching game!


Yeah, you can get one made for the other
config but its not worth the farting around.

The main uses would be:
1. Existing drive stays as the system/applications drive (C),


Not a good idea, see above.


and may contain a second partition (D or F)
that would serve as a data backup area.


Its generally best to have the data backup on a different
physical drive to the drive that its backing up, obviously
so you dont lose everything on a single drive failure.


That was the idea! The data on E on the new
drive and the backup on D on the old one.


Yes, except for the image of the boot OS and app partition,
done to allow a convenient step back to the situation before
an install. Thats fine onto another partition on the big new
drive, because its not protecting against drive failure.


Yeah. I was assuming there wouldn't be room on the old 20GB anyway,
which is another reason why my original plan involved keeping that as
the primary drive. If the image files are happy on the same physical
drive, there's no problem.

If you do want to be able to recover quickly from a
hardware failure by just restoring the boot OS and
apps partition, its best to put that on CDs or DVDs
because you can see both hard drives killed by a
power supply failure or just theft of the system etc.


Good idea. Will do that too. (Eventually. ;-)

Its not actually a fantastically viable approach tho
because with the standard Win config, the email
files and other stuff like shortcuts and favorites
are normally on the boot partition too and so the
image file will be well out of date by the time you
want to use the image file for hard drive failure or theft.


I back up mail and favourites regularly anyway. (Favourites routinely
[because I want to transfer them between the two machines I mentioned]
and Mail when I think of it -- at least once/month.)


Yeah, I keep all of both and it'd be a complete pain
in the arse to lose the most recent stuff with either.

What you can do is put the image of that partition on
the CDs or DVDs and in addition use a real backup
prog to save whats changed to CDs since the image
file was created. Then on say a hard drive failure,
you restore the image file, then restore the real
incremental backup too and you are back where
you were when the last incremental backup was done.


Certainly worth thinking about. I'm using simple old XCOPY for
backups at the moment. Maybe a dedicated backup program would be
worth it. (I still haven't found out how to backup (or even copy)
MSIE offline files with XCOPY, or anything else I've tried!)


xxcopy will do it fine. Nothing to do with MS, www.xxcopy.com

And the stuff thats absolutely irreplaceable
should be on multiple CDs as well.


Pretty well *all* my junk is on 4 (if not 6 CDs -- *finding*
the "irreplaceable" will be the problem if the time comes. 8-)


Yeah, worth giving one set to a mate etc for safe
keeping, just in case the place burns down etc.

In your case you could leave them
down the pub if you have no mates.


They're all at the pub anyway.


Yeah, good point.

These are best done separately to the image of the boot partition.

2. New drive would be the main working drive (E)


Its normally best as the boot drive too, because it will be much faster.


but would also contain a partition to hold maybe 2 or 3 "Ghosts"
of the system drive (probably at least a vanilla system installation


No reason why that cant be on the physical drive since its
mostly protecting you against a service pack install ****ing
the boot drive up or an app install etc doing the same.


Okay, here's where I may have been too pessimistic. I thought
the clones of C would have to be on a different physical drive.


Clones do, image files dont. Image files are generally best.
You can keep more than one, with compression being possible
with image files but not with clones, with only a slightly slower
restore time if you need to do a restore.


Ha! My jargon wasn't quite with it. Yes, I'm basically thinking
image files in most of this. My mistake thinking clones~images.

Are you saying the "Ghosts" can simply be "files" on
a separate partition of the same physical drive as C?


Yes, ghost image files can be. You can use image files,
or true partition clones. Normally image files are best.

If so, that certainly would make a difference
to my approach, and remove that objection
to having the new drive as the master.


Yeah, its generally the best approach with a single drive too.
Two partitions, one for the boot OS and apps partition so
you can image that before installs to make it easy to go
back if the install goes pear shaped, the other partition for
all the data files and the image files. I just included this for
the other pervers at this traffic that may only have one drive.

But one other thought occurs:


Dangerous business, can end in tears before bedtime.

Doing it this way is going to mean a *lot* of thrashing of
the drive whenever creating or using one of these images,
given that it would mean the transfer of maybe 20GB of stuff
from one place to another on the same physical drive each time.


In practice that doesnt happen because the imaging programs
buffer the image file in ram until a big chunk has been done
and then dumps it into the image file in the second partition.

