If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Making two partition copies in turn
I'm maintaining two (maybe even 3) copies of my C: drive.
I've been copying everything from C to F and to H, but I'm thinking, maybe it would be better to copy C to F and then F to H. It would lessen the wear on the C drive, especially when I copy every single file (except the ones I don't copy.) Any reason not to do it this indirect way? Any reason to do it besides saving wear on the C: drive? What say ye? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Making two partition copies in turn
Micky,
Any reason not to do it this indirect way? Yes. If the first copy somehow gets mucked-up the second copy will also have that mucked-up file (read: will have no chance to make a good copy). Any reason to do it besides saving wear on the C: drive? Nope. And to be honest, if you think you need to worry about wear-and-tear while *reading* a drive you've really got a problem with whomever is the manufacturer of it. If you are worrying about wear-and-tear of the C: drive than also remember that Windows is doing a good job of doing burn-in testing on it, day after day (just think of the registry and or page files). :-) Regards, Rudy Wieser -- Origional message: micky schreef in berichtnieuws ... I'm maintaining two (maybe even 3) copies of my C: drive. I've been copying everything from C to F and to H, but I'm thinking, maybe it would be better to copy C to F and then F to H. It would lessen the wear on the C drive, especially when I copy every single file (except the ones I don't copy.) Any reason not to do it this indirect way? Any reason to do it besides saving wear on the C: drive? What say ye? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Making two partition copies in turn
On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 08:33:45 -0400, micky
wrote: I'm maintaining two (maybe even 3) copies of my C: drive. I've been copying everything from C to F and to H, but I'm thinking, maybe it would be better to copy C to F and then F to H. It would lessen the wear on the C drive, especially when I copy every single file (except the ones I don't copy.) Any reason not to do it this indirect way? Any reason to do it besides saving wear on the C: drive? What say ye? Why are you doing this? Is it for backup purposes? If so, it's better than no backup at all, but just barely. It's the worst possible way to backup. I don't recommend backup to a second non-removable hard drive because it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original and backup to many of the most common dangers: severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks, even theft of the computer. Even worse is what you are doing--backing up to partitions on the same hard drive. If the drive dies, all your backups die with it. In my view, secure backup needs to be on removable media, and not kept in the computer. For really secure backup (needed, for example, if the life of your business depends on your data) you should have multiple generations of backup, and at least one of those generations should be stored off-site. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Making two partition copies in turn
In message , "Ken Blake,
MVP" writes On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 08:33:45 -0400, micky wrote: I'm maintaining two (maybe even 3) copies of my C: drive. I've been copying everything from C to F and to H, but I'm thinking, maybe it would be better to copy C to F and then F to H. It would lessen the wear on the C drive, especially when I copy every single file (except the ones I don't copy.) Any reason not to do it this indirect way? Any reason to do it besides saving wear on the C: drive? What say ye? Why are you doing this? Is it for backup purposes? If so, it's better than no backup at all, but just barely. It's the worst possible way to backup. I don't recommend backup to a second non-removable hard drive because it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original and backup to many of the most common dangers: severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks, even theft of the computer. Even worse is what you are doing--backing up to partitions on the same hard drive. If the drive dies, all your backups die with it. In my view, secure backup needs to be on removable media, and not kept in the computer. For really secure backup (needed, for example, if the life of your business depends on your data) you should have multiple generations of backup, and at least one of those generations should be stored off-site. The OP doesn't say whether drives F and H are internal or external. As you say, external would be preferred, but I wouldn't have thought that the data on the C-drive would be get corrupted if it wasn't being written to (which presumably it isn't - especially if the cloning/imaging program is running from a CD or DVD). Of course, damage from things like lightning strikes is a different matter, and there's a limit on what you can do. As for copying C to F and C to H, and C to F, then F to H, I can't see it making much difference. The latter has the advantage of allowing you to use the computer when you're doing F to H (although this will probably slow it down). -- Ian |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Making two partition copies in turn
In message , micky
