Partition size

[dadiOH]

If we will create a mirror image of operating system then we need
save it on a separate partition (E, so this wlll require to set 3
partitions C, D, E ?

No, you don't need a separate partition for an image, it is just a file and
can be stored anywhere.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

 

[SANTANDER]

I plan get Asus X58L Notebook, Dual Core T3200 2.0GHz, 2GB RAM, 250GB HDD.
No operating system.
I want install Win XP. Drivers available on the manufacturer's website.

Santander

 

[Guest]

If we will create a mirror image of operating system then we need save it on
a separate partition (E, so this wlll require to set 3 partitions C, D, E
?

Santander
----------

My partition decisions were made in the old days.
8GB was the break point where the allocation unit size got very wasteful.
The OS couldn't use a partition as big as the remaining disk size.
Then, for a while, there were 137GB limits.
Ended up with 3 partitions. Never had any reason to change...until
bloated VISTA wouldn't fit and I had to increase c:.

Not sure what you mean by mirror image. I think this actually means
something specific, but not clear what that is.

If you use a program like ghost or acronis true image or one of the
linux imaging programs, the result is an ordinary file that you can put
anywhere you want...except the partition you're imaging. No need for a
dedicated partition. There are programs, and I think Acronis can do it,
that can create a hidden partition for your backups.

I prefer the versatility of one ordinary file...well, I split it into
1GB segments so there are no issues with the format of media I want to
transfer it to for archival storage. It's nice to be able to free up a
lot of space on the rare occasion I need it. If it's a dedicated, hidden
partition, you don't have that option. Don't know how they handle
multiple backup images...I gave up on incremental backups years ago.
I have enough trouble finding one medium. I'd never be able to organize
all the pieces to restore an incremental backup.

One more thing...
Always boot from the backup program's rescue CD when making a backup.
If you backup from within windows, you're at the mercy of whatever
security and anti-piracy "features" that were hidden in the latest
automatic updates.
If you boot from the rescue CD, you can expect that you will get back
everything that was there.

I did a bunch of experiments with the backup program built into Vista
Ultimate.
Long story short...they were sorry for the inconvenience...I was
glad I'd made an image first. I didn't have the patience to try to
diagnose the issues.

Are we having fun yet?

 

[Daave]

I plan get Asus X58L Notebook, Dual Core T3200 2.0GHz, 2GB RAM,
250GB HDD.
No operating system.
I want install Win XP. Drivers available on the manufacturer's
website.

It sounds like you plan on a clean install of XP. Keep in mind that the
only way to bring in your laptop for warranty repair is to make sure you
revert to its original OS, which is Vista. So, use whatever method Asus
provides to create a Vista recovery CD or DVD. In all probablity, you
will never need to do this, but it is still a good idea, especially for
when you plan on selling or giving away the PC when you are done with
it.

Make it easy on yourself. Just make the one partition. Use a program
like Acronis True Image to *regularly* image the hard drive and store
these image archive files to an external hard drive.

If you absolutley want to create a second partition, it should be for
data only (e-mails, Word documents, MP3s, photos, etc.). In this case
you would regularly image the C: drive (which would have the OS and
programs), saving the image archive files to your external hard drive
*and* regularly back up the data on D: (You may also use the external
hard drive for this. One method is to use Windows Explorer. Or you can
use Windows's ntbackup or Acronis or whatever to automate the process).

But as long as you have a new laptop with a USB 2.0 connection, just
make the process as easy as possible (IMO): one partition (fewer steps
this way!). Make regular images. Remember, we're talking disaster
recovery. I assume that you will rarely need to perform an image
restoration, but just the fact that you're covered is what is important.

 

[SANTANDER]

yes, it will be clean install of XP. But this laptop comes without OS, I can
install whatever I want, Linux,etc
Not sure why Vista considered as original OS and warranty repair(i will ask
manufacturer). As far I understand, warranty is for notebook hardware, not
for operating system.
It will probably to take a huge time to take 250GB image to an external hard
drive?

And in case to create two partitions, will 30Gb partition OK for Windows and
bulky application programs I mentioned?

Santander

 

[Daave]

yes, it will be clean install of XP. But this laptop comes without OS,
I can
install whatever I want, Linux,etc
Not sure why Vista considered as original OS and warranty repair(i
will ask
manufacturer). As far I understand, warranty is for notebook hardware,
not
for operating system.
It will probably to take a huge time to take 250GB image to an
external hard
drive?

