Partitioning strategies
in [Cakewalk]
|
Prev: Disk trouble
Next: Sonar 8.5.2 is out
From: Nil on 10 Dec 2009 11:29 Here's a question related to my disk problem question... I've replaced my old 250 GB system disk with a 600 GB one. How should I partition it? I would like to be able to recover more easily from a disaster like this one, and keeping a disk image would be a good thing. But I don't really have room to keep spare 600 GB images hanging around. So, would it be a better idea to make a smaller system partition for the OS only, maybe some applications? If so, how big? Or is this an old-fashioned idea?
From: Steve_Karl on 10 Dec 2009 12:14 The largest OS partition I've ever needed has been 40GB and that's loaded with 3D games etc. My normal work OS part. is 20GB and my audio OS parts. are 10GB and all have plenty of space left. Simply check to see how much space you use and leave 40 to 50 percent empty to be safe. sk "Nil" <rednoise(a)REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote in message news:Xns9CDD74FB035A2nilch1(a)130.133.1.4... > Here's a question related to my disk problem question... > > I've replaced my old 250 GB system disk with a 600 GB one. How should I > partition it? I would like to be able to recover more easily from a > disaster like this one, and keeping a disk image would be a good thing. > But I don't really have room to keep spare 600 GB images hanging > around. So, would it be a better idea to make a smaller system > partition for the OS only, maybe some applications? If so, how big? Or > is this an old-fashioned idea?
From: John Braner on 10 Dec 2009 12:40 Nil wrote: > Here's a question related to my disk problem question... > > I've replaced my old 250 GB system disk with a 600 GB one. How should I > partition it? I would like to be able to recover more easily from a > disaster like this one, and keeping a disk image would be a good thing. > But I don't really have room to keep spare 600 GB images hanging > around. So, would it be a better idea to make a smaller system > partition for the OS only, maybe some applications? If so, how big? Or > is this an old-fashioned idea? I'd make 50GB for Windows and the rest for a D: drive (or whatever letter you like) for data. Remember though - when True Image backs up your Windows partition, the image is only the size of the used part of the partition, and then compressed. So even if you left the one 600GB partition, and used 20GB for your Windows install - your image file would only be something like 15GB (not 600GB) -- =========== John Braner jbraner(a)NOblueyonderSPAM.co.uk http://www.soundclick.com/johnbraner
From: Nil on 10 Dec 2009 14:06 On 10 Dec 2009, John Braner <me(a)myhouse.com> wrote in cakewalk.audio: > I'd make 50GB for Windows and the rest for a D: drive (or whatever > letter you like) for data. Do you try to keep applications off that partition? > Remember though - when True Image backs up your Windows partition, > the image is only the size of the used part of the partition, and > then compressed. So even if you left the one 600GB partition, and > used 20GB for your Windows install - your image file would only be > something like 15GB (not 600GB) That's what I expected from my previous experience with True Image, but I was surprised when I manged to make the image of my damaged partition that it made the image as large as the original partition. I suppose that's related to the same file system corruption that sparked this whole thing.
From: John Braner on 10 Dec 2009 17:25
Nil wrote: > On 10 Dec 2009, John Braner <me(a)myhouse.com> wrote in > cakewalk.audio: > >> I'd make 50GB for Windows and the rest for a D: drive (or whatever >> letter you like) for data. > > Do you try to keep applications off that partition? No - I'd put apps on it but keep data and "my documents" etc off of it. > >> Remember though - when True Image backs up your Windows partition, >> the image is only the size of the used part of the partition, and >> then compressed. So even if you left the one 600GB partition, and >> used 20GB for your Windows install - your image file would only be >> something like 15GB (not 600GB) > > That's what I expected from my previous experience with True Image, but > I was surprised when I manged to make the image of my damaged partition > that it made the image as large as the original partition. I suppose > that's related to the same file system corruption that sparked this > whole thing. You must have done a block by block image (whatever they call it). That's why you're restoring bad blocks. By default it does file based backups. -- =========== John Braner jbraner(a)NOblueyonderSPAM.co.uk http://www.soundclick.com/johnbraner |