You do notice a difference if you are cloning a partition
instead of making an image file of it, but cloning isnt
normally the best approach for various reasons.

and a second one with the main application software freshly
installed too). [Or maybe I don't really need a partition for
that as the "Ghosts" are basically just files aren't they?]


Correct. Image files are, anyway. You can also clone partitions and
drives but there isnt normally any real point in doing that for backup.


I was thinking of two or three clones of C he


These are actually images, not clones.

1. Just the system and very basic stuff like drivers etc. installed.


Yes, I normally do create a few images during an OS install.
Mainly to minimise the effort if I stuff something up later in
the apps install particularly, I can just restore an image
instead of completely restarting the OS and apps install.

I normally make the first image of just the OS itself,
before any drivers are added, just because the addition
of drivers can produce a mess with some hardware.

Then when all the hardware drivers have been
installed, image that before installing any of the
apps. Just so that if that goes pear shaped, its
easy to get back to the bare OS and drivers config.

2. The above plus the "standard" applications (MS Office,
graphics, and basic utilities for mail, web, FTP etc.).


Yep.

And maybe,
3. The above plus other stable installations as they are required.
(This one would be "temporary" in that it could be
overwritten by new versions when other stuff is added.


Yeah, I normally create an image before installing anything,
and keep previous images too, basically because that simplifys
things if the problem with the latest install doesnt become
visible for a few days etc and it wont uninstall cleanly.

I basically only delete images when I need more
space for the latest one. No point in deleting any
image until you need the space it occupys.


As one of the world's great archivists, I'm
completely happy with that approach. ;-)


I'm thinking I should probably start with this one for my
present working system so I can recover somewhat
if I have problems with that fresh install approach.)


That approach has its downsides, restoring that image
before doing an additional install. Basically Win keeps
quite a bit of stuff in the boot partition, email, favorites,
shortcuts, all sorts of minor config stuff like what
display format is used in particular folders etc.

So you dont normally want to restore before a new install.


No. I was thinking more about if I stuff up the new install I can at
least go back to what I have now and ask you some more questions.
It may not be the best config, but I can at least access News. :-)


Yeah, very viable approach with a single PC.

3. The CDRW would mostly be used for backups and
other copies of data from E, and also for backup copies
of program CDs (and that may involve direct CD to CD
copies in future when I get the second optical drive).


I dont normally do it that way even when I do have the drives
that allow that. Its generally best to have the copy program just
copy it to the hard drive auto and use the same drive for both
the original and the copy. Modern burners are so much faster
that that approach has little effect on the total copy time now.


True. But you do have to swap CDs that way,
and it's been my habit to do this sort of copying
while doing other (non-computer) things.


You'll find that with modern burners on lower horsepower
PCs like that that the system isnt that usable while the
copy is being done, very sluggish, and that the burn is over
so quickly that I dont usually try to do much while it happens.


That's what I was getting at. I don't try to do *anything* on
the PC while burning CDs (and I still get too many coasters).


OK, I dont ever get those due to that.

My "other (non-computer) things" are cooking dinner and having a glass
or two (sometimes three, if there's enough left in the bottle %-) of red.


Tho admittedly I copy CDs on the test machine now.


I'll have to get one of those.


Yeah, very convenient. I normally just ripple the
machines down the chain, what used to be the main
machine becomes the test machine and what used to
be the test machine becomes the kitchen PC etc.

I do have an old 486DX4-100,


Fark, I've got a few P200 socket 7
systems that dont get used anymore.

Even new celeron integrated motherboards dont
cost much. Are you really that desperate a pov ?

with the last version of Windows 95, buried here
somewhere; but I doubt if that's up to the mark.


Yeah, they're more trouble than they're worth.

I dont even bother with socket 7 systems if
I can avoid it, too much hassle with memory.

[ Had visions of playing with Linux on it and
maybe using it as a firewall/print server etc.


I prefer a hardware router myself and I hardly ever print anything at all.

But Linux has gone pretty much bloatware
now too, so I doubt if it'll even handle that


There are some stripped down versions that'll do fine.

Not worth the farting around IMO compared with a hardware router tho.

-- assuming it will start at all! ]


Likely it will.

So the thought of just loading the drives and coming back
later to a job done instead of half done, is pretty appealing.