writes: I'm maintaining two (maybe even 3) copies of my C: drive. I've been copying everything from C to F and to H, but I'm thinking, maybe it would be better to copy C to F and then F to H. Why and how are you doing this? If for backup purposes, then I hope you're doing it from outside Windows, using an imaging or cloning software (e. g. Macrium or Acronis) on something bootable (Macrium will fit on a mini-CD). It would lessen the wear on the C drive, especially when I copy every single file (except the ones I don't copy.) As others have said, it wouldn't make that much difference compared to the general use of the C: that Windows is doing all the time anyway. (The point about hoping that F: and H: aren't just partitions on the same drive as C: is also a good one; you haven't said what F: and H: are.) [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf I think we'd all qualify for Heaven - even Richard Dawkins, if only to severely p*ss him off. Imagine? An eternity of knowing you were wrong. - Nick Odell, in UMRA 2011-5-22 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Making two partition copies in turn
On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 16:15:23 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote: In message , "Ken Blake, MVP" writes On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 08:33:45 -0400, micky wrote: I'm maintaining two (maybe even 3) copies of my C: drive. I've been copying everything from C to F and to H, but I'm thinking, maybe it would be better to copy C to F and then F to H. It would lessen the wear on the C drive, especially when I copy every single file (except the ones I don't copy.) Any reason not to do it this indirect way? Any reason to do it besides saving wear on the C: drive? What say ye? Why are you doing this? Is it for backup purposes? If so, it's better than no backup at all, but just barely. It's the worst possible way to backup. I don't recommend backup to a second non-removable hard drive because it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original and backup to many of the most common dangers: severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks, even theft of the computer. Even worse is what you are doing--backing up to partitions on the same hard drive. If the drive dies, all your backups die with it. In my view, secure backup needs to be on removable media, and not kept in the computer. For really secure backup (needed, for example, if the life of your business depends on your data) you should have multiple generations of backup, and at least one of those generations should be stored off-site. The OP doesn't say whether drives F and H are internal or external. He doesn't quite say it, but from the subject line, where he talks about partitions, I assumed they were partitions on a single drive he has. And even if they aren't partitions on a single drive, he calls them F and H, which almost certainly indicates that they are internals. If they were external, they would be F and F, since they wouldn't likely both be plugged in at once. And if they were both plugged in at once, they would be something like F and G, not F and H. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Making two partition copies in turn
In message , "Ken Blake,
MVP" writes On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 16:15:23 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: The OP doesn't say whether drives F and H are internal or external. He doesn't quite say it, but from the subject line, where he talks about partitions, I assumed they were partitions on a single drive he has. Ah, yes. You're absolutely correct. Although there is still some virtue in backing-up to the same drive, an overall failure of the drive will obviously render your backups inaccessible. -- Ian |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Making two partition copies in turn
In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Sun, 9 Aug 2015 14:55:21
+0200, "R.Wieser" wrote: Micky, Any reason not to do it this indirect way? Yes. If the first copy somehow gets mucked-up the second copy will also have that mucked-up file (read: will have no chance to make a good copy). Good point. Any reason to do it besides saving wear on the C: drive? Nope. And to be honest, if you think you need to worry about wear-and-tear while *reading* a drive you've really got a problem with whomever is the manufacturer of it. If you are worrying about wear-and-tear of the C: drive than also remember that Windows is doing a good job of doing burn-in testing on it, day after day (just think of the registry and or page files). :-) Okay. You've convinced me. It's amazing how hard they work, and how fast. Regards, Rudy Wieser -- Origional message: micky schreef in berichtnieuws ... I'm maintaining two (maybe even 3) copies of my C: drive. I've been copying everything from C to F and to H, but I'm thinking, maybe it would be better to copy C to F and then F to H. It would lessen the wear on the C drive, especially when I copy every single file (except the ones I don't copy.) Any reason not to do it this indirect way? Any reason to do it besides saving wear on the C: drive? What say ye? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Making two partition copies in turn
In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Sun, 9 Aug 2015 16:15:23
+0100, Ian Jackson wrote: In message , "Ken Blake, MVP" writes On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 08:33:45 -0400, micky wrote: I'm maintaining two (maybe even 3) copies of my C: drive. I've been copying everything from C to F and to H, but I'm thinking, maybe it would be better to copy C to F and then F to H. It would lessen the wear on the C drive, especially when I copy every single file (except the ones I don't copy.) Any reason not to do it this indirect way? Any reason to do it besides saving wear on the C: drive? What say ye? Why are you doing this? Is it for backup purposes? If so, it's better than no backup at all, but just barely. It's the worst possible way to backup. I don't recommend backup to a second non-removable hard drive because it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original and backup to many of the most common dangers: severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks, even