several logical partitions or several mounted logical partitions?

[Guest]

I am building a new small office system and after much research have decided
to format my hdd with separate partitions for OS, Documents and Settings,
Program Files, Temp files.

It seems that the traditional way to do this is to reset paths for each of
these items to the new location (in the registry, or environment variables).
However, it seems that doing this via mounted logical partitions (logical
drives) is a very easy way to do this. For example; I could mount a partition
as C:\Documents and Settings, and another as C:\Program Files. In this manner
all Documents and Settings activity and all programs installed would
automatically be on these partitions. The operation would be transparent to
the user.

Am I full of BS or is this a viable way to do this? What's the downside if
any?

Also, I think the Windows Temp folders are moved to a different partition by
setting the system environmental variables to the new path. Please correct me
if I am wrong. Since the users temp folders are contained in Documents and
Settings I suppose they don't have to be redirected unless I wanted them on a
partition different than the Documents and Settings partition.

I have found virtually no posts in the XP forums relating to Mounted Logical
Partitions. Whats up with that?

 

[Ron Sommer]

There is no advantage to having program files on a separate partition for
most programs, because the programs have Registry entries. If XP is
reinstalled, the programs have to be reinstalled also.

 

[Guest]

Not if the OS is reinstalled from a backup or image backup in which case all
registry entries are preserved. I have spent a week researching this on the
network and talking to professionals and almost without exception every
network professional and MVP suggests this partition scheme as a fundamental
way to imrprove system stability and performance.

It is not the partition scheme I am asking about, it is the use of mounted
logical drives that I am referencing. It seems like nobody knows anything
about them except network administrators.

 

[Malke]

Not if the OS is reinstalled from a backup or image backup in which
case all registry entries are preserved. I have spent a week
researching this on the network and talking to professionals and
almost without exception every network professional and MVP suggests
this partition scheme as a fundamental way to imrprove system
stability and performance.

It is not the partition scheme I am asking about, it is the use of
mounted logical drives that I am referencing. It seems like nobody
knows anything about them except network administrators.

See my rather detailed answer to your first post. If you can't find your
previous post, use Google Groups Advanced Search and look for your
name. You are making things far more complex than they need to be for a
simple small office setup.

Malke

 

[Guest]

Hi Malke,
I saw your other post. You seem to be against a multi partition
installation, something that is highly recommended by many other
professionals. Could you please discuss why you think this should not be
done. I realize that just throwing everything on one partition is easy and
fast but it isn't necessarily the best way to go. Your suggestion of using 2
drives doesn't seem to have any greater benefit than putting the partitions
on 1 drive especially since, as I already mentioned, I have a backup drive in
place which provides me with adequate redundency. I also have off system
backup and archival storage. If you would like to address my question about
using mounted logical drives I am an eager listener. Even if I used your
suggested configuration I think mounted partitions could still be used.
Please comment. If you really have no idea about using mounted partitions
please say so. It seems to be a subject that few people know anything about.

 

[Kerry Brown]

Hi Malke,
I saw your other post. You seem to be against a multi partition
installation, something that is highly recommended by many other
professionals. Could you please discuss why you think this should not be
done. I realize that just throwing everything on one partition is easy and
fast but it isn't necessarily the best way to go. Your suggestion of using
2
drives doesn't seem to have any greater benefit than putting the
partitions
on 1 drive especially since, as I already mentioned, I have a backup drive
in
place which provides me with adequate redundency. I also have off system
backup and archival storage. If you would like to address my question
about
using mounted logical drives I am an eager listener. Even if I used your
suggested configuration I think mounted partitions could still be used.
Please comment. If you really have no idea about using mounted partitions
please say so. It seems to be a subject that few people know anything
about.

It all comes down to personal preference. There are valid arguments for both
approaches. In the end go with whatever you are comfortable with. As long as
you have a backup strategy that you use and test on a regular basis it
doesn't matter how the OS, programs, and data are arranged. In my experience
the most likely cause of data loss is the following in order of most likely
to least likely: 1) hard drive failure, 2) user error, 3) file corruption.
As you can see the scenario you are trying to protect against, file
corruption, is the least likely to occur.

Kerry

 

[bxf]

Not if the OS is reinstalled from a backup or image backup...

I presume you mean RESTORED.

...in which case all registry entries are preserved.

Yes, but if you don't restore Program Files at the same time, from a
backup that was taken at together with the OS backup, with its contents
may be out of sync with the Registry.