| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 67467 | 2006-03-28 23:06:00 | Reformatt, partition config advice ? | Joe Blogs (35) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 441567 | 2006-03-28 23:06:00 | I am about to reformat a 20 hdd and need some advice about partition size. After installing xp, its updates and all my favourite programs etc, I will be using acronis trueimage 9 to create a copy and do future progressive backups. I need advice advice on the partitions and partition size allocation so that future backups and restores can be as painless as possible. :help: :) |
Joe Blogs (35) | ||
| 441568 | 2006-03-28 23:37:00 | How longs a piece of string. How much Data ? How much space is going to be consumed by programs ? Backing up to CD, DVD or something else ? .... |
gcarmich (10068) | ||
| 441569 | 2006-03-28 23:41:00 | Painless = one partition. While it can be argued multiple partitions on one hard drive allows better organisation of files, that's what sub-directories are for. Another argument is it lessen the possibility the boot / system partition(s) will fill up, causing the O/S to stop. I found the opposite is true. I can't count how many times I've "hit my head on the ceiling" because the boot / system partitions(s) are too small. In general I've been stuck too many times running out of space on one partition, while others go under-utilized. To a lesser extent, performance wise, multiple partitions on one hard drive means the disk heads may have to jump further and may have a *small* impact on performance. No matter how good the tools, repartitioning should be considered as a last resort in my opinion. I know your query will generate plenty of lively debate. |
kingdragonfly (309) | ||
| 441570 | 2006-03-28 23:48:00 | If the drive size is "only" 20GB, I'd go along with Kingdragonfly, and just have the one partition. :2cents: |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 441571 | 2006-03-28 23:48:00 | Pain = one partition ;) :D with a 20gig drive i proberly wouldn't bother. XP really needs 10gig and that only leaves 10 gig for the 2nd drive. 20gig is fairly small these days and you will find it fills up really fast. with small drives partitioning dosn't help much. |
tweak'e (69) | ||
| 441572 | 2006-03-30 11:17:00 | Thank you people :thumbs: | Joe Blogs (35) | ||
| 441573 | 2006-03-30 11:25:00 | You would be better off getting a new larger drive to install Windows onto. Even a 80 gig drive will let you have a 20/60 partition. You can put all your personal stuff onto the 60 gig partition and leave the 20 gig partition for the OS only. If Windows needs reinstalling, then your data on the 60 gig partition will be safe. Install the old 20 gig drive as a slave, and use this to store your Acronis images on. Gives you plenty of room and saves having to backup to DVDs or CDs. Also makes creating and restoring images much faster. |
Jen (38) | ||
| 441574 | 2006-03-30 22:06:00 | Jens idea is better. I have a 120Gb drive. 10Gb is for the O/S - XP, and its using 3.8Gb of it. The rest is for everything else. Nothing goes onto C:, not even XPs stupid default My Documents, I moved that. I image C: for emergency repairs if needed onto D:. Important stuff on D: is backed up to both another HDD and DVDs. |
pctek (84) | ||
| 441575 | 2006-04-06 06:18:00 | I've taken above advice and fitted an extra hdd. Only 20 gigs but also a DVD burner and usb laptop drive. I feel that gives me a safe backup system. I'd read that acronis was good but I didn't realize how good until today. I just did a dummy run and cloned my newly set up OS and favorite programs in less than ten minutes. It gives me a lot of confidence see everything identical on the new drive. Once again "Thanks for your Valuable Advice." |
Joe Blogs (35) | ||
| 1 | |||||