partitioning and backup strategy etc.
in [Freeware]
|
From: M.L. on 20 Jul 2010 07:59 >> I don't backup C: >> When I install my programs I install as many as possible to D: which is >> backed up regularly. >I've never understood this practice especially with todays larger drives. >When you install a program a lot of the files end up in C:\Windows\ >System unless you tweak Windows to specify a different location for >system files. All the registry entries and application settings are on C >also. > >Backing up D with the installed programs on it is not going to help >(unless they are truely self contained portable apps) because when C >gets reformatted and Windows replaced, the programs on D have probably >lost all their dependencies and settings and wont run. You can't have >one without the other. On the contrary, I don't bother backing up my Program Files D drive because I've found that most installed programs can fix themselves if some of their dependencies are missing. I end up having to reinstall just a few picky D drive programs after a C drive restore.
From: Dave Doe on 20 Jul 2010 08:05 In article <13fbaba01faf549ef931d0c7e48e1305 @msgid.frell.theremailer.net>, not(a)here says... > > "will_456": > > I agree. > Installing non-portable apps on a different partition (which may be on a > different physical drive) is misguided for the reasons you state. > > A better solution is to create a boot partition sufficiently large to > house the op/sys AND Program Files and to take a regular image of it > for restoring when necessary. > > In my case I have a C:\ partition of 7GB and only about 1.5GB is used > (XP-Pro-SP3) for op/sys and apps. All the MS stuff like "restore points" > and "indexing" are disabled because I don't need them. > This means that 7GB is ample space and makes imaging very quick. How would imaging be any slower, on say a 2TB drive. Indeed it may well be quicker (if the drive is faster). (Let us assume that your install on both your system and a 2TB drive is identical (OS + apps)). -- Duncan.
From: Craig on 20 Jul 2010 14:44 On 07/20/2010 10:29 AM, Mark Warner wrote: > Craig wrote: >> <http://tahoe-lafs.org/~warner/tahoe.html> >> >> Anyone wanna play? > > That page hasn't been updated since March 2008. Is the project still > active? Quite. In fact, it's in a lot of disto repositories including Ubuntu's starting w/Lucid (10.04LTS)... <http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs> -- -Craig
From: Spamblk on 20 Jul 2010 23:52 "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in news:i1upj40458(a)news6.newsguy.com: > If you partition a disk into two volumes you still need to defrag > Volume 1 and Volume 2 which together would take the same time as > defragging the whole hard disk. That assumes that the rate of fragmentation occurs on both volumes at the same rate. A smaller partition, say 256 Mbyte, can be used as the "temp" directory which then directs some of the fragmenting away from any larger partitions. Also smaller partitions, even if heavily fragmented, are more efficient as the drive heads don't need to travel as far to read and write the fragments.
From: HTH on 21 Jul 2010 00:11
Dave Doe: HTH wrote: >> In my case I have a C:\ partition of 7GB and only about 1.5GB is used >> (XP-Pro-SP3) for op/sys and apps. All the MS stuff like "restore >> points" and "indexing" are disabled because I don't need them. >> This means that 7GB is ample space and makes imaging very quick. > >How would imaging be any slower, on say a 2TB drive. Indeed it may >well be quicker (if the drive is faster). > >(Let us assume that your install on both your system and a 2TB drive >is identical (OS + apps)). Sure, if you configure imaging s/w correctly and both disks in your example have identical contents, I guess the time should be the same or very similar. But some imaging s/w takes an image of the complete partition including all empty sectors, others can be configured to only image used sectors. HTH |