theft of the computer. Even worse is what you are doing--backing up to partitions on the same hard drive. If the drive dies, all your backups die with it. In my view, secure backup needs to be on removable media, and not kept in the computer. For really secure backup (needed, for example, if the life of your business depends on your data) you should have multiple generations of backup, and at least one of those generations should be stored off-site. I wish I had been reading to correct the misimpression earlier. I tried to make the OP short and sweet and that causes its own problems. The OP doesn't say whether drives F and H are internal or external. As They're external. you say, external would be preferred, but I wouldn't have thought that the data on the C-drive would be get corrupted if it wasn't being written to (which presumably it isn't - especially if the cloning/imaging program is running from a CD or DVD). Of course, damage Yes, from a CD. from things like lightning strikes is a different matter, and there's a limit on what you can do. As for copying C to F and C to H, and C to F, then F to H, I can't see it making much difference. The latter has the advantage of allowing you to use the computer when you're doing F to H (although this will probably slow it down). F and H are on two separate HDDs but they don't have consecutive letters because one can't buy a small HDD anymore (and it would be more money per byte if you could). So with all the extra empty space, I put more partitions on each drive. A backup of my laptop, etc. They are sometimes** both plugged in because I use internal-style drives in a BlacX double dock. So if and when my C: drive fails, I can just mount one of the two copies inside the computer and it should be run right off the bat. When I set this up, I tried or at least intended to put all the data in another partition, on another drive, but something interfered and it didn't get done. I also tried to put all the data in one directory, and that got done mostly. So most of my backups are just c:\. c:\data c:\downloads and c:\...\Agent-data. For some reason I don't remember, Agent data got stuck in a separate directory. Well I guess I just didn't take the extra trouble to put it in C:\data, but maybe I will eventually. A complete backup is coming up soon because it has finally come to my attention that open and/or locked files were likely not backed up during all the previous backups. I've been reading articles, not all of them of course, both in newsgroups and on the web, on PC maintenance for 20 years, and afaicr, no one really emphasized this until lately. At least not enough for my slow mind to absorb. Maybe it's a feature of some good backup programs, but if they mention it, they don't mention it strongly enough that I realized the feature was missing from what I was using. If they said they were bootable, they didn't say why that mattered, and it didn't dawn on me. I would ask about all this the author of the software I have been using lately, but he's been sick. Thanks. **They would be connected less if I could get Safely Remove Hardware to work more often. Well, it worked just now, for the first time! and disconnected all the partitions on both drives, even though I only highlighted one partition. Maybe that's because they're all connected via one USB port. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Making two partition copies in turn
On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 21:34:03 -0400, micky
wrote: In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Sun, 9 Aug 2015 16:15:23 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: In message , "Ken Blake, MVP" writes On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 08:33:45 -0400, micky wrote: I'm maintaining two (maybe even 3) copies of my C: drive. I've been copying everything from C to F and to H, but I'm thinking, maybe it would be better to copy C to F and then F to H. It would lessen the wear on the C drive, especially when I copy every single file (except the ones I don't copy.) Any reason not to do it this indirect way? Any reason to do it besides saving wear on the C: drive? What say ye? Why are you doing this? Is it for backup purposes? If so, it's better than no backup at all, but just barely. It's the worst possible way to backup. I don't recommend backup to a second non-removable hard drive because it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original and backup to many of the most common dangers: severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks, even theft of the computer. Even worse is what you are doing--backing up to partitions on the same hard drive. If the drive dies, all your backups die with it. In my view, secure backup needs to be on removable media, and not kept in the computer. For really secure backup (needed, for example, if the life of your business depends on your data) you should have multiple generations of backup, and at least one of those generations should be stored off-site. I wish I had been reading to correct the misimpression earlier. I tried to make the OP short and sweet and that causes its own problems. OK, glad I was wrong and that they are external. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Macrium Reflect is THE tool for making backup copies of Windows XP | John Doe | Storage (alternative) | 10 | November 1st 10 11:16 PM |
Fishface recommends Macrium Reflect for making backup copies of Windows | John Doe | Storage (alternative) | 9 | December 16th 09 08:05 AM |
Partition Magic 8 kill my partition making fusion | Eduardo Sandino (MadMad) | Storage (alternative) | 2 | April 29th 07 11:16 AM |
Making One Partition? | Arthur Pratz | Homebuilt PC's | 2 | December 29th 04 08:06 AM |
Making copies of software CD-ROM | Howard Kaikow | Cdr | 6 | August 24th 03 08:23 PM |