- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
Correct me if I am wrong but this thread has really grown too big for itself!
That's why us on dial up have it set to partition itself after every XX posts.
Breaking something bigger into smaller chunks makes things more manageable
That's why us on dial up have it set to partition itself after every XX posts.
Breaking something bigger into smaller chunks makes things more manageable
Bober,
My point is that u can get same effect/perf that you get with SpeedDisk (which co$t) by making a small partition at the beginning of the drive .. which you can do for free (cuz FDISK is free). You cannot, however, create an image for free. There's no free app that gives you the advantages u get from creating/restoring images. Do you not see how these are two diff cases? If you want to cite cost as a disadvantage of creating/restoring images, I have no prob w/ that. It's a valid point. But I will *gladly* pay for the ability to restore my system in minutes, rather than a week. To me, it's worth far more than the cost.
I see the advantages of partitioning like this:
1. Ability to create back-up images of my boot drive, and restore them easily & quickly (in minutes)
2. Better/cleaner organization/grouping of data. This is admittedly personal pref, and it ties into #1 above. vi_edit's earlier post said this most succinctly & eloquently. If someone finds it easier to organize their data with a single, large partition, I have no prob w/ that, but this method does not work best for me.
3. Multiple O/S'es - the single-partition side already concedes on this point .. we'll take it, one point for Team Partitioning.
4. Better perf - both in STRs & access times - by making a small partition at the leading edge of the drive. You can get the same effect/perf with SpeedDisk, but you'll have to pay for that. Personally I use both partitioning *and* SpeedDisk to optimize my system/disk perf .. in addition to loading my OS'es, apps, & swap/page file to fast, 10Krpm, multi-tsking-capable SCSI drives.
5. One point that may not have been addressed is the *future* possibilty for multi-OS booting. Even if you have only one OS now, it's better to partition for another, when you first set-up/partition your drive/system .. just in case you might wanna install another OS in the future. Much more of a hassle to re-partition later, after you've already have used the drive for one OS/apps. If you partition for another OS when you first set up your drive/system, you'll have no probs should you decide later you wanna try dual-booting, or even multi-booting.
Notice I didn't mention anything about cluster slack & more disk space. I could give a flying happy banana-split about this, but it's generally agreed that smaller partitions offer better space utilization that bigger one .. whether or not this amount is significant is open to debate, but to me, it's not a major issue for partition. I will add that I try to keep my partitions under 16GB .. I have many at 15.9GB .. and only one drive with a larger partition, dedicated solely for video capture (18GB).
LXi, the first partition you create will be at the beginning of the drive, the next will be next, and so on. The last partition will be at the slow end of the drive. If you ca get your hands on partition Magic, it has a great graphical interface that shows how the partitions are set up.
My point is that u can get same effect/perf that you get with SpeedDisk (which co$t) by making a small partition at the beginning of the drive .. which you can do for free (cuz FDISK is free). You cannot, however, create an image for free. There's no free app that gives you the advantages u get from creating/restoring images. Do you not see how these are two diff cases? If you want to cite cost as a disadvantage of creating/restoring images, I have no prob w/ that. It's a valid point. But I will *gladly* pay for the ability to restore my system in minutes, rather than a week. To me, it's worth far more than the cost.
I see the advantages of partitioning like this:
1. Ability to create back-up images of my boot drive, and restore them easily & quickly (in minutes)
2. Better/cleaner organization/grouping of data. This is admittedly personal pref, and it ties into #1 above. vi_edit's earlier post said this most succinctly & eloquently. If someone finds it easier to organize their data with a single, large partition, I have no prob w/ that, but this method does not work best for me.
3. Multiple O/S'es - the single-partition side already concedes on this point .. we'll take it, one point for Team Partitioning.
4. Better perf - both in STRs & access times - by making a small partition at the leading edge of the drive. You can get the same effect/perf with SpeedDisk, but you'll have to pay for that. Personally I use both partitioning *and* SpeedDisk to optimize my system/disk perf .. in addition to loading my OS'es, apps, & swap/page file to fast, 10Krpm, multi-tsking-capable SCSI drives.
5. One point that may not have been addressed is the *future* possibilty for multi-OS booting. Even if you have only one OS now, it's better to partition for another, when you first set-up/partition your drive/system .. just in case you might wanna install another OS in the future. Much more of a hassle to re-partition later, after you've already have used the drive for one OS/apps. If you partition for another OS when you first set up your drive/system, you'll have no probs should you decide later you wanna try dual-booting, or even multi-booting.
Notice I didn't mention anything about cluster slack & more disk space. I could give a flying happy banana-split about this, but it's generally agreed that smaller partitions offer better space utilization that bigger one .. whether or not this amount is significant is open to debate, but to me, it's not a major issue for partition. I will add that I try to keep my partitions under 16GB .. I have many at 15.9GB .. and only one drive with a larger partition, dedicated solely for video capture (18GB).
LXi, the first partition you create will be at the beginning of the drive, the next will be next, and so on. The last partition will be at the slow end of the drive. If you ca get your hands on partition Magic, it has a great graphical interface that shows how the partitions are set up.
Radboy,
<<What makes you say your OS & swap will *likely* end up at the beginning of a big drive?>>
Think about it. They're the first things you install on a fresh drive. Doesn't matter if it's a 3G partition at the beginning of the drive or a 45G partition at the beginning of the drive. In any case, the OS will end up at the physical beginning of the disk (the fastest portion for STR), and it will create its swap file immediately. Thus both the swap file and the OS will end up at the beginning anyways, regardless of your partitioning scheme. And if you *really* want to keep the swap file near the beginning of the drive (even though it's a hopeless cause and no test anywhere has shown a real-world performance improvment) just make it permanent, or use Norton Speedisk.
<<Say we have a 46GB drive .. w/ a 3GB partition at the beginning of the drive. Do you not think that access times for all data in this 1st 3GB partition will be better/lower/faster than if the read/write heads had to travel the full length of the drive .. to the other side .. to access/write data?>>
Funny, this is exactly the problem with your argument. You're assuming that normal multitasking usage will always be confined to what you place in the small partition (OS, swap, applications), resulting in quicker access times. But look at the usage pattern for a typical computer, and you'll see that the seeks are all over the place. Why? Because not only must the computer constantly retrieve data from the OS, it must also retrieve raw data from other areas of the drive -- documents, digital media files, game data, etc. So any gains from placing certain files together are immediately erased by pushing other files apart.
That's is why you don't see any serious computing site analysing this particular optmization theory using a small OS partition and some real world benchmarks. They immediately realize that (1) the OS, swap, and applications are likely going to end up at the beginning the drive even in a single partition environment anyway, and (2) the drive is still going to have to seek back and forth from end to end in a multi-partition setup to do its normal multitasking retrieval of documents, media files, game data, etc.
<<Are you familair with the hard disk bench HD Tach? This app has a setting called "Advanced Size Check". ASC checks the whole drive, and yields the most accurate results (no HD Tach isn't perfect). If you *don't* put a check in the ASC box, HD Tach only checks the first 8GB of the drive. It truncates the test at 8GB.>>
That's bloody foolish. OF COURSE you'll get better results when you pretend your drive is only an 8G -- because you're assuming your data doesn't exist. As soon as you open your eyes and realize that normal drive multitasking is going to involve to involve your data as well, you'll understand why this benchmark proves nothing.
Here's a good question, which of the following setups yields best performance on a 20G drive?
- A 4g OS and application partition with data stored in the remaining 16g
- A big 20G partition with the OS and application naturally falling near the beginning of the drive anyhow, and data stored in logical order.
Obviously, it's a trick question. They're both equally fast: in both cases, the drive must seek back and forth across its length, and in both cases, the OS, applications, and data, end up in relatively the same physical locations.
<<If the heads only have a tight/limited area from which they access data, then those seeks/accesses will be faster/better.>>
Again, you're being naiive. You're assuming that the drive seeks will pay any attention to your little partitioning scheme. See above. You're still going to have to seek to your data just as much, destroying any performance gain.
But please, don't take my word for it, and don't struggle with your own inept reasoning. Just show us some real world benchmarks. Do it your way, run CC Winstone 2001, then do it the right way, with a full partition and clean install, and run CC Winstone 2001 again.
You'll quickly see why no major reviewer has bothered to address such rubbish.
<<I've been advised to quit posting in this thread>>
Sound advice: there's really not much more for you to say in favor of partitioning. Every single issue you've brought up has been dismissed as either not beneficial at all, or possible even with a single partition.