Yes, but the system will be surprisingly sluggish with
modern fast burners and a lower horsepower PC like
that. I find it a bit irritating to even play freecell while
the copy happens, let alone say browse newsgroups.

Thats the main reason I copy CDs on the test machine.

And you dont actually do that that much so there isnt
any point in getting all anal about the time it takes anyway.


It would usually only need to interact
with C during program installations.


And you cant normally even measure any difference in the total install
time with the two drives on different ribbon cables for variour reasons.


4. A temporary consideration is the best (i.e. most convenient)
way of getting nearly 8GB of data off the present E partition
onto the new drive and into the new "E".


Most convenient to use ghost or drive image. You appear to
want to use that for boot partition backup anyway so you might
as well use it for the reconfig at new hard drive install time too.


I'm starting to see a lot of "gotchas" looming here for the neophyte!


Yeah, well worth thinking thru the config before implementing it.
You're gunna be using it for quite a while in the new config.

And if it all goes pear shaped I won't have access to the
USENET "help desk" of collective wisdom to sort it out!


Yeah, I'd never go back to just one PC again voluntarily.

So convenient to be able to drop an error
message into google and resolve it in minutes.

(That's one reason I was hoping for a pointer to a
"recipe book" of instructions for doing this sort of thing.


Trouble is that there isnt much agreement
on the best config so thats not that feasible.

You dont even get much of that with the basic question
of the best partitioning for a single and dual drive configs.


I wasn't thinking so much about that now as about how's the easiest
way to get from what I've got (C, D, E, and F on one 20GB physical
drive) to a new config with C and E on the new 120GB drive, "leaving"
D on the old drive as slave. Bearing in mind that my resources are
Windows ME and Partition Magic 6.


I'd get ghost 2003 for the convenience. It costs peanuts
as part of SystemWorks Pro 2003 on ebay if you have
nutty ideas about paying for it. Must be SystemWorks
Pro tho, SystemWorks doesnt include ghost.

I clearly need to give the actual approach rather
more thought. The idea of installing a second
HDD seemed pretty simple at the time. 8-)


Yeah, computing has always been like that |-)

I can think of possibilities with PM, but it may
come down to CD shuffling in the end. :-(


Nope, it never does.


Just get ghost and use it for the reconfig.


Hints, guidance, recommendations, links most welcome.


Thanks very much for your input, Rod.


No probs, happy to keep discussing the detail for as long as it takes.


Being Friday night, I won't try to go into more detail just now. ;-)


Yeah, funnily enough I wondered how intelligible this post would be
when I saw it in the newsgroup. Cant imagine why for the life of me |-(

But I'll be back!


Thats what arsehole Dougy Mac said.

And thanks again for your help.


No probs.




  #10  
Old January 24th 04, 05:16 AM
Rod Speed
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rod Speed" wrote in message ...

"Phred" wrote in message ...
In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Phred wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote
Phred wrote

I'm looking for a simple recipe to ensure success when trying to
install a second HDD on a Dell Dimension 4100 under Windows ME

[...]
(or even just mention of "gotchas" to avoid would be helpful .

Current 20GB drive is partitioned C, D, E, F using PM 6.0

Urk. Thats mad.

Yeah. Well, I'm inclined to agree and in fact I'd
be more than happy to ping off that "F". But C
is not negotiable; D is the CDROM drive on that
"managed" machine I mentioned so is unchangeable;

You appeared to be saying that the 20GB
drive had been paritioned into 4 partititions.


Yes.

Which version is due to too much cheap plonk ?


Dunno about "too much". [We had a farmhand years ago from the other
side of the planet, but still very practical. He always said you
can't have too much to drink because you fall down when you've had
enough. ] However, I admit that most things after dinner are
probably influenced by cheap plonk to some extent. %-)

so I need a "drive" E to align with the other's data drive

Cant understand this bit.


There are two machines: mine and the corporate "managed" machine. I
have no influence over the config of the latter, but it would be very
convenient for the sort of stuff I do (and the nifty little batch
utils etc. I've written to facilitate this) if I could keep some sort
of one to one relationship as I have now. Essentially, this comes
down to having a drive "E" for data and working, and from what you've
said below there's probably no problem here if I use the new drive
with primary C and logical E and the old one as primary D. (The
complication will be getting the present C, D, E, and F on the old
drive combined/deleted/transferred/whatever to achieve the desired new
config with two physical drives, without screwing things up.)

and (because I'm running Windows ME) I assume I can only get
that by having a D of my own somewhere on a HDD (the slave?).

