Should I partition two hard drives for backup

I am looking for suggestions about the "best practices" for using
multiple partitions on the two physical hard drives in my computer.

I've Googled various .comp.* newsgroups, and I have noted that a few
idiosyncratic posters claim that partitioning (and also defragmenting,
by the way) is neither necessary not beneficial for "modern" 80GB hard
drives. They advocate that partitioning (and defragmenting) may have
been necessary during the olden days of yore (under FAT16, for
example), but now serves little utility. Some situations apparently
run counter to what others advocate (in other words: your milage may
vary).

Two desktop computer systems are to be formatted and partitioned:
System #1 - 300 MHz Pentium 2 processor, 384 MB RAM, two 80GB IDE hard
drives, system used for bulk storage of data files ("junk" awaiting to
be burned to CD-R and DVD) and for Internet access.
System #2 - 3 GHz Pentium 4 processor, 1GB RAM, two 120GB serial-ATA
hard drives, system used for Photoshop, MS-Access databases, and other
LAN busywork but not for Internet access. [Note: The storage available
is obscenely generous because today's hard drives are relatively
inexpensive.]

Operating systems will be Windows XP Pro on both computers. Norton
Ghost (SystemWorks 2004) will be used for image back-ups of
partitions. My hard-wired LAN is behind a router and freebie
ZoneAlarm. An external hard drive might be available for back-ups and
extra bulk storage. I've been happy with WinXP Home on a laptop
notebook computer, and perceive no benefit in booting into multiple
operating systems (Linux, Windows 98, etc.), although I am interested
in learning to use Norton Ghost to restore my system when I tire of
trying out "new and improved" software.

James Eshelman's "Windows Support Center" has an article, "Planning
Your Partitions" (version 3.5 - revised 2003 Dec 9), that has tickled
my fancy.
For his recommendations, go to
http://www.aumha.org/a/parts.php

My tenative plan-
Drive0:
C:\WinXP OS and maybe Norton Anti-Virus
E:\temporary files (folders like Recent, Temp, Temporary Internet
Files)
F:\partition to hold entire contents of some CD-ROMs (entire
MS-Office)
G:\backups of Drive 1 partitions (only H:\ and I:\)
Drive1:
D:\pagefile for WinXP, scratch disc for Photoshop, etc.
H:\Program Files (for all other software applications)
I:\My Documents (my saved data from applications, downloads)
J:\backups of Drive 0 partitions (only C:\)

My questions:

1- What are better suggestions for partitioning?

2- How should I synchronize my back-ups of WindowsXP with its various
patches, service packs, etc.? This probably will become more important
when its ServicePack 2 is released. I also use Norton Anti-Virus
(NAV), and noticed that Norton Internet Security downloaded an update
during January 2004 that now automated its "Live Update" to function
each time my computer boots. This suggests that I might need to
back-up WinXP every time my computer boots, since Microsoft and
Symantec will be force-feeding updates (updates enabled by default) to
keep safe my system from malicious code.

3- Should I bother to keep WindowsXP partitioned separately from my
various software applications (Program Files)? I've noticed that
almost all software installations write something or other to the
Windows Registry. If all the applications are so tightly bound to the
Registry, why bother with separate partitions? Norton Ghost might
embolden me to try lots of different software, but I think it also
might force me to keep a pen-and-paper workbook about which back-up
contains which programs.

What are the suggestions of the back-up guru about partitioning two
hard drives?

Hi there,

Personally, I like one small partition for windows, and then one other big
partition. The reason being, if you need to reinstall windows, you dont
lose all the data on the second partition. Fair enough, you usually have to
reinstall all your apps, but you wont lose your documents etc.

Having multiple partitions also seems a bit of a pain - what if you run out
of space on one but have plenty on another? Also, having the pagefile on a
separate partition may actually slow you down - the hard drive will be doing
more work going back and forth between partitions as it would if you kept
the pagefile on the partition you do most of the work from.

Anyway thats my setup - one for windows (about 5gb is what i use), and
absolutely everything else goes on the big partition.