PCResources,
<<Modus, you are always stating your opinions as facts>>
As opposed to yourself: stating no facts at all and making an insane blanket statement like "for a 46G you should use at least 3 partitions" without an ounce of justification, instead choosing to prop up your arguments with witless ad hominems.
<<Fdisk is easy to use, it comes with instructions... If you do not understand it, go back to the computer shop, tell them to take your computer back, you are to stupid to use it>>
Oh, brother. Do I even need to reply to this? We'll ignore your blatant disdain for the non computer geek for now, and just point out that the case against partitioning is not that FDISK is too hard to use, but that it yields no tangile benefit for the majority of users. Similarly, we discourage taking out a window by throwing a baseball through, not because of the slight difficulty in using the baseball to hit the window, but because there are easier, simpler, less destructive ways of accomplishing the same task.
Modus
<<What makes you say your OS & swap will *likely* end up at the beginning of a big drive?>>
Think about it. They're the first things you install on a fresh drive. Doesn't matter if it's a 3G partition at the beginning of the drive or a 45G partition at the beginning of the drive. In any case, the OS will end up at the physical beginning of the disk (the fastest portion for STR), and it will create its swap file immediately. Thus both the swap file and the OS will end up at the beginning anyways, regardless of your partitioning scheme. And if you *really* want to keep the swap file near the beginning of the drive (even though it's a hopeless cause and no test anywhere has shown a real-world performance improvment) just make it permanent, or use Norton Speedisk.
<<Say we have a 46GB drive .. w/ a 3GB partition at the beginning of the drive. Do you not think that access times for all data in this 1st 3GB partition will be better/lower/faster than if the read/write heads had to travel the full length of the drive .. to the other side .. to access/write data?>>
Funny, this is exactly the problem with your argument. You're assuming that normal multitasking usage will always be confined to what you place in the small partition (OS, swap, applications), resulting in quicker access times. But look at the usage pattern for a typical computer, and you'll see that the seeks are all over the place. Why? Because not only must the computer constantly retrieve data from the OS, it must also retrieve raw data from other areas of the drive -- documents, digital media files, game data, etc. So any gains from placing certain files together are immediately erased by pushing other files apart.
That's is why you don't see any serious computing site analysing this particular optmization theory using a small OS partition and some real world benchmarks. They immediately realize that (1) the OS, swap, and applications are likely going to end up at the beginning the drive even in a single partition environment anyway, and (2) the drive is still going to have to seek back and forth from end to end in a multi-partition setup to do its normal multitasking retrieval of documents, media files, game data, etc.
<<Are you familair with the hard disk bench HD Tach? This app has a setting called "Advanced Size Check". ASC checks the whole drive, and yields the most accurate results (no HD Tach isn't perfect). If you *don't* put a check in the ASC box, HD Tach only checks the first 8GB of the drive. It truncates the test at 8GB.>>
That's bloody foolish. OF COURSE you'll get better results when you pretend your drive is only an 8G -- because you're assuming your data doesn't exist. As soon as you open your eyes and realize that normal drive multitasking is going to involve to involve your data as well, you'll understand why this benchmark proves nothing.
Here's a good question, which of the following setups yields best performance on a 20G drive?
- A 4g OS and application partition with data stored in the remaining 16g
- A big 20G partition with the OS and application naturally falling near the beginning of the drive anyhow, and data stored in logical order.
Obviously, it's a trick question. They're both equally fast: in both cases, the drive must seek back and forth across its length, and in both cases, the OS, applications, and data, end up in relatively the same physical locations.
<<If the heads only have a tight/limited area from which they access data, then those seeks/accesses will be faster/better.>>
Again, you're being naiive. You're assuming that the drive seeks will pay any attention to your little partitioning scheme. See above. You're still going to have to seek to your data just as much, destroying any performance gain.
But please, don't take my word for it, and don't struggle with your own inept reasoning. Just show us some real world benchmarks. Do it your way, run CC Winstone 2001, then do it the right way, with a full partition and clean install, and run CC Winstone 2001 again.
You'll quickly see why no major reviewer has bothered to address such rubbish.
<<I've been advised to quit posting in this thread>>
Sound advice: there's really not much more for you to say in favor of partitioning. Every single issue you've brought up has been dismissed as either not beneficial at all, or possible even with a single partition.
PCResources,
<<Modus, you are always stating your opinions as facts>>
As opposed to yourself: stating no facts at all and making an insane blanket statement like "for a 46G you should use at least 3 partitions" without an ounce of justification, instead choosing to prop up your arguments with witless ad hominems.
<<Fdisk is easy to use, it comes with instructions... If you do not understand it, go back to the computer shop, tell them to take your computer back, you are to stupid to use it>>
Oh, brother. Do I even need to reply to this? We'll ignore your blatant disdain for the non computer geek for now, and just point out that the case against partitioning is not that FDISK is too hard to use, but that it yields no tangile benefit for the majority of users. Similarly, we discourage taking out a window by throwing a baseball through, not because of the slight difficulty in using the baseball to hit the window, but because there are easier, simpler, less destructive ways of accomplishing the same task.
Modus
I disagree that, in normal operation, the drive will have to travel full stroke to the other/slower side .. if all I have there are Ghost images, back-up files, etc .. files I don't use on a daily basis.
I also disagree that your swap will automatically be at the leading edge if you don't have a disk optimization utility like SpeedDisk put it there. I have seen this with my own eyes, by using SpeedDisk. I saw where it was to start (at the far end of the partition) before the SpeedDisk optimization.
Why is my drive gonna seek to another partition for documents when my docs are on my boot drive? For games, yes, the drive will seek to another partition, but that's cuz I want them on another partition. But it still won't seek to the opposite end of the drive, cuz games are limited to the partition next to the boot. I don't game very much, so it's not a big issue for me, but everything that I need on a daily basis goes in the boot partition (O/S, apps, docs, swap/paging). The drive has no need to travel to another partition in normal usage. Things like MP3s aren't even on a SCSI drive. I have on a *storage* drive (IDE/ATA).
With one big partition, when you upgrade a part of the OS, or apps, how do you know the new files will not be placed at the end of the drive? .. forcing the drive to seek all the way to the other end to retrive them. I know my files will not do this, cuz I have them confined to a small, 3GB partition. The way I have partitioned my drive, there is no need, in normal, everyday usage, for the drive to seek to the far/slow end of the drive .. where I have files that are not accessed during normal usage .. like Ghost images, back-up files, etc. You're merely hoping & guessing.
I also disagree that your swap will automatically be at the leading edge if you don't have a disk optimization utility like SpeedDisk put it there. I have seen this with my own eyes, by using SpeedDisk. I saw where it was to start (at the far end of the partition) before the SpeedDisk optimization.
Why is my drive gonna seek to another partition for documents when my docs are on my boot drive? For games, yes, the drive will seek to another partition, but that's cuz I want them on another partition. But it still won't seek to the opposite end of the drive, cuz games are limited to the partition next to the boot. I don't game very much, so it's not a big issue for me, but everything that I need on a daily basis goes in the boot partition (O/S, apps, docs, swap/paging). The drive has no need to travel to another partition in normal usage. Things like MP3s aren't even on a SCSI drive. I have on a *storage* drive (IDE/ATA).
With one big partition, when you upgrade a part of the OS, or apps, how do you know the new files will not be placed at the end of the drive? .. forcing the drive to seek all the way to the other end to retrive them. I know my files will not do this, cuz I have them confined to a small, 3GB partition. The way I have partitioned my drive, there is no need, in normal, everyday usage, for the drive to seek to the far/slow end of the drive .. where I have files that are not accessed during normal usage .. like Ghost images, back-up files, etc. You're merely hoping & guessing.
Turbopit,
<<Are we even talking about a large enough amount of time for a human to notice?>>
Of course not. In fact, it's not even enough for a benchmark to notice.
Radboy,
<<My point is that u can get same effect/perf that you get with SpeedDisk (which co$t) by making a small partition at the beginning of the drive .. which you can do for free (cuz FDISK is free).>>
Actually, the Intel Application Launch Acceleration technology built into Windows' Disk Defragmenter does roughly the same thing: it physically groups together those files which the operating system records as being accessed within moments of each other. But unlike your rigid partitioning scheme, the IALA technology allows OS and application data to sit right beside documents, digital media files, and game data on the physical disk, if Windows says those files are often loaded together.