Or this.


Just saying that under Windows ME I assumed I would have to have C and
D in order to have E (i.e. I can't just have C and E). [This is
rather irrelevant anyway, as we're both now agreed that the new drive
will have to have two partitions (C for system and apps; E for data
and working) and the old drive will also need a designation -- which
would be D if all is right in the world.]

I want to install a 2nd HDD (WD 120GB) either as slave on the
same cable, or on the second cable as master or slave (see below).

I also have a CDRW drive (as G), and will be looking to
install a combo DVD/CDRW *or* a DVD writer "soon". So
provision needs to be made for both these optical drives too.

You sure the effect on the cheap plonk supply is warranted ? |-(

For compatibility with another ("managed") system,
I need to keep the same HDD partitions,

Why ? Thats a madly complicated config.

See above.

See above.

but would see C and D as being on the present master
HDD with E and F on the new one, if this is possible.

Thats pretty mad too. You'd normally want to have the
boot drive on the new drive, just because it would normally
be much faster than the original old dinosaur 20GB drive.

But that would mean partitioning the new drive as say 20GB for
system and applications and the rest for data and working space.

Yes, but that is normally the best approach if you say want to
ghost the OS and apps boot partition before doing any install
or service pack install, so you can restore gracefully from the
image if it all goes completely pear shaped. Basically have a
reasonable sized OS and app partition thats reasonably quick
to image to encourage you to image it just before the install
and to not just decide that the risk is small with the install of
something and dont bother to image the OS and app partition first.


Sounds very reasonable, and is pretty much what I had in mind.
The main uncertainty is assigning the size of that partition.


Yeah, thats the main downside with more than one partition
per physical drive, getting the sizes right. Its never easy to
predict what would be best over time with the usual demand
for more space seen with almost everything, in spades with
the OS and apps boot partition.

(What did Bill say? "640KB is enough for anyone"?


Thats very unkind |-)

My present C is roughly 5GB, and it's bloody tight.


Yeah, much too small in my opinion.

20GB may do for awhile I guess.


Yeah, thats what I currently use, and thats
with XP which needs more room than ME.

Thats another thing you should really be thinking
about with a big reconfig like this. It might not be a
bad time to change to XP too. I've not had any regrets.

How good is the compression with Ghost or Drive
Image for images of sparsely populated partitions?


Both are excellent and there isnt much in it image file size wise.

[One problem I thought may exist with that approach may not
exist if I've understood one of your comments further down (q.v.).]

Not into those greasy greek abbreviations thanks.

An alternative that would be nearly as convenient would be to
have C and F on the present drive with D and E on the new one.

I'd bin that complicated scheme myself.

I'm happy to bin F, but I need E.

Spell out why.


See above -- and it's really becoming irrelevant anyway, if I'm
starting to understand all this.


Yeah, looks like you do.

So, can I have C and E on the new [let's assume
master] drive with D on the old one as slave?

Yes. With the Win9x/ME family you control that with the
type of partition you create. Primary dos partitions get a
letter first, then logical drives within extended dos partitions
get lettered after that, and with both sets, the physical
boot drive gets lettered before the other drive.

So you can get that result by having a primary dos partition
on the old drive. You have to have one on the new drive to
boot from, so that will see the C and D letters allocated
the way you want and the rest of the new drive will have
to be a logical drive in an extended dos partition and so it
will get the E letter, because its not a primary dos partition.


That's good, and basically solves that aspect.

In fact, any combination that left C on the present
master (no doubt the only possibility anyway!)

Nope, you can have it on the 120GB drive and should.

Okay, okay... ;-)

and E plus another partition on the other drive, would be
acceptable (though that may mean some playing around with
existing batch files if the CDRW drive designation is changed,
and I would prefer not to have to do that -- but it could be done.)

You really should cut to the chase and have a much simpler
partitioning scheme, and the boot drive on the new 120GB drive.