Regards,
Adrian

"camera critter" <> wrote in message
news: om...
> I am looking for suggestions about the "best practices" for using
> multiple partitions on the two physical hard drives in my computer.
>
> I've Googled various .comp.* newsgroups, and I have noted that a few
> idiosyncratic posters claim that partitioning (and also defragmenting,
> by the way) is neither necessary not beneficial for "modern" 80GB hard
> drives. They advocate that partitioning (and defragmenting) may have
> been necessary during the olden days of yore (under FAT16, for
> example), but now serves little utility. Some situations apparently
> run counter to what others advocate (in other words: your milage may
> vary).
>
> Two desktop computer systems are to be formatted and partitioned:
> System #1 - 300 MHz Pentium 2 processor, 384 MB RAM, two 80GB IDE hard
> drives, system used for bulk storage of data files ("junk" awaiting to
> be burned to CD-R and DVD) and for Internet access.
> System #2 - 3 GHz Pentium 4 processor, 1GB RAM, two 120GB serial-ATA
> hard drives, system used for Photoshop, MS-Access databases, and other
> LAN busywork but not for Internet access. [Note: The storage available
> is obscenely generous because today's hard drives are relatively
> inexpensive.]
>
> Operating systems will be Windows XP Pro on both computers. Norton
> Ghost (SystemWorks 2004) will be used for image back-ups of
> partitions. My hard-wired LAN is behind a router and freebie
> ZoneAlarm. An external hard drive might be available for back-ups and
> extra bulk storage. I've been happy with WinXP Home on a laptop
> notebook computer, and perceive no benefit in booting into multiple
> operating systems (Linux, Windows 98, etc.), although I am interested
> in learning to use Norton Ghost to restore my system when I tire of
> trying out "new and improved" software.
>
> James Eshelman's "Windows Support Center" has an article, "Planning
> Your Partitions" (version 3.5 - revised 2003 Dec 9), that has tickled
> my fancy.
> For his recommendations, go to
> http://www.aumha.org/a/parts.php
>
> My tenative plan-
> Drive0:
> C:\WinXP OS and maybe Norton Anti-Virus
> E:\temporary files (folders like Recent, Temp, Temporary Internet
> Files)
> F:\partition to hold entire contents of some CD-ROMs (entire
> MS-Office)
> G:\backups of Drive 1 partitions (only H:\ and I:\)
> Drive1:
> D:\pagefile for WinXP, scratch disc for Photoshop, etc.
> H:\Program Files (for all other software applications)
> I:\My Documents (my saved data from applications, downloads)
> J:\backups of Drive 0 partitions (only C:\)
>
> My questions:
>
> 1- What are better suggestions for partitioning?
>
> 2- How should I synchronize my back-ups of WindowsXP with its various
> patches, service packs, etc.? This probably will become more important
> when its ServicePack 2 is released. I also use Norton Anti-Virus
> (NAV), and noticed that Norton Internet Security downloaded an update
> during January 2004 that now automated its "Live Update" to function
> each time my computer boots. This suggests that I might need to
> back-up WinXP every time my computer boots, since Microsoft and
> Symantec will be force-feeding updates (updates enabled by default) to
> keep safe my system from malicious code.
>
> 3- Should I bother to keep WindowsXP partitioned separately from my
> various software applications (Program Files)? I've noticed that
> almost all software installations write something or other to the
> Windows Registry. If all the applications are so tightly bound to the
> Registry, why bother with separate partitions? Norton Ghost might
> embolden me to try lots of different software, but I think it also
> might force me to keep a pen-and-paper workbook about which back-up
> contains which programs.
>
> What are the suggestions of the back-up guru about partitioning two
> hard drives?

"Adrian" <> wrote in message news:<401d3daf_5@127.0.0.1>...
>
> Personally, I like one small partition for windows, and then one other big
> partition.

What, if anything, do you backup?
How do you perform your backup?
What capacity hard drive does your computer have?
Your answers might give me some insight into why you chose your
particular strategy.

Does your computer allow the capability for a second hard drive? I've
learned that users with only one hard drive have different philosopies
than do users with two or more hard drives. A philosophy that works
well with the first system might be less than ideal with the second
system. A second hard drive gives expanded possibilities.