This is all common knowledge. Now let's review your partitioning "advantages":
<<1. Ability to create back-up images of my boot drive, and restore them easily & quickly (in minutes)>>
Moot. DriveImage 4 Pro allows one to do this just as easily with a single partition. Not to mention that a simple, periodic Windows registry backup is much more time-effective in catching the majority of OS foul-ups, without the need for expensive software.
<<2. Better/cleaner organization/grouping of data.>>
Wrong. Descriptively named nested folders are an equally effective way of organizing and categorizing data. In fact, they are superior in that we do not require third-party tools to resize them when the data gets too large. Folders, like rubber bands, expand and contract to fit whatever they hold.
<<3. Multiple O/S'es - the single-partition side already concedes on this point>>
Obviously.
<<Better perf - both in STRs & access times - by making a small partition at the leading edge of the drive.>>
Absolutely false. Not only is theory wrong (it fails to take into account the necessary seeking a drive must constantly do to retrieve various far-flung data for an application to process, data which cannot all be stuffed into a small partition) but the benchmarks to prove it are either non-existant or conclusively display no advantage either way.
<<5. One point that may not have been addressed is the *future* possibilty for multi-OS booting.>>
Most operating systems now allow for a non-destructive partition resizing in the event of a dual boot installation. Linux distributions even come bundled with Partition Magic functionality.
<<I disagree that, in normal operation, the drive will have to travel full stroke to the other/slower side .. if all I have there are Ghost images, back-up files, etc .. files I don't use on a daily basis>>
Of course, it depends on where the data is physically located. But the fact remains, normal multitasking is going to require your drive to seek well into the data area of your drive to retrieve documents, commence smooth playback of digital media files, access game data files, and so on. This destroys most of the advantage held by a small OS partition (the rest is destroyed by SpeedDisk or the IALA technology built into Windows Defrag.)
<<The drive has no need to travel to another partition in normal usage. Things like MP3s aren't even on a SCSI drive. I have on a *storage* drive (IDE/ATA)>>
We're talking about single drive environments here. And I'm not sure why you brought this up, because if you're going to allow for multiple drives and SCSI/ATA combinations, partitions are immediately redundant, no questions asked.
<<everything that I need on a daily basis goes in the boot partition (O/S, apps, docs, swap/paging)>>
LOL, if that's the case, what good is your image file, since it will obliterate all your data in the boot partition? Or do you require that everyone who partitions and images your way also get a second drive for storage? Please.
<<With one big partition, when you upgrade a part of the OS, or apps, how do you know the new files will not be placed at the end of the drive?>>
Initally they will (at the end of the data, that is, not the whole drive). But later, when you Defragment the drive, IALA technology will take over and, if the new OS file proves to have been accessed quite a bit in combination with other OS files, it will be moved physically next to them. Again, this isn't coming from me. Consult Microsoft or Intel if you don't agree.
<<You're merely hoping & guessing>>
Excuse me? You're the one asking us to accept an already disproven performance theory without a shred of independent benchmark evidence to prove it.
Modus
<<Are we even talking about a large enough amount of time for a human to notice?>>
Of course not. In fact, it's not even enough for a benchmark to notice.
Radboy,
<<My point is that u can get same effect/perf that you get with SpeedDisk (which co$t) by making a small partition at the beginning of the drive .. which you can do for free (cuz FDISK is free).>>
Actually, the Intel Application Launch Acceleration technology built into Windows' Disk Defragmenter does roughly the same thing: it physically groups together those files which the operating system records as being accessed within moments of each other. But unlike your rigid partitioning scheme, the IALA technology allows OS and application data to sit right beside documents, digital media files, and game data on the physical disk, if Windows says those files are often loaded together.
This is all common knowledge. Now let's review your partitioning "advantages":
<<1. Ability to create back-up images of my boot drive, and restore them easily & quickly (in minutes)>>
Moot. DriveImage 4 Pro allows one to do this just as easily with a single partition. Not to mention that a simple, periodic Windows registry backup is much more time-effective in catching the majority of OS foul-ups, without the need for expensive software.
<<2. Better/cleaner organization/grouping of data.>>
Wrong. Descriptively named nested folders are an equally effective way of organizing and categorizing data. In fact, they are superior in that we do not require third-party tools to resize them when the data gets too large. Folders, like rubber bands, expand and contract to fit whatever they hold.
<<3. Multiple O/S'es - the single-partition side already concedes on this point>>
Obviously.
<<Better perf - both in STRs & access times - by making a small partition at the leading edge of the drive.>>
Absolutely false. Not only is theory wrong (it fails to take into account the necessary seeking a drive must constantly do to retrieve various far-flung data for an application to process, data which cannot all be stuffed into a small partition) but the benchmarks to prove it are either non-existant or conclusively display no advantage either way.
<<5. One point that may not have been addressed is the *future* possibilty for multi-OS booting.>>
Most operating systems now allow for a non-destructive partition resizing in the event of a dual boot installation. Linux distributions even come bundled with Partition Magic functionality.
<<I disagree that, in normal operation, the drive will have to travel full stroke to the other/slower side .. if all I have there are Ghost images, back-up files, etc .. files I don't use on a daily basis>>
Of course, it depends on where the data is physically located. But the fact remains, normal multitasking is going to require your drive to seek well into the data area of your drive to retrieve documents, commence smooth playback of digital media files, access game data files, and so on. This destroys most of the advantage held by a small OS partition (the rest is destroyed by SpeedDisk or the IALA technology built into Windows Defrag.)
<<The drive has no need to travel to another partition in normal usage. Things like MP3s aren't even on a SCSI drive. I have on a *storage* drive (IDE/ATA)>>
We're talking about single drive environments here. And I'm not sure why you brought this up, because if you're going to allow for multiple drives and SCSI/ATA combinations, partitions are immediately redundant, no questions asked.
<<everything that I need on a daily basis goes in the boot partition (O/S, apps, docs, swap/paging)>>
LOL, if that's the case, what good is your image file, since it will obliterate all your data in the boot partition? Or do you require that everyone who partitions and images your way also get a second drive for storage? Please.
<<With one big partition, when you upgrade a part of the OS, or apps, how do you know the new files will not be placed at the end of the drive?>>
Initally they will (at the end of the data, that is, not the whole drive). But later, when you Defragment the drive, IALA technology will take over and, if the new OS file proves to have been accessed quite a bit in combination with other OS files, it will be moved physically next to them. Again, this isn't coming from me. Consult Microsoft or Intel if you don't agree.
<<You're merely hoping & guessing>>
Excuse me? You're the one asking us to accept an already disproven performance theory without a shred of independent benchmark evidence to prove it.
Modus
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
<< <<1. Ability to create back-up images of my boot drive, and restore them easily & quickly (in minutes)>>
Moot. DriveImage 4 Pro allows one to do this just as easily with a single partition. Not to mention that a simple, periodic Windows registry backup is much more time-effective in catching the majority of OS foul-ups, without the need for expensive software >>
Wrong and wrong.
DIP does not work with a single partion/drive...unless you are backing up to CDR. One 20 gig partition that was half used would still require around 5 CD's to hold the image. Of course, this is all providing that you have a CDR(W).
As far as price goes, I just arranged a group by of Drive Image Pro, which includes Drive Image 4, Partition Magic 6, and boot magic for the price of $30 per person. Expensive? Hardly.
(edit for speeling...never drink and post)
Very entertaining. I especially like the way you magically turn your baseless opinions into "established facts". Good trick.
The Windows defragger is a piece of crap. I don't know a single person who uses it.
Using your DI4 imaging method is not only much slower - no matter what spped burner you have - than imaging directly to the HDD, but it requires the user to buy a burner (increased cost is a disadvantage) & would waste even more $ by burning disks. My images would take 3 disks every time I image. Do you use this method yourself?
When u talk about Windows registry back-up, u use the word 'majority'. Unfortunately, 'majority' is not good enuf for most ppl .. especially if it's gonna take them the better part of a week to re-install their OS, apps & re-config my system. I'm not interested in saving a few minutes (making an image) if I have to risk a week a headaches and downtime.
Re: "Descriptively named nested folders are an equally effective way of organizing and categorizing data." I disagree, as do many others. This is the Modus methos. If it works for you, fine. For me, partitions are better. I have no problem if u wanna make one big partition for everything. have at it.
Thx for conceding on the dual/multi-OS point. Are there any other points you've ever conceded?
Re: Better perf at the leading edge of the drive.