And in case to create two partitions, will 30Gb partition OK for
Windows and
bulky application programs I mentioned?

Laptops almost always come with operating systems, unless you are
purchasing it second-hand. According to these sites:

http://www.simplyasus.com/ASUS_X58L-AP004C_450681.html

http://www.laptopsdirect.co.uk/Asus_X58L-AP004C_Laptop_X58L-AP004C/version.asp

http://www.asuslaptop.co.uk/proddetail.php?prod=Asus_Laptop_X58L-AP004E

your laptop comes with Vista. That means you already are paying for a
license to run Vista (on *this particular* PC). You may certainly
perform a clean install of XP, as long as you are able to obtain
XP-specific drivers for all its hardware components. But almost all PC
manufacturers specify that you cannot remove the operating system if you
wish to have warranty work on it. Also, when it's time to sell/donate
your PC, it's probably best to return it to its original condition.
That's why I would create the Vista recovery disk.

It should take about fifteen minutes for your initial imaging of a 250GB
hard drive. Subsequent incremental images will take less time.

If you want to create a second partition for data (it's not really
necessary; I wouldn't do it; but it's a method some people choose and
there's nothing wrong with it), then 30GB will probably be large enough
for your operating system and programs. But since your hard drive is
250GB, you might as well give yourself a little more breathing room and
make it 40GB.

 

[Terry R.]

The date and time was Wednesday, December 31, 2008 4:30:54 AM, and on a
whim, Gerry pounded out on the keyboard:

Thanks for an interesting reply.

I have used a shared data partition and a shared pagefile partition.
Using a shared data partition -excel files from Windows 98 and Windows
XP created some poblems. Links are messed because of confusion over
drives in file paths. I dropped Windows 98 as it gave me little or
nothing. Now I have Windows XP and Vista dual booting but I have not
tried using a data sharing partition. I much prefer Windows XP to Vista.

I have come across recommendations to hide operating systems from each
other. Thus Vista can mess up System Restore in Windows XP. It looks
like when I get the inclination to experiment your thought are some I
could explore.

Thanks again.

Since all my OS's boot to C: (except for the Linux partition) and data
is always on D: and the programs are always on E:, that's never an
issue. All the other OS's are hidden. I don't share programs across OS
partitions as dadiOH does. Having an OS using C: on one and X: on
another may cause issues with a program, especially if there are entries
referring to shared folder locations. Keeping everything the same has
caused no issues with any program.

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

[Terry R.]

The date and time was Tuesday, December 30, 2008 8:45:34 PM, and on a
whim, Daave pounded out on the keyboard:

I recently worked on a Sony Vaio. It had three partitions (this was the
original factory configuration): One was the recovery partition (G:, I
believe). The second was C: (used for the OS and programs) and the third
was D: (which was the largest partition, used for data). If the the Vaio
recovery utility is run, C: gets reinstalled from scratch, but D: is
untouched. That's actually not that bad of an arrangement (as long as
the user makes a recovery CD).

This scenario sounds like what OP is talking about.

But if there is no recovery partition, I see little need for a D:
partition (i.e., just for data).

Hi Daave,

That does make sense.

But partitions on a single drive can lead to a sense of security that
unknowing users may think they have multiple drives, and wonder how they
lost everything when that single drive fails.

I use 3 drives; OS's on one drive, data on another (backed up daily to
a different drive), programs on yet another. Not much of an option for
laptops though.

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

[Terry R.]

The date and time was Wednesday, December 31, 2008 8:19:45 AM, and on a
whim, Daave pounded out on the keyboard:

It should take about fifteen minutes for your initial imaging of a 250GB
hard drive. Subsequent incremental images will take less time.

You've got a heck of a system to image 250 gig in 15 minutes...

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

[Gerry]

Terry

Thanks for the information. The issues are something I need to think
about.

--



Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[olfart]

The date and time was Wednesday, December 31, 2008 8:19:45 AM, and on a
whim, Daave pounded out on the keyboard:


You've got a heck of a system to image 250 gig in 15 minutes...