There is also the issue of the best allocation of the HDDs and the
optical drive(s) to the cables. I've seen this recommended and
argued both ways: (1) keep the HDDs separate from the CDs so
that HDD activity is not so likely to interfere during CD writing; and
(2) put the CDs on separate cables so direct copy will work better.

The short story is that you are unlikely to be able to pick
the difference between those two configs with a proper
double blind trial and so its normally best to do whats
mechanically more convenient, and thats usually with
both hard drives on the same ribbon cable, and both
optical drives on the same ribbon cable. Just because
both hard drives are normally in the 3.5" bay stack and
both optical drives are normally in the 5" bay stack and
most ribbon cables dont have enough space between
the drive connectors to mix drives in different bay stacks.

Sounds reasonable. I was just a bit concerned
about whether the CD drives would do CD to
CD copy reliably if both on the same cable

Yep, modern burnproof burners are fine with that.

(bearing in mind the 4100 is only a P3 1.1GHz machine).

I did it fine in a 586/133.

But I certainly don't want to get into the ribbon stretching game!

Yeah, you can get one made for the other
config but its not worth the farting around.

The main uses would be:
1. Existing drive stays as the system/applications drive (C),

Not a good idea, see above.

and may contain a second partition (D or F)
that would serve as a data backup area.

Its generally best to have the data backup on a different
physical drive to the drive that its backing up, obviously
so you dont lose everything on a single drive failure.

That was the idea! The data on E on the new
drive and the backup on D on the old one.

Yes, except for the image of the boot OS and app partition,
done to allow a convenient step back to the situation before
an install. Thats fine onto another partition on the big new
drive, because its not protecting against drive failure.


Yeah. I was assuming there wouldn't be room on the old 20GB anyway,
which is another reason why my original plan involved keeping that as
the primary drive. If the image files are happy on the same physical
drive, there's no problem.

If you do want to be able to recover quickly from a
hardware failure by just restoring the boot OS and
apps partition, its best to put that on CDs or DVDs
because you can see both hard drives killed by a
power supply failure or just theft of the system etc.


Good idea. Will do that too. (Eventually. ;-)

Its not actually a fantastically viable approach tho
because with the standard Win config, the email
files and other stuff like shortcuts and favorites
are normally on the boot partition too and so the
image file will be well out of date by the time you
want to use the image file for hard drive failure or theft.


I back up mail and favourites regularly anyway. (Favourites routinely
[because I want to transfer them between the two machines I mentioned]
and Mail when I think of it -- at least once/month.)


Yeah, I keep all of both and it'd be a complete pain
in the arse to lose the most recent stuff with either.

What you can do is put the image of that partition on
the CDs or DVDs and in addition use a real backup
prog to save whats changed to CDs since the image
file was created. Then on say a hard drive failure,
you restore the image file, then restore the real
incremental backup too and you are back where
you were when the last incremental backup was done.


Certainly worth thinking about. I'm using simple old XCOPY for
backups at the moment. Maybe a dedicated backup program would be
worth it. (I still haven't found out how to backup (or even copy)
MSIE offline files with XCOPY, or anything else I've tried!)


xxcopy will do it fine. Nothing to do with MS, www.xxcopy.com

And the stuff thats absolutely irreplaceable
should be on multiple CDs as well.

Pretty well *all* my junk is on 4 (if not 6 CDs -- *finding*
the "irreplaceable" will be the problem if the time comes. 8-)

Yeah, worth giving one set to a mate etc for safe
keeping, just in case the place burns down etc.

In your case you could leave them
down the pub if you have no mates.


They're all at the pub anyway.


Yeah, good point.

These are best done separately to the image of the boot partition.

2. New drive would be the main working drive (E)

Its normally best as the boot drive too, because it will be much faster.

but would also contain a partition to hold maybe 2 or 3 "Ghosts"
of the system drive (probably at least a vanilla system installation

No reason why that cant be on the physical drive since its
mostly protecting you against a service pack install ****ing
the boot drive up or an app install etc doing the same.

Okay, here's where I may have been too pessimistic. I thought
the clones of C would have to be on a different physical drive.

Clones do, image files dont. Image files are generally best.
You can keep more than one, with compression being possible
with image files but not with clones, with only a slightly slower
restore time if you need to do a restore.


Ha! My jargon wasn't quite with it. Yes, I'm basically thinking
image files in most of this. My mistake thinking clones~images.