What various "far-flung data" are you talking about? You make it sound like the data is stored all over the state. I make sure that all the files/data I need on a daily/routine basis are in my boot partition (my boot partitions are 5GB). We have already seen with HD Tach that STRs are max at the beginning of the drive, and that access times are lower if the drive doesn't have to seek full stroke .. to the other iside of the drive. I don't know why you're having such a hard time with this. This is why Norton and other disk optimization utilities put the swap file at the leading edge. You would call this 'common knowledge & an accepted fact'.
Re: "Most operating systems now allow for a non-destructive partition resizing in the event of a dual boot installation."
Does Windows?
Re: "normal multitasking is going to require your drive to seek well into the data area of your drive to retrieve documents .."
Not if my documents are in my boot partition .. they are.
Re: "We're talking about single drive environments here. And I'm not sure why you brought this up, because if you're going to allow for multiple drives and SCSI/ATA combinations .."
Valid point. I was merely interjecting how I config my system.
Re: "what good is your image file, since it will obliterate all your data in the boot partition?"
The image file - if you don't know - contains the OS, all system settings, all apps & their respective settings, all docs. I periodically back-up my docs to another partition .. so that if I do have to restore an image, I merely replace to imaged Docs directory with the recent back-up, and voila - Radboy is up & running with no loss. That wasn't so hard was it? If you actually imaged a drive, you'd know this.
Re: "Or do you require that everyone who partitions and images your way also get a second drive for storage?"
I don't require anyone to do anything, but I strongly advocate the use of a 2nd drive to receive/store the image .. in the rare acase of total HDD failure. If the drive containing the image dies, you're screwed. I've never had this happen (knock on wood), but I'm prepared.
The Windows defragger is a piece of crap. I don't know a single person who uses it.
Using your DI4 imaging method is not only much slower - no matter what spped burner you have - than imaging directly to the HDD, but it requires the user to buy a burner (increased cost is a disadvantage) & would waste even more $ by burning disks. My images would take 3 disks every time I image. Do you use this method yourself?
When u talk about Windows registry back-up, u use the word 'majority'. Unfortunately, 'majority' is not good enuf for most ppl .. especially if it's gonna take them the better part of a week to re-install their OS, apps & re-config my system. I'm not interested in saving a few minutes (making an image) if I have to risk a week a headaches and downtime.
Re: "Descriptively named nested folders are an equally effective way of organizing and categorizing data." I disagree, as do many others. This is the Modus methos. If it works for you, fine. For me, partitions are better. I have no problem if u wanna make one big partition for everything. have at it.
Thx for conceding on the dual/multi-OS point. Are there any other points you've ever conceded?
Re: Better perf at the leading edge of the drive.
What various "far-flung data" are you talking about? You make it sound like the data is stored all over the state. I make sure that all the files/data I need on a daily/routine basis are in my boot partition (my boot partitions are 5GB). We have already seen with HD Tach that STRs are max at the beginning of the drive, and that access times are lower if the drive doesn't have to seek full stroke .. to the other iside of the drive. I don't know why you're having such a hard time with this. This is why Norton and other disk optimization utilities put the swap file at the leading edge. You would call this 'common knowledge & an accepted fact'.
Re: "Most operating systems now allow for a non-destructive partition resizing in the event of a dual boot installation."
Does Windows?
Re: "normal multitasking is going to require your drive to seek well into the data area of your drive to retrieve documents .."
Not if my documents are in my boot partition .. they are.
Re: "We're talking about single drive environments here. And I'm not sure why you brought this up, because if you're going to allow for multiple drives and SCSI/ATA combinations .."
Valid point. I was merely interjecting how I config my system.
Re: "what good is your image file, since it will obliterate all your data in the boot partition?"
The image file - if you don't know - contains the OS, all system settings, all apps & their respective settings, all docs. I periodically back-up my docs to another partition .. so that if I do have to restore an image, I merely replace to imaged Docs directory with the recent back-up, and voila - Radboy is up & running with no loss. That wasn't so hard was it? If you actually imaged a drive, you'd know this.
Re: "Or do you require that everyone who partitions and images your way also get a second drive for storage?"
I don't require anyone to do anything, but I strongly advocate the use of a 2nd drive to receive/store the image .. in the rare acase of total HDD failure. If the drive containing the image dies, you're screwed. I've never had this happen (knock on wood), but I'm prepared.
I suppose that by the end of this gargantuan thread, only the "experts" are left standing, so perhaps someone can answer this question; a friend of a friend told me that when formatting an NTFS partition, to use the command line switch which uses larger cluster sizes (instead of the small 512 byte), because larger cluster sizes would increase performance when dealing with the large "digital media files" which are so popular nowadays. Is this true? From a performance point, BTW, with no care about slack, and for someone intent on maximizing the sequential throughput of large media files.
vi_edit,
<<DIP does not work with a single partion/drive... unless you are backing up to CDR. One 20 gig partition that was half used would still require around 5 CD's to hold the image. Of course, this is all providing that you have a CDR(W).>>
The CDR, or a simlar external medium, is an absolute necessity for any user who cares enough about their data to back it up. Simply sending the data to another partition is a useless gesture in the face of fire, theft, hardware failure, data corruption, accidental deletion, mischief, runamuck programs, etc. Since the partitioning advocates' last remaining "advantage" -- drive imaging -- is so important to them and since they carry it out so often, it stands to reason that they would back up such important information to a safe external medium. If they don't, they're only taking half measures, and in that case, why not just save the Windows registry and prevent 99% of the problems without all the hassle? You're also forgetting DriveImage 4 Pro's Image File Editor feature, which means that an image file need not be 20G or wipe out an entire 20G partition every time it is restored.
<<As far as price goes, I just arranged a group by of Drive Image Pro, which includes Drive Image 4, Partition Magic 6, and boot magic for the price of $30 per person. Expensive? Hardly.>>
More expensive than the $free drag and drop of two .DAT files to achieve basically the same benefits.
Radboy,
<<Very entertaining. I especially like the way you magically turn your baseless opinions into "established facts". Good trick.>>
And I like how you magically turn the words "you", "enough", and "performance" into "u", "enuf", and "perf", respectively. It lends a certain flair, an intellectual distinction worthy of Pee Wee Herman himself.
<<The Windows defragger is a piece of crap. I don't know a single person who uses it.>>
So I prove how an absolutely free tool (MS Disk Defragmenter with Intel Application Launch Acceleration technology) built into Windows accomplishes everything you do with silly redundant partitioning, and your all-encompassing response is to call it a piece of crap. Priceless.
Actually, the only significant disadvantage to Windows Disk Defragmenter is its speed. But since defragmentation is only a twice-a-month walkaway job, that's irrelevant.
<<waste even more $ by burning disks>>
CDRW.
<<Do you use this method yourself?>>
No, because the entire imaging argument is ridiculous for anyone other than a paid beta tester. Unless you're a software download maniac or an incompetent fool, it's highly doubtful your system is in enough danger of total Windows meltdown to justify the time, effort, and money needed for a weekly drive image; a proper system reinstallation only takes a few hours, and wise people always backup their important data externally for easy retrieval.
If we assume Windows dies on us every six months on average (nevermind that it usually lasts much longer and you'd have to be pretty harsh on your system to hose it that quickly), then the time and effort needed for even a simple registry backup doesn't pay off. Imaging takes even more time. Looking at it objectively, it's a little paranoid.
The most sensible strategy for total system performance and data integrity on single-drive machines is also the least complicated:
1) A big single partition.
2) Defragment twice a week and allow IALA technology to group files in their optimal location on the physical disk surface. Schedule this at night or some other time when it won't bother you (Windows already does by default.)
3) Make regular backups of your data to some external medium. (Any sane backup plan must include this.)
4) Keep all the original discs for your software in the same safe place as your data backup.
<<Re: "Descriptively named nested folders are an equally effective way of organizing and categorizing data." I disagree, as do many others. This is the Modus methos. If it works for you, fine. For me, partitions are better.>>
No, no. I'm not asking you why orange is your favorite color. I'm asking you why you think a certain technical practice holds a tangible advantage (ie. not just a warm fuzzy geek-macho feeling) over an alternate practice.
A folder named "STUFF" is just as versatile as a partition named "STUFF", and can hold exactly the same. . . stuff. In fact, the folder is superior because it can expand and contract to fit whatever it holds; the partition is rigid. You claim partitions make it easier for you to organize your data. Why? How? It doesn't make sense. Please explain what they can do to organize your data that folders can't.