Try cloning instead of imaging. www.fssdev.com and check out Casper. Cone
your drive to an external drive. If you have a problem or drive failure in
your compute just remove it and install the cloned drive in it's place and
you are good to go.
I have 2 - 250gb SATA drives in my computer. After the initial copy it now
takes me about 7 minutes to clone each drive.to externals. I do it at least
once a week so I stay pretty much up to date.

 

[Terry R.]

The date and time was Wednesday, December 31, 2008 10:29:02 AM, and on a
whim, olfart pounded out on the keyboard:

Try cloning instead of imaging. www.fssdev.com and check out Casper. Cone
your drive to an external drive. If you have a problem or drive failure in
your compute just remove it and install the cloned drive in it's place and
you are good to go.
I have 2 - 250gb SATA drives in my computer. After the initial copy it now
takes me about 7 minutes to clone each drive.to externals. I do it at least
once a week so I stay pretty much up to date.

My backup method works fine for me. I have 3 hard drives; 1 for OS's, 1
for data, 1 for programs. Data is backed up to a different drive each
day. I create backup partitions of the OS's & program partitions
alternating between the other 2 drives. I use Partition Magic to copy
the partitions to the other drives, and also have images of each once
per month on 2 external drives.

But I still don't see someone imaging/cloning/whatever a full 250 gig in
15 minutes...


--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

[Anna]

My backup method works fine for me. I have 3 hard drives; 1 for OS's, 1
for data, 1 for programs. Data is backed up to a different drive each
day. I create backup partitions of the OS's & program partitions
alternating between the other 2 drives. I use Partition Magic to copy the
partitions to the other drives, and also have images of each once per
month on 2 external drives.

But I still don't see someone imaging/cloning/whatever a full 250 gig in
15 minutes...

Terry R.:
Obviously "Daave" would be in a better position than I to respond to his
assertion that "It should take about fifteen minutes for your initial
imaging of a 250GB hard drive." - (I'm assuming he's referring to the ATI
program).

But I just wanted to comment that many times during a discussion with a user
of a particular disk-cloning and/or disk-imaging program the user will
relate something along the same line (in terms of the unusually high speed
of the process he or she has undertaken). It invariably turns out that the
user is referring to the disk capacity of the HDD that was imaged, *not* the
amount of the data contents that was imaged. Whether that's the case in
Daave's example I don't know but imaging 250 GB worth of data in 15 minutes
would certainly pique most user's interest in a program that could
accomplish that feat!
Anna

 

[Daave]

The date and time was Wednesday, December 31, 2008 8:19:45 AM, and on
a whim, Daave pounded out on the keyboard:


You've got a heck of a system to image 250 gig in 15 minutes...

Hmmm. My bad!

I guess I was thinking about restoring! To OP: yes, it will take longer
to create the initial image, but keep in mind that when you use a
program like Acronis, you can also perform incremental images.

 

[olfart]

Terry R.:
Obviously "Daave" would be in a better position than I to respond to his
assertion that "It should take about fifteen minutes for your initial
imaging of a 250GB hard drive." - (I'm assuming he's referring to the ATI
program).

But I just wanted to comment that many times during a discussion with a
user of a particular disk-cloning and/or disk-imaging program the user
will relate something along the same line (in terms of the unusually high
speed of the process he or she has undertaken). It invariably turns out
that the user is referring to the disk capacity of the HDD that was
imaged, *not* the amount of the data contents that was imaged. Whether
that's the case in Daave's example I don't know but imaging 250 GB worth
of data in 15 minutes would certainly pique most user's interest in a
program that could accomplish that feat!
Anna

You have to know the difference between Imaging and Cloning.....
with a Cloning program like Casper you don't copy and write the data every
time. After the first copy is made the "clone" process takes over. The
program reads and compares the data on the source and destination discs.
Only data that has changed...or been added since the last time is written to
the destination disc. Unchanged data is already written to the destination
disc so the only writing done is the "updating". If very few changes have
been made since the last clone an updated disc with 250gb of data can be
made in a few minutes.
I have used Casper for years with good results. On 2 occaissions I have had
HD problems with my computer and after removing it and installing the clone
I was back up and running in a matter of minutes. The only data lost is that
which was created after the last clone was made....which would be the same
if you were making an image.