Do you espouse defragmenting? I've discovered that some people do,
some people do not. Noting my initial posting that I'm installing 80GB
and 120GB hard drives, I assume that a 20GB partition requires less
defragmentation time than does a 75GB - 115GB partition. But on the
other hand, one of the objectives of wise partitioning is to contain
"fragmentation contagion" (as charmingly named in Eshelman's article)
within discrete partitions. In theory, some of my partitions will be
relatively immune to fragmentation, and some partitions will not
require backup.


> The reason being, if you need to reinstall windows, you dont
> lose all the data on the second partition.

You and I both agree that the operating system should be on its own
partition.

You and I both agree that data are better protected when they are in
their own partition. Being in their own partition minimizes the
possibility that data will be overwritten during the reboot from a
crash or bad shutdown. Deleted files usually can be undeleted if they
haven't been overwritten by other hard drive activity.


> Fair enough, you usually have to
> reinstall all your apps, but you wont lose your documents etc.
>

Now you've touched upon my tender area. Having been there and done
that(reinstalling Windows, reinstalling software), I've come to the
conclusion that I don't want to return there if I can prevent it. When
my desktop computer crashed last time (due to my installing new
hardware ontop of an inadequate power supply), the anticipatory dread
of my spending several days reinstalling software motivated me towards
this plan of dual hard drives with crisscrossing image backups. Once
burned, twice shy.

In my humble opinion [and with apology to the grammar police], it
ain't no trivial matter to reinstall significant amounts of software
from either their CD-ROMs or from Internet downloads. I grant that
keeping together the various CD-ROMs at one physical location is
merely a housekeeping issue, but what about the lengthy time involved
with the reinstallations? What about all of the various tweaks and
updates and patches and revised drivers? For example, a friend during
December had me delete Win98se and clean install WinXP Home on his
computer, which was an easy task (the WinXP retail CD also contained
ServicePack1). However, when I then surfed to the Windows Update
website, there were 17 critical updates that needed to be downloaded
to his computer, and several of them required individual download
followed by rebooting before the next update could be downloaded.
Again, I dread the drudgery of reinstalling software.

Quite frankly, I'm hoping that Norton "Ghost" will minimize my need to
reinstall software. Newsgroup posters using "Ghost" or PowerQuest
"DriveImage" (or other drive-imaging software) tend to boast that
their computers are fully functioning within 5 minutes - 10 minutes
after a crash necessated the reinstallation of their software.


> Having multiple partitions also seems a bit of a pain - what if you run out
> of space on one but have plenty on another?

I assume that you're absolutely certain that Windows' various updates
and service packs are never going to outgrow the 5GB that you
allocated on your C:\ partition? With 80GB and 120GB hard drives each
divided into only three or four partitions, I'm assuming that adequate
space can be allocated.


> Also, having the pagefile on a
> separate partition may actually slow you down - the hard drive will be doing
> more work going back and forth between partitions as it would if you kept
> the pagefile on the partition you do most of the work from.

Your contention is different than what James Eshelman
[http://www.aumha.org/a/parts.php] and Alex Nichol
[http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm/php] recommend on their webpages.
Again, this issue partially hinges upon how many physical hard drives
are in your computer. Nichol recommends that the WinXP pagefile be
left on the C:\ partition if only one physical drive is present, but
that head movement ("seeking") will be minimized when the WinXP
pagefile be moved to the second physical drive. [Please note that two
physical hard drives are being discussed, not two logical partitions
on one drive.]

Also, the WinXP pagefile can be a major source of file fragmentation
if it is in the same partition as your work area. Eshelman recommends,
"I am a strong advocate of having the swap file on its own partition,"
and he also writes, "In either case, there are other significant
advantages to having the swap file on its own partition, so you may
want to do this even if you get no performance gain, or even if you
get a small performance loss."


Thank you, Adrian, for your reply.
I have to format two desktop computers, and I appreciate that someone
will make me probe through my plans.

"camera critter" <> wrote in message
news: om...

> What, if anything, do you backup?
> How do you perform your backup?
> What capacity hard drive does your computer have?
> Your answers might give me some insight into why you chose your
> particular strategy.