<<Thx for conceding on the dual/multi-OS point. Are there any other points you've ever conceded?>>
I conceeded on that point before you were an glimmer in this thread's eye -- as opposed to your method of conceeding, which is to simply pretend an entire point never existed and fill the void in the discussion with incoherent rambling.
<<What various "far-flung data" are you talking about?>>
Any data you access that is not stored in your cosy little 2G partition. And don't tell me you never use anything but what you put in your 2G partition, or you would only have a 2G hard drive! Obviously, the other files are on your drive for a reason. You need them there. You use them. And whenever you do, the seek times make your partitioning scheme irrelevant. When you don't, a Windows Defrag is all it would take to keep your frequently accessed main files away from the others, back at the physical beginning beginning of the disk.
<<We have already seen with HD Tach that STRs are max at the beginning of the drive, and that access times are lower if the drive doesn't have to seek full stroke .. to the other iside of the drive. I don't know why you're having such a hard time with this.>>
If you can't wrap your mind around this simple explanation I've given about five times now, there's not much more I can say. I'll write it one more time, but after that, you'll have to ask some one more friendly to phrase it differently or something, because you're obviously suffering from sort sort of bizzare, self-induced mental block:
The fact that data stored at the beginning of the drive has a faster STR is acknowledged but basically irrelevant to real world performance. The claim that a small OS partition will increase system performance in real world usage over a single large partition is incorrect for three reasons: (1) it fails to account for the necessary seeking back and forth between partitions to constantly retrieve needed documents, digital media files, game data, and so forth, preventing drive seeks from taking place in a contained physical area and (2) it refuses to acknowledge that this optimization is already done by any modern disk defragmentation software and (3) it has never been proven by an indepedent benchmark.
Satisfied?
<<I strongly advocate the use of a 2nd drive to receive/store the image>>
Hang on a second. This is breaking news. You're finally acknowledging that it's better to use some kind of other medium to hold the drive image? You do realize that this destroys any need for partitioning, don't you? Because now the only leg you have to stand on is your claim that partitioning increases system performance, which has already been debunked.
LocutusX,
<<a friend of a friend told me that when formatting an NTFS partition, to use the command line switch which uses larger cluster sizes (instead of the small 512 byte), because larger cluster sizes would increase performance when dealing with the large "digital media files" which are so popular nowadays. Is this true?>>
OK, this is a long explanation:
It is given that a smaller cluster size means more clusters per volume and a larger cluster size means less clusters per volume. Larger cluster size increases wasted slack space, but we have seen that today's data is not nearly as susceptible to the phenomenon as before, so cluster sizes could probably grow further, within reason.
Now, on the face of it, smaller cluster sizes don't seem to have any disadvantage. However, in any traditional FAT (File Allocation Table), files are tabled with the number of their first cluster. For example:
[ShaftTheme.MP3] [4,249,906 bytes] [first cluster at #960,822]
When WinAmp loads this song, it asks Windows to get, say, the first 64k of the file to put in a sound buffer. Windows checks the FAT, where it sees that the file begins at cluster #960,822 on this volume. Windows then simply multiplies 960,822 by the byte size of one cluster, say 8096 bytes (8k), comes out with 7,778,814,912, and realizes from that number that ShaftTheme.MP3 is stored roughly seven gigabytes into the volume. It uses the number to tell the drive exactly where to seek and begin a read operation. The drive itself is completely ignorant of clusters. The data is retrieved an passed along to Winamp. Can ya dig it?
Now, you can quickly see that the more clusters we have, the larger and more complicated a FAT gets. And FAT overhead due to size and complexity can slow down any high-level drive access done through the operating system (like, everything.)
In the real world, doubling cluster size (and therefore halving the number of clusters) seems to yield a roughly 10% speed gain on disk benchmarks with smaller gains on real world tests. This is only from some informal benchmarks done by a StorageReview poster in the link provided by Ornery above.
NTFS is a whole new ball game, though. There's a reason Microsoft made 512 bytes the standard cluster size. NTFS is much more advanced altogether. It implements fancy FAT searching methods and better structures that allow it to survive huge volumes with insane numbers of clusters without choking.
Stick with the default 512 byte clusters under NTFS.
<<I suppose that by the end of this gargantuan thread, only the "experts" are left standing>>
Well, before you call us experts, consider this thought: for a couple people who, by the very nature of our argument, must care very much about efficiency and time management, Radboy and I have spent many hours over the span of many days in a futile effort to convince eachother of something which we know full well we can never convince eachother of.
Expert who?
Modus
<<DIP does not work with a single partion/drive... unless you are backing up to CDR. One 20 gig partition that was half used would still require around 5 CD's to hold the image. Of course, this is all providing that you have a CDR(W).>>
The CDR, or a simlar external medium, is an absolute necessity for any user who cares enough about their data to back it up. Simply sending the data to another partition is a useless gesture in the face of fire, theft, hardware failure, data corruption, accidental deletion, mischief, runamuck programs, etc. Since the partitioning advocates' last remaining "advantage" -- drive imaging -- is so important to them and since they carry it out so often, it stands to reason that they would back up such important information to a safe external medium. If they don't, they're only taking half measures, and in that case, why not just save the Windows registry and prevent 99% of the problems without all the hassle? You're also forgetting DriveImage 4 Pro's Image File Editor feature, which means that an image file need not be 20G or wipe out an entire 20G partition every time it is restored.
<<As far as price goes, I just arranged a group by of Drive Image Pro, which includes Drive Image 4, Partition Magic 6, and boot magic for the price of $30 per person. Expensive? Hardly.>>
More expensive than the $free drag and drop of two .DAT files to achieve basically the same benefits.
Radboy,
<<Very entertaining. I especially like the way you magically turn your baseless opinions into "established facts". Good trick.>>
And I like how you magically turn the words "you", "enough", and "performance" into "u", "enuf", and "perf", respectively. It lends a certain flair, an intellectual distinction worthy of Pee Wee Herman himself.
<<The Windows defragger is a piece of crap. I don't know a single person who uses it.>>
So I prove how an absolutely free tool (MS Disk Defragmenter with Intel Application Launch Acceleration technology) built into Windows accomplishes everything you do with silly redundant partitioning, and your all-encompassing response is to call it a piece of crap. Priceless.
Actually, the only significant disadvantage to Windows Disk Defragmenter is its speed. But since defragmentation is only a twice-a-month walkaway job, that's irrelevant.
<<waste even more $ by burning disks>>
CDRW.
<<Do you use this method yourself?>>
No, because the entire imaging argument is ridiculous for anyone other than a paid beta tester. Unless you're a software download maniac or an incompetent fool, it's highly doubtful your system is in enough danger of total Windows meltdown to justify the time, effort, and money needed for a weekly drive image; a proper system reinstallation only takes a few hours, and wise people always backup their important data externally for easy retrieval.
If we assume Windows dies on us every six months on average (nevermind that it usually lasts much longer and you'd have to be pretty harsh on your system to hose it that quickly), then the time and effort needed for even a simple registry backup doesn't pay off. Imaging takes even more time. Looking at it objectively, it's a little paranoid.
The most sensible strategy for total system performance and data integrity on single-drive machines is also the least complicated:
1) A big single partition.
2) Defragment twice a week and allow IALA technology to group files in their optimal location on the physical disk surface. Schedule this at night or some other time when it won't bother you (Windows already does by default.)
3) Make regular backups of your data to some external medium. (Any sane backup plan must include this.)
4) Keep all the original discs for your software in the same safe place as your data backup.
<<Re: "Descriptively named nested folders are an equally effective way of organizing and categorizing data." I disagree, as do many others. This is the Modus methos. If it works for you, fine. For me, partitions are better.>>
No, no. I'm not asking you why orange is your favorite color. I'm asking you why you think a certain technical practice holds a tangible advantage (ie. not just a warm fuzzy geek-macho feeling) over an alternate practice.
A folder named "STUFF" is just as versatile as a partition named "STUFF", and can hold exactly the same. . . stuff. In fact, the folder is superior because it can expand and contract to fit whatever it holds; the partition is rigid. You claim partitions make it easier for you to organize your data. Why? How? It doesn't make sense. Please explain what they can do to organize your data that folders can't.
<<Thx for conceding on the dual/multi-OS point. Are there any other points you've ever conceded?>>
I conceeded on that point before you were an glimmer in this thread's eye -- as opposed to your method of conceeding, which is to simply pretend an entire point never existed and fill the void in the discussion with incoherent rambling.