Are you saying the "Ghosts" can simply be "files" on
a separate partition of the same physical drive as C?

Yes, ghost image files can be. You can use image files,
or true partition clones. Normally image files are best.

If so, that certainly would make a difference
to my approach, and remove that objection
to having the new drive as the master.

Yeah, its generally the best approach with a single drive too.
Two partitions, one for the boot OS and apps partition so
you can image that before installs to make it easy to go
back if the install goes pear shaped, the other partition for
all the data files and the image files. I just included this for
the other pervers at this traffic that may only have one drive.

But one other thought occurs:

Dangerous business, can end in tears before bedtime.

Doing it this way is going to mean a *lot* of thrashing of
the drive whenever creating or using one of these images,
given that it would mean the transfer of maybe 20GB of stuff
from one place to another on the same physical drive each time.

In practice that doesnt happen because the imaging programs
buffer the image file in ram until a big chunk has been done
and then dumps it into the image file in the second partition.

You do notice a difference if you are cloning a partition
instead of making an image file of it, but cloning isnt
normally the best approach for various reasons.

and a second one with the main application software freshly
installed too). [Or maybe I don't really need a partition for
that as the "Ghosts" are basically just files aren't they?]

Correct. Image files are, anyway. You can also clone partitions and
drives but there isnt normally any real point in doing that for backup.

I was thinking of two or three clones of C he

These are actually images, not clones.

1. Just the system and very basic stuff like drivers etc. installed.

Yes, I normally do create a few images during an OS install.
Mainly to minimise the effort if I stuff something up later in
the apps install particularly, I can just restore an image
instead of completely restarting the OS and apps install.

I normally make the first image of just the OS itself,
before any drivers are added, just because the addition
of drivers can produce a mess with some hardware.

Then when all the hardware drivers have been
installed, image that before installing any of the
apps. Just so that if that goes pear shaped, its
easy to get back to the bare OS and drivers config.

2. The above plus the "standard" applications (MS Office,
graphics, and basic utilities for mail, web, FTP etc.).

Yep.

And maybe,
3. The above plus other stable installations as they are required.
(This one would be "temporary" in that it could be
overwritten by new versions when other stuff is added.

Yeah, I normally create an image before installing anything,
and keep previous images too, basically because that simplifys
things if the problem with the latest install doesnt become
visible for a few days etc and it wont uninstall cleanly.

I basically only delete images when I need more
space for the latest one. No point in deleting any
image until you need the space it occupys.


As one of the world's great archivists, I'm
completely happy with that approach. ;-)


I'm thinking I should probably start with this one for my
present working system so I can recover somewhat
if I have problems with that fresh install approach.)

That approach has its downsides, restoring that image
before doing an additional install. Basically Win keeps
quite a bit of stuff in the boot partition, email, favorites,
shortcuts, all sorts of minor config stuff like what
display format is used in particular folders etc.

So you dont normally want to restore before a new install.


No. I was thinking more about if I stuff up the new install I can at
least go back to what I have now and ask you some more questions.
It may not be the best config, but I can at least access News. :-)


Yeah, very viable approach with a single PC.

3. The CDRW would mostly be used for backups and
other copies of data from E, and also for backup copies
of program CDs (and that may involve direct CD to CD
copies in future when I get the second optical drive).

I dont normally do it that way even when I do have the drives
that allow that. Its generally best to have the copy program just
copy it to the hard drive auto and use the same drive for both
the original and the copy. Modern burners are so much faster
that that approach has little effect on the total copy time now.

True. But you do have to swap CDs that way,
and it's been my habit to do this sort of copying
while doing other (non-computer) things.

You'll find that with modern burners on lower horsepower
PCs like that that the system isnt that usable while the
copy is being done, very sluggish, and that the burn is over
so quickly that I dont usually try to do much while it happens.


That's what I was getting at. I don't try to do *anything* on
the PC while burning CDs (and I still get too many coasters).


OK, I dont ever get those due to that.

My "other (non-computer) things" are cooking dinner and having a glass
or two (sometimes three, if there's enough left in the bottle %-) of red.


Tho admittedly I copy CDs on the test machine now.


I'll have to get one of those.


Yeah, very convenient. I normally just ripple the
machines down the chain, what used to be the main
machine becomes the test machine and what used to
be the test machine becomes the kitchen PC etc.