I dont backup at all, mainly because I dont have anything worth backing up,
but in general I dont really need to since I have all my data on the 2nd
partition safe from a possible format and clean install of windows.

My computer has two 160gb drives in raid 0, effectively giving me 320gb in
one drive.

> Does your computer allow the capability for a second hard drive?

As above, my raid set up uses 2 drives, but essentially it acts as only one.

> Do you espouse defragmenting? I've discovered that some people do,
> some people do not. Noting my initial posting that I'm installing 80GB
> and 120GB hard drives, I assume that a 20GB partition requires less
> defragmentation time than does a 75GB - 115GB partition. But on the
> other hand, one of the objectives of wise partitioning is to contain
> "fragmentation contagion" (as charmingly named in Eshelman's article)
> within discrete partitions. In theory, some of my partitions will be
> relatively immune to fragmentation, and some partitions will not
> require backup.

I've noticed my small windows partition fragments quite quickly where as my
other huge partition doesnt. However, both fragment over time and
especially on the big partition, the longer you leave it, the longer it
takes - I usually defragment both partitions from time to time when im in a
"cleaning" mood

> You and I both agree that data are better protected when they are in
> their own partition. Being in their own partition minimizes the
> possibility that data will be overwritten during the reboot from a
> crash or bad shutdown. Deleted files usually can be undeleted if they
> haven't been overwritten by other hard drive activity.

Definately - i've suggested the two partition method to many of my friends
and all of them are seeing the benefits of it now

> Quite frankly, I'm hoping that Norton "Ghost" will minimize my need to
> reinstall software. Newsgroup posters using "Ghost" or PowerQuest
> "DriveImage" (or other drive-imaging software) tend to boast that
> their computers are fully functioning within 5 minutes - 10 minutes
> after a crash necessated the reinstallation of their software.

Norton Ghost is a top piece of software - what I usually do after a
reformat, is get windows up and running, install all the updates, all the
software I require etc, then make a ghost image of the windows partition -
meaning that if your computer goes tits up, you can restore the image and
your pretty much back to normal. You can make images as frequent as you
like.

> I assume that you're absolutely certain that Windows' various updates
> and service packs are never going to outgrow the 5GB that you
> allocated on your C:\ partition? With 80GB and 120GB hard drives each
> divided into only three or four partitions, I'm assuming that adequate
> space can be allocated.

I used to run windows xp on a 3gb partition I only use 5gb as im a tight
bugger on space and if its better used on my other partition then i would
rather thats where it was - you can always set a larger amount to windows if
you wish, but 5gb has been plenty for me.

> > Also, having the pagefile on a
> > separate partition may actually slow you down - the hard drive will be
doing
> > more work going back and forth between partitions as it would if you
kept
> > the pagefile on the partition you do most of the work from.
>
> Your contention is different than what James Eshelman
> [http://www.aumha.org/a/parts.php] and Alex Nichol
> [http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm/php] recommend on their webpages.
> Again, this issue partially hinges upon how many physical hard drives
> are in your computer. Nichol recommends that the WinXP pagefile be
> left on the C:\ partition if only one physical drive is present, but
> that head movement ("seeking") will be minimized when the WinXP
> pagefile be moved to the second physical drive. [Please note that two
> physical hard drives are being discussed, not two logical partitions
> on one drive.]
>
> Also, the WinXP pagefile can be a major source of file fragmentation
> if it is in the same partition as your work area. Eshelman recommends,
> "I am a strong advocate of having the swap file on its own partition,"
> and he also writes, "In either case, there are other significant
> advantages to having the swap file on its own partition, so you may
> want to do this even if you get no performance gain, or even if you
> get a small performance loss."

I'm not very clued up on page files, personally with 1GB of memory i dont
see why windows should even need a page file! Perhaps my solution isnt
great, but it certainly doesnt cause me any problems

> Thank you, Adrian, for your reply.
> I have to format two desktop computers, and I appreciate that someone
> will make me probe through my plans.

No problem, I personally feel no need to create loads of partitions as I
feel in the long run they will only get on my nerves, but everyone has their
own preferences

Best Regards,
-
Adrian