<<What various "far-flung data" are you talking about?>>
Any data you access that is not stored in your cosy little 2G partition. And don't tell me you never use anything but what you put in your 2G partition, or you would only have a 2G hard drive! Obviously, the other files are on your drive for a reason. You need them there. You use them. And whenever you do, the seek times make your partitioning scheme irrelevant. When you don't, a Windows Defrag is all it would take to keep your frequently accessed main files away from the others, back at the physical beginning beginning of the disk.
<<We have already seen with HD Tach that STRs are max at the beginning of the drive, and that access times are lower if the drive doesn't have to seek full stroke .. to the other iside of the drive. I don't know why you're having such a hard time with this.>>
If you can't wrap your mind around this simple explanation I've given about five times now, there's not much more I can say. I'll write it one more time, but after that, you'll have to ask some one more friendly to phrase it differently or something, because you're obviously suffering from sort sort of bizzare, self-induced mental block:
The fact that data stored at the beginning of the drive has a faster STR is acknowledged but basically irrelevant to real world performance. The claim that a small OS partition will increase system performance in real world usage over a single large partition is incorrect for three reasons: (1) it fails to account for the necessary seeking back and forth between partitions to constantly retrieve needed documents, digital media files, game data, and so forth, preventing drive seeks from taking place in a contained physical area and (2) it refuses to acknowledge that this optimization is already done by any modern disk defragmentation software and (3) it has never been proven by an indepedent benchmark.
Satisfied?
<<I strongly advocate the use of a 2nd drive to receive/store the image>>
Hang on a second. This is breaking news. You're finally acknowledging that it's better to use some kind of other medium to hold the drive image? You do realize that this destroys any need for partitioning, don't you? Because now the only leg you have to stand on is your claim that partitioning increases system performance, which has already been debunked.
LocutusX,
<<a friend of a friend told me that when formatting an NTFS partition, to use the command line switch which uses larger cluster sizes (instead of the small 512 byte), because larger cluster sizes would increase performance when dealing with the large "digital media files" which are so popular nowadays. Is this true?>>
OK, this is a long explanation:
It is given that a smaller cluster size means more clusters per volume and a larger cluster size means less clusters per volume. Larger cluster size increases wasted slack space, but we have seen that today's data is not nearly as susceptible to the phenomenon as before, so cluster sizes could probably grow further, within reason.
Now, on the face of it, smaller cluster sizes don't seem to have any disadvantage. However, in any traditional FAT (File Allocation Table), files are tabled with the number of their first cluster. For example:
[ShaftTheme.MP3] [4,249,906 bytes] [first cluster at #960,822]
When WinAmp loads this song, it asks Windows to get, say, the first 64k of the file to put in a sound buffer. Windows checks the FAT, where it sees that the file begins at cluster #960,822 on this volume. Windows then simply multiplies 960,822 by the byte size of one cluster, say 8096 bytes (8k), comes out with 7,778,814,912, and realizes from that number that ShaftTheme.MP3 is stored roughly seven gigabytes into the volume. It uses the number to tell the drive exactly where to seek and begin a read operation. The drive itself is completely ignorant of clusters. The data is retrieved an passed along to Winamp. Can ya dig it?
Now, you can quickly see that the more clusters we have, the larger and more complicated a FAT gets. And FAT overhead due to size and complexity can slow down any high-level drive access done through the operating system (like, everything.)
In the real world, doubling cluster size (and therefore halving the number of clusters) seems to yield a roughly 10% speed gain on disk benchmarks with smaller gains on real world tests. This is only from some informal benchmarks done by a StorageReview poster in the link provided by Ornery above.
NTFS is a whole new ball game, though. There's a reason Microsoft made 512 bytes the standard cluster size. NTFS is much more advanced altogether. It implements fancy FAT searching methods and better structures that allow it to survive huge volumes with insane numbers of clusters without choking.
Stick with the default 512 byte clusters under NTFS.
<<I suppose that by the end of this gargantuan thread, only the "experts" are left standing>>
Well, before you call us experts, consider this thought: for a couple people who, by the very nature of our argument, must care very much about efficiency and time management, Radboy and I have spent many hours over the span of many days in a futile effort to convince eachother of something which we know full well we can never convince eachother of.
Expert who?
Modus
Re: "Simply sending the data to another partition is a useless gesture .."
This only illustrates - again - how little u know about imaging, reinforcing ur earlier posts. From first-hand experience, I've had to restore the image of my boot drive about 10 or 12 times. Never once has it been cuz of HDD failure. In each & *every* case, it would have been fine to have the image on the same drive. I'm not saying that these other things u mention could never happen to someone, merely that they have never happened to me. Never. Again, this is from first-hand experience. I will also add that personally, I do not keep my image on the same HDD as it was created from. This way, if the drive dies, it's still no prob for me. I merely have to RMA/buy a new drive, partition, restore the image, replace the imaged docs directory with the latest back-up (on another partition), and I'm back up & running.
I'll add again here for the umpteenth time that a registry back-up, altho a good thing, is *not* a substitute for an image. There are problems that a reg back-up will not resolve .. which is why ppl use imaging apps. A reg back-up up is good if ur gonna mess w/ ur reg, but it isn't nearly as comprehensive as an image. I'll take the hit that it costs money.
Re: "you magically turn the words "you", "enough", and "performance" into "u", "enuf", and "perf", respectively."
Surprised u were able to figure that out.
Re: "<<Do you use this method yourself?>> No"
I didn't think so.
Re: "No, because the entire imaging argument is ridiculous for anyone other than a paid beta tester."
I know many ppl who use an imaging app regularly - not a single one of whom is a beta tester. They cringe at the idea of operating a Windows system without a back-up image of their boot drive, which takes mere minutes to create, and can save a week of system restoration, frustartion & downtime.
Re: "a proper system reinstallation only takes a few hours.."
Maybe for someone with only a few apps & games to install & configure. If you can install ur OS, all apps, & config ur system in a few hours, it's no wonder you have no experience with imaging apps. You may be telling on yourself here - that you have experience with only a limited number of apps. Takes me the better part of a week .. if I hustle.
Re: "The most sensible strategy for total system performance and data integrity on single-drive machines is also the least complicated."
You're right, it's the least complicated (simple) .. takes a little more thot to figure out how to use FDISK and manage partitions, but the benefits are worth it. Simple ppl prefer simple things.
Re: "I conceeded on that point before you were an glimmer in this thread's eye"
I just want to thank you for the concession, and note again that you are freely conceding at least one point. (clever innuendo)
Re: "And don't tell me you never use anything but what you put in your 2G partition"
First off, my Windows boot partitions are 5GB, not 2GB. Secondly, I never said 'never'. I said, "during normal system operations". I have 6 HDDs - 3 SCSI & 3 IDE, so when I'm doing something like editing video, I'm using files from many diff drives concurrently. But for most normal, everyday things, everything I need is on the boot drive. I don't tell u how u have your system set-up. Pls don't tell me how I've set-up mine.
Re: "Obviously, the other files are on your drive for a reason."
Yes, exactly. They're at the end of the drive, in the last partituion, cuz I rarely/never have to use/access them. Don't know why you're having such trouble with this. Files that I rarely/never use/access go at the end (in the end partition). Files that I use on a daily/regular basis, go in the first/fastest/boot partition. Files I use only sometime/infrequently go in the middle. On an 18-gig drive, I make 3X6. On a 45GB drive, I make 3X15. I realize this takes a little extra thot, but most should be able to figure it out. If u only have a single, large partition, you cannot put the files where you want them.
Re: "You use them. And whenever you do, the seek times make your partitioning scheme irrelevant."
The only time I need to use/access my Ghost images is to restore them .. which mostly never happens (knock on wood). I put all my back-up files in the last partition precisely cuz (hopefully) they'll never be needed/used/access. This is not a hard concept to grasp. Not sure why it's giving u fits.
Re: "The fact that data stored at the beginning of the drive has a faster STR is acknowledged"
Thank you. And it seems that u also concede on the faster access time point, too .. but contend that my drive still must seek all over the place, even tho everything I need on a daily basis is in the boot partition.
Re: "it fails to account for the necessary seeking back and forth between partitions to constantly retrieve needed documents"
For the umteenth time, my docs are in/on my boot partition. A back-up copy is saved to another partitiion. The drive doesn't have to seek to another partition.
Re: "Satisfied?"
'Disappointed' (in you) would be a better way of saying it.
Re: "Hang on a second. This is breaking news. You're finally acknowledging that it's better to use some kind of other medium to hold the drive image?"