I do have an old 486DX4-100,


Fark, I've got a few P200 socket 7
systems that dont get used anymore.

Even new celeron integrated motherboards dont
cost much. Are you really that desperate a pov ?

with the last version of Windows 95, buried here
somewhere; but I doubt if that's up to the mark.


Yeah, they're more trouble than they're worth.

I dont even bother with socket 7 systems if
I can avoid it, too much hassle with memory.

[ Had visions of playing with Linux on it and
maybe using it as a firewall/print server etc.


I prefer a hardware router myself and I hardly ever print anything at all.

But Linux has gone pretty much bloatware
now too, so I doubt if it'll even handle that


There are some stripped down versions that'll do fine.

Not worth the farting around IMO compared with a hardware router tho.

-- assuming it will start at all! ]


Likely it will.

So the thought of just loading the drives and coming back
later to a job done instead of half done, is pretty appealing.

Yes, but the system will be surprisingly sluggish with
modern fast burners and a lower horsepower PC like
that. I find it a bit irritating to even play freecell while
the copy happens, let alone say browse newsgroups.

Thats the main reason I copy CDs on the test machine.

And you dont actually do that that much so there isnt
any point in getting all anal about the time it takes anyway.

It would usually only need to interact
with C during program installations.

And you cant normally even measure any difference in the total install
time with the two drives on different ribbon cables for variour reasons.

4. A temporary consideration is the best (i.e. most convenient)
way of getting nearly 8GB of data off the present E partition
onto the new drive and into the new "E".

Most convenient to use ghost or drive image. You appear to
want to use that for boot partition backup anyway so you might
as well use it for the reconfig at new hard drive install time too.

I'm starting to see a lot of "gotchas" looming here for the neophyte!

Yeah, well worth thinking thru the config before implementing it.
You're gunna be using it for quite a while in the new config.

And if it all goes pear shaped I won't have access to the
USENET "help desk" of collective wisdom to sort it out!

Yeah, I'd never go back to just one PC again voluntarily.

So convenient to be able to drop an error
message into google and resolve it in minutes.

(That's one reason I was hoping for a pointer to a
"recipe book" of instructions for doing this sort of thing.

Trouble is that there isnt much agreement
on the best config so thats not that feasible.

You dont even get much of that with the basic question
of the best partitioning for a single and dual drive configs.


I wasn't thinking so much about that now as about how's the easiest
way to get from what I've got (C, D, E, and F on one 20GB physical
drive) to a new config with C and E on the new 120GB drive, "leaving"
D on the old drive as slave. Bearing in mind that my resources are
Windows ME and Partition Magic 6.


I'd get ghost 2003 for the convenience. It costs peanuts
as part of SystemWorks Pro 2003 on ebay if you have
nutty ideas about paying for it. Must be SystemWorks
Pro tho, SystemWorks doesnt include ghost.


Decide exactly what you want to do OS, partitions
and that tool question wise and I'll do you a
completely specific list how how to get there.

I clearly need to give the actual approach rather
more thought. The idea of installing a second
HDD seemed pretty simple at the time. 8-)

Yeah, computing has always been like that |-)

I can think of possibilities with PM, but it may
come down to CD shuffling in the end. :-(

Nope, it never does.

Just get ghost and use it for the reconfig.

Hints, guidance, recommendations, links most welcome.

Thanks very much for your input, Rod.

No probs, happy to keep discussing the detail for as long as it takes.


Being Friday night, I won't try to go into more detail just now. ;-)


Yeah, funnily enough I wondered how intelligible this post would be
when I saw it in the newsgroup. Cant imagine why for the life of me |-(

But I'll be back!


Thats what arsehole Dougy Mac said.

And thanks again for your help.


No probs.






 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Asus A7N8X V1.04 - won't install Windows XP Pro SP-2 OEM Bill Drake Asus Motherboards 4 December 3rd 04 08:28 AM
Trouble creating a new partition with Partition Magic 8.0 Meaty General 3 May 31st 04 10:24 AM
Compaq FAQ HH Compaq Computers 1 August 7th 03 11:24 PM
Help..Partition magic made my partition disappear into oblivion Pierre Jarry General 1 July 14th 03 10:19 PM
Partition Magic TTupper General 4 July 8th 03 05:33 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.