 

[SANTANDER]

I dont agree. This Asus laptop come withous OS, just DOS. I think,
manufacturer sells different versions of same laptop for different regions.
One version for UK, another version for USA, third version for Germany,
another for China, etc This is inexpensive economical notebook, some
versions come with Linux also. Probably this model not on sale in UK.
So there are nothing with Vista. Where is specified note if customer remove
the operating system than he lost the warranty?
I dont agree to buy notebook without warranty.(and I suppose the salesman
will not tell me about this point)

Do the reasoning about partition size true for desktop PC as well?

S.

 

[Bill in Co.]

1. My XP partition is 8.87 GB

2. Windows folder (WinXP + SP3) uses 1.77 GB

3. Most of my programs are on a Win98 partition. If I installed the lot
to
XP they would use another 2 GB.

So yes, 20 GB is way more than enough.

Nope. Not necessarily true, by any means.

Why people feel that they need that
much - or even more - for OS and programs is beyond me.

Simple. All the applications I have required it. And that includes all
my data, too, except NOT my audio and video files data, which are on another
partition).

Unless they are
massively into games, especially online games...those can suck up a LOT of
bytes.

Nope - no games. But some applications are pretty large. Like some of
Adobe's stuff is, as just one example.

 

[Anna]

You have to know the difference between Imaging and Cloning.....
with a Cloning program like Casper you don't copy and write the data every
time. After the first copy is made the "clone" process takes over. The
program reads and compares the data on the source and destination discs.
Only data that has changed...or been added since the last time is written
to the destination disc. Unchanged data is already written to the
destination disc so the only writing done is the "updating". If very few
changes have been made since the last clone an updated disc with 250gb of
data can be made in a few minutes.
I have used Casper for years with good results. On 2 occaissions I have
had HD problems with my computer and after removing it and installing the
clone I was back up and running in a matter of minutes. The only data lost
is that which was created after the last clone was made....which would be
the same if you were making an image.

olfart:
By any chance have you seen my post of this date (12/31) responding to your
recent post with the subject "Re: True Image 2009 warning"? If you haven't,
why not take a look at it? And Happy New Year.
Anna

 

[olfart]

olfart:
By any chance have you seen my post of this date (12/31) responding to
your recent post with the subject "Re: True Image 2009 warning"? If you
haven't, why not take a look at it? And Happy New Year.
Anna

I missed the post but found it with search.
I'm using 4.0 with no problems. I tried to go to 5.0 and it wouldn't copy.
As I recall there was an error message concerning "volume shadow copy?' I
started to go through some troubleshooting steps with tech support, but
didn't have the time to try everything they asked. So I decided to stick
with 4.0 and they gladly refunded my payment. If you have been using 5.0
with no error or warning messages you should be OK with it.
Happy New Year to you too.

 

[Lil' Dave]

New laptop without OS, 250GB hard drive. I plan install windows XP.
Does it make sense to divide hard drive into two partitions, one 20GB for
Win XP and programs (C), and the rest for data (D)?
Will 20GB enough for C partition? Or better just create one partition at
the maximum size possible? so the default number provided will be the
maximum space available and the best choice?

Santander

My opinion, depends. Assuming you leave XP at default settings including
location of the swapfile and its self-adjusting size, this is what I like to
do. First liberally determine how much 3rd party software you intend to
install in terms of GBs consumed, and stick with that in subsequent 3rd pary
app installations. Install all 3rd party applicatons to their native
location determned by the installation program. Determine the amouint of
RAM and multiply that figure by 1.5. Allow XP 4 GB itself. If you use any
3rd party software to render video, add another 4 GB for its "swapfile".
Add those numbers up and multiply by 2. This will allow any XP update
downloads and update installations to consume further partition space, and,
leave adequate space for defragmentation as well. That's the formula I use
for native XP OS partition location sizing.

There are variations in configuration of the entire layout like moving the
swapfile, or reducing the swapfile size, and so forth. Just stick with the
aforementioned numbers anyway for determining the XP partition size.

All non-XP downloads, user files, and anything else not previously mentioned
should be kept on an alternate partition(s) on the same hard drive.

One hint regarding CD/DVD drive letter designation, upon XP installation
immediately change that drive letter to something way down the scale. "S"
or "T: for instance. This will leave all partitions in their native drive
letter order, makes it easier to work with in my opinion. Leave all
subsequent partitions at primary type, not to exceed 3. Use NTFS, unless
you need FAT32 for some obscure application for that for saving purposes.

When you're satisfied with all of it, don't forget backing up all the
partitions to a removable hard drive in image file format.