This made me laugh out loud. You're v. entertaining .. sometimes. Yes, I'm saying it's better to have a second drive to receive/store the image. A second HDD makes the imaging/restoration process go twice as fast (you prolly didn't know this, cuz you have no imaging experience). But (but), as I've said b4, in the 10 or 12 images I've had to restore, in each & every case, it woulda been okay to have the image on the same drive. Translation: Images are excellent back-up tools. An image on a second HDD is even better .. more secure .. tho something which I've never actually needed.
Happy New Year, all .. you too, Modus.
This only illustrates - again - how little u know about imaging, reinforcing ur earlier posts. From first-hand experience, I've had to restore the image of my boot drive about 10 or 12 times. Never once has it been cuz of HDD failure. In each & *every* case, it would have been fine to have the image on the same drive. I'm not saying that these other things u mention could never happen to someone, merely that they have never happened to me. Never. Again, this is from first-hand experience. I will also add that personally, I do not keep my image on the same HDD as it was created from. This way, if the drive dies, it's still no prob for me. I merely have to RMA/buy a new drive, partition, restore the image, replace the imaged docs directory with the latest back-up (on another partition), and I'm back up & running.
I'll add again here for the umpteenth time that a registry back-up, altho a good thing, is *not* a substitute for an image. There are problems that a reg back-up will not resolve .. which is why ppl use imaging apps. A reg back-up up is good if ur gonna mess w/ ur reg, but it isn't nearly as comprehensive as an image. I'll take the hit that it costs money.
Re: "you magically turn the words "you", "enough", and "performance" into "u", "enuf", and "perf", respectively."
Surprised u were able to figure that out.
Re: "<<Do you use this method yourself?>> No"
I didn't think so.
Re: "No, because the entire imaging argument is ridiculous for anyone other than a paid beta tester."
I know many ppl who use an imaging app regularly - not a single one of whom is a beta tester. They cringe at the idea of operating a Windows system without a back-up image of their boot drive, which takes mere minutes to create, and can save a week of system restoration, frustartion & downtime.
Re: "a proper system reinstallation only takes a few hours.."
Maybe for someone with only a few apps & games to install & configure. If you can install ur OS, all apps, & config ur system in a few hours, it's no wonder you have no experience with imaging apps. You may be telling on yourself here - that you have experience with only a limited number of apps. Takes me the better part of a week .. if I hustle.
Re: "The most sensible strategy for total system performance and data integrity on single-drive machines is also the least complicated."
You're right, it's the least complicated (simple) .. takes a little more thot to figure out how to use FDISK and manage partitions, but the benefits are worth it. Simple ppl prefer simple things.
Re: "I conceeded on that point before you were an glimmer in this thread's eye"
I just want to thank you for the concession, and note again that you are freely conceding at least one point.
(clever innuendo)Re: "And don't tell me you never use anything but what you put in your 2G partition"
First off, my Windows boot partitions are 5GB, not 2GB. Secondly, I never said 'never'. I said, "during normal system operations". I have 6 HDDs - 3 SCSI & 3 IDE, so when I'm doing something like editing video, I'm using files from many diff drives concurrently. But for most normal, everyday things, everything I need is on the boot drive. I don't tell u how u have your system set-up. Pls don't tell me how I've set-up mine.
Re: "Obviously, the other files are on your drive for a reason."
Yes, exactly. They're at the end of the drive, in the last partituion, cuz I rarely/never have to use/access them. Don't know why you're having such trouble with this. Files that I rarely/never use/access go at the end (in the end partition). Files that I use on a daily/regular basis, go in the first/fastest/boot partition. Files I use only sometime/infrequently go in the middle. On an 18-gig drive, I make 3X6. On a 45GB drive, I make 3X15. I realize this takes a little extra thot, but most should be able to figure it out. If u only have a single, large partition, you cannot put the files where you want them.
Re: "You use them. And whenever you do, the seek times make your partitioning scheme irrelevant."
The only time I need to use/access my Ghost images is to restore them .. which mostly never happens (knock on wood). I put all my back-up files in the last partition precisely cuz (hopefully) they'll never be needed/used/access. This is not a hard concept to grasp. Not sure why it's giving u fits.
Re: "The fact that data stored at the beginning of the drive has a faster STR is acknowledged"
Thank you. And it seems that u also concede on the faster access time point, too .. but contend that my drive still must seek all over the place, even tho everything I need on a daily basis is in the boot partition.
Re: "it fails to account for the necessary seeking back and forth between partitions to constantly retrieve needed documents"
For the umteenth time, my docs are in/on my boot partition. A back-up copy is saved to another partitiion. The drive doesn't have to seek to another partition.
Re: "Satisfied?"
'Disappointed' (in you) would be a better way of saying it.
Re: "Hang on a second. This is breaking news. You're finally acknowledging that it's better to use some kind of other medium to hold the drive image?"
This made me laugh out loud. You're v. entertaining .. sometimes. Yes, I'm saying it's better to have a second drive to receive/store the image. A second HDD makes the imaging/restoration process go twice as fast (you prolly didn't know this, cuz you have no imaging experience). But (but), as I've said b4, in the 10 or 12 images I've had to restore, in each & every case, it woulda been okay to have the image on the same drive. Translation: Images are excellent back-up tools. An image on a second HDD is even better .. more secure .. tho something which I've never actually needed.
Happy New Year, all .. you too, Modus.
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
Oh, totally forgot about another use for images and partitions- corporate environment.
You buy about 50 of the same exact machines, put a 2-4 gig partion on the first part of the drive, install the O/S, install all drivers and neccesarry software, pop in user settings, and now image the drive and put the image onto another partition.
User fubars his machine, simply send out the tech, reimage in minutes, and boom, back up and running.
When you are responsible for over 500 desktops in the same building, a five minute re-image is a much more easier fix than spending 20 minutes trying to figure out what the hell the user installed(that they shouldn't have), and then trying to solve the problem.
I believe at one time some OEM's were doing the same, partitioning off part of the drive and putting an image file on the other partition.
You buy about 50 of the same exact machines, put a 2-4 gig partion on the first part of the drive, install the O/S, install all drivers and neccesarry software, pop in user settings, and now image the drive and put the image onto another partition.
User fubars his machine, simply send out the tech, reimage in minutes, and boom, back up and running.
When you are responsible for over 500 desktops in the same building, a five minute re-image is a much more easier fix than spending 20 minutes trying to figure out what the hell the user installed(that they shouldn't have), and then trying to solve the problem.
I believe at one time some OEM's were doing the same, partitioning off part of the drive and putting an image file on the other partition.
wow...this is way bigger than I ever thought it would get...I stopped checking a few days ago because I thought it was through with. Then I mosey on over and it's up to 140, and still no concrete answer!
To everybody that uses swapfiles, you don't have to. If you have 256 mb of ram or more, just put in the CFSU=1 in the system ini file. Then let WINDOWS manage your virtual memory. I have had great results with this and it really speeds things up, plus my swap file is at 0 mb most of the time, except when i play games, or intensive apps.
There is no concrete answer Descend492, it's completely a personal preference. If you haven't been able to decide what is best for you by now, you probably will never decide.
i would like to thank all of you for your posts...i actually read them all....
i will say one thing. i have 4 kids, and they just love to shut off the computer in the middle of a game, or on accident. Sometimes i can't believe how many windows a 2year old can open while playing with elmo.
then on the reboot scandisk runs......if the drive is full then the reboot takes awhile...if windows is in a small partition then scandisk would take less time right? would this reduce fatal exception errors?
also if my kids bug up there games and i have them on a separate partition then i could just reformat that partition and reinstall them right?
i just bought a maxtor 40gig 7200 ata 100 (might be 45gig and ata100)as that is what was in the box at staples...
i am going to give partitioning a try, not to save space, because from reading the posts i believe that it is minimal loss. how does this sound
15 gig for windows 98 and apps in partition 1
(should first one be smaller...like 5gig?)
15 for kids games
15 for mp3s and digital camera photos.
i also have a wd 4gig. how much does that ghost prog cost, or is there anything free, i would like to make an image and store it on the 4 gig to save time.
thank you all and happy new year
i will say one thing. i have 4 kids, and they just love to shut off the computer in the middle of a game, or on accident. Sometimes i can't believe how many windows a 2year old can open while playing with elmo.
then on the reboot scandisk runs......if the drive is full then the reboot takes awhile...if windows is in a small partition then scandisk would take less time right? would this reduce fatal exception errors?
also if my kids bug up there games and i have them on a separate partition then i could just reformat that partition and reinstall them right?
i just bought a maxtor 40gig 7200 ata 100 (might be 45gig and ata100)as that is what was in the box at staples...
i am going to give partitioning a try, not to save space, because from reading the posts i believe that it is minimal loss. how does this sound
15 gig for windows 98 and apps in partition 1
(should first one be smaller...like 5gig?)
15 for kids games
15 for mp3s and digital camera photos.
i also have a wd 4gig. how much does that ghost prog cost, or is there anything free, i would like to make an image and store it on the 4 gig to save time.
thank you all and happy new year
I dont think you need as much as 15Gigs for games, I'd partition it this way:
5GB Windows and Apps
30GB MP3s and downloads
10GB Games
5GB Windows and Apps
30GB MP3s and downloads
10GB Games
LOL! I believe every point Modus has ever made, including all the other post on partitioning has been disproven with facts. Note to everyone: Dont read what Modus posts, which is easy enough to do because they are so damn long!
A.K.A,
<<Note to everyone: Dont read what Modus posts, which is easy enough to do because they are so damn long!>>
It's a shame you haven't learned the basic literacy skills necessary to understand properly contructed writing spanning more than a paragraph at a time. I admit it's just slightly more advanced than what you're accustomed to from your daily reading routine of cereal boxes and traffic signs. Fortuantely, the complexity of the arguments involved tends to keep people like you from polluting the thread with mindless static. Unfortunately, there's no accounting for deliberate ignorance.
Now, I realize your rodent-like attention span wouldn't allow you to read that last paragraph without fidgeting or stopping for a bathroom break, so here's a sentence I sincerely hope is short enough for you to comprehend:
Take a hike.
Modus
<<Note to everyone: Dont read what Modus posts, which is easy enough to do because they are so damn long!>>
It's a shame you haven't learned the basic literacy skills necessary to understand properly contructed writing spanning more than a paragraph at a time. I admit it's just slightly more advanced than what you're accustomed to from your daily reading routine of cereal boxes and traffic signs. Fortuantely, the complexity of the arguments involved tends to keep people like you from polluting the thread with mindless static. Unfortunately, there's no accounting for deliberate ignorance.
Now, I realize your rodent-like attention span wouldn't allow you to read that last paragraph without fidgeting or stopping for a bathroom break, so here's a sentence I sincerely hope is short enough for you to comprehend:
Take a hike.
Modus
vi_edit,
<<Oh, totally forgot about another use for images and partitions- corporate environment. You buy about 50 of the same exact machines, put a 2-4 gig partion on the first part of the drive, install the O/S, install all drivers and neccesarry software, pop in user settings, and now image the drive and put the image onto another partition.>>
You don't need a partition to do that.
In fact, most corporate environments use an even better method: the image is stored on a network server where it is blasted out to the computers in the event of a Windows crash. I've personally seen how easy it is for a Network Administrator to just walk up to a dead station, pop in his network-enabled Ghost floppy, and fix it up pronto. The partitioning is useless because the images are (safely and rightly) kept on a proper network server where the end user can't hurt them. And just partitioning off his OS and apps isn't going to do much good because the guy will still end up saving stuff on the wrong drive, etc, or making important settings that will get erased because of the image, further complicating matters.
Of course, Drive Image 4 Pro allows you to restore an image without harming certain folders, completely destroying any need for partitioning in a corporate environment.
Just to sum up (I've been busy the past few days):
- Partitioning does not gain back significant slack space. Smaller FAT32 clusters and, more importantly, the explosive growth of average files sizes, have combined to kill the cluster slack issue. This is already conceeded.
- Partitioning does not improve data file organization any more than a system of descriptively named folders. In fact, it hinders organization because it requires a difficult resize of an entire partition when data accumulates too quickly. People will argue personal preference here, and that's fine if they're comfortable with such a system, but there's no logic behind it. Folders are just as good, or better.
- Partitioning does not improve real world performance. Any modern disk defragmenter (including Windows 98's Intel Application Launch Acceleration technology) will rearrange the physical order of files on disk in such a way as to group all frequently accessed files near the beginning of the disk. Various partitioning schemes simply attempt to do the same thing manually, with spotty success. This is a proven fact, verifiable by a quick "Show Details" on Microsoft Disk Defragmenter, a little bit of reading on the Intel and MS web sites, and any real world performance benchmark. To reiterate: not a single real world benchmark from any objective source, anytime, anywhere, has ever shown a significant performance benefit to partitioning. Partitioning advocates bellow and bray, but none has ever dared attempt a real world benchmark, because the results would be obvious. Defragmentation yields the same or better performance gains.
- With the advent of PowerQuest Drive Image 4 Pro, the last possible excuse to partiton a hard drive is up in smoke. A simple CDR image, combined with the powerful and elegant Image File Editor, ensures that sensible single-partition users will be able to make and use drive images just as easily as those who partition. For those very few imaging users without a proper external backup medium such as CDR, Jazz, tape, Internet drive, etc, a simple registry backup yields nearly all the benefits of an expensive, slow, costly imaging scheme.
Let me be clear: I am not saying it is your moral imperative not to partition your hard drive. I am just bringing the facts to light and urging people to recognize that the practical advtanges of a partitioned hard drive over an unpartitioned hard drive are slim to non existant.
Modus
<<Oh, totally forgot about another use for images and partitions- corporate environment. You buy about 50 of the same exact machines, put a 2-4 gig partion on the first part of the drive, install the O/S, install all drivers and neccesarry software, pop in user settings, and now image the drive and put the image onto another partition.>>
You don't need a partition to do that.
In fact, most corporate environments use an even better method: the image is stored on a network server where it is blasted out to the computers in the event of a Windows crash. I've personally seen how easy it is for a Network Administrator to just walk up to a dead station, pop in his network-enabled Ghost floppy, and fix it up pronto. The partitioning is useless because the images are (safely and rightly) kept on a proper network server where the end user can't hurt them. And just partitioning off his OS and apps isn't going to do much good because the guy will still end up saving stuff on the wrong drive, etc, or making important settings that will get erased because of the image, further complicating matters.
Of course, Drive Image 4 Pro allows you to restore an image without harming certain folders, completely destroying any need for partitioning in a corporate environment.
Just to sum up (I've been busy the past few days):
- Partitioning does not gain back significant slack space. Smaller FAT32 clusters and, more importantly, the explosive growth of average files sizes, have combined to kill the cluster slack issue. This is already conceeded.
- Partitioning does not improve data file organization any more than a system of descriptively named folders. In fact, it hinders organization because it requires a difficult resize of an entire partition when data accumulates too quickly. People will argue personal preference here, and that's fine if they're comfortable with such a system, but there's no logic behind it. Folders are just as good, or better.
- Partitioning does not improve real world performance. Any modern disk defragmenter (including Windows 98's Intel Application Launch Acceleration technology) will rearrange the physical order of files on disk in such a way as to group all frequently accessed files near the beginning of the disk. Various partitioning schemes simply attempt to do the same thing manually, with spotty success. This is a proven fact, verifiable by a quick "Show Details" on Microsoft Disk Defragmenter, a little bit of reading on the Intel and MS web sites, and any real world performance benchmark. To reiterate: not a single real world benchmark from any objective source, anytime, anywhere, has ever shown a significant performance benefit to partitioning. Partitioning advocates bellow and bray, but none has ever dared attempt a real world benchmark, because the results would be obvious. Defragmentation yields the same or better performance gains.
- With the advent of PowerQuest Drive Image 4 Pro, the last possible excuse to partiton a hard drive is up in smoke. A simple CDR image, combined with the powerful and elegant Image File Editor, ensures that sensible single-partition users will be able to make and use drive images just as easily as those who partition. For those very few imaging users without a proper external backup medium such as CDR, Jazz, tape, Internet drive, etc, a simple registry backup yields nearly all the benefits of an expensive, slow, costly imaging scheme.
Let me be clear: I am not saying it is your moral imperative not to partition your hard drive. I am just bringing the facts to light and urging people to recognize that the practical advtanges of a partitioned hard drive over an unpartitioned hard drive are slim to non existant.
Modus
A.K.A,
<<HAHA! Learn to spell before you fail to insult me.>>
I can correct my spelling. Can you correct your idiocy?
Modus
<<HAHA! Learn to spell before you fail to insult me.>>
I can correct my spelling. Can you correct your idiocy?
Modus
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter