Hi,

Consider the picture below. It represents an hypothetical physical placement of the partitions in a platter of a hard disk.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v280/Furuyah/comp/partitions.png


And my question is: Is this the real placement that occurs with any modern hard drive?

In other words:

• Will the low order partitions be outer in the platter no matter if they are primary, extended or logical drives (like in the picture)?
  
  
• Or this rule applies only to primary and extended (the logical drives will be all mixed under the portion of its extended partition)?
  
  
• Or else?
  

I'm planing to partition my hard drives (one of 80GB and other of 250GB) and is crucial for me to know that.



Other quick-to-answer doubts:

• 1. Windows swap file can be put in a logical drive?
  
• 2. If I have two primary partitions in a hard drive, will I be able to use the other primary (under Windows XP) if:
  - it is another Windows XP
  - it is Linux OS
  
• 3. In Linux is mandatory to have a partion for the swap file? It can be put in a logical drive?
  

Thanks in advance!

F u r u y a wrote on Jan 31^st, 2009 at 1:07pm:

In other words: * Will the low order partitions be outer in the platter no matter if they are primary, extended or logical drives (like in the picture)? * Or this rule applies only to primary and extended (the logical drives will be all mixed under the portion of its extended partition)? * Or else?

If you are starting from a clean drive, the first partitions you make will be placed on the outside of the drive.  Subsequent partitions will be placed further and further in.  It doesn't matter what type of partition it is.  However, if you are not starting from a clean drive, you can't assume lower 'numbered' or 'lettered' partitions are necessarily on the outside.  Your partitioning tools should be able to give you some sort of indication of where your partition is at on the drive.

Note that most of us here on this forum have decided that there is very little percievable performance differene between inner and outer partitions.  I think that this is likely true because most of your performance is based on seek times, rather than read times.

Also note that you can only have one extended partition.  You cannot have two, as in your diagram.


F u r u y a wrote on Jan 31^st, 2009 at 1:07pm:

Other quick-to-answer doubts: * 1. Windows swap file can be put in a logical drive? * 2. If I have two primary partitions in a hard drive, will I be able to use the other primary (under Windows XP) if: - it is another Windows XP - it is Linux OS * 3. In Linux is mandatory to have a partion for the swap file? It can be put in a logical drive?

1. Yes.  Just make sure the Windows 'system' partition is on a primary partition.   Windows stores some files it uses to boot up on the system partition, and these files must be on a primary partition.  Note that this is just the 'system' partition.  The 'boot' partition contains the actual OS and can be on an extended partition.  They can also be the same partition if that partition is primary.  

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314470

Sorry that's a little confusing, but I didn't come up with the scheme...

2. I think you are asking if you will be able to read the data on a different partition if there is another OS installed on it.  The answer depends on the filesystem on the drive.  If you have WinXP on it and formatted it with NTFS or FAT, then you will be able to read/write to it.  If it has Linux on it and you formatted it with FAT/FAT32, then you will be able to read/write to it.  If it has Linux and you format it with EXT2/3/4 or RiserFS or many of the other Linux filesystems, then no, Windows is not able to read those easily.

3. It is not mandatory to have a partition for the swap file.  It is just a file and can go anywhere.  It is nice to have it on its own partition so that it is guarenteed not to get fragmented.  That partition can be logical.

I assume you've read Rad's guide, but from some of the questions you asked I'm not sure if that's a good assumption.  It has tons of great information and will probably clear some things up for you:
http://partition.radified.com/

Yes, I read the entire partition guide before posting (so I apologize if I missed some informations :-[).


I'm planing to partition my HDD's using FDISK and the drive is not clean (actually is quite full). In this case, as I create the partitions they will be placed from outer to inner regions (as the picture shows)?
PS: I've just read about the *one* extended partion per disk in the FDISK guide :) .


I've just read that 314470 article. If the answer won't be too big for you to write here, would you tell me why and how to separte the boot volume from the system volume? I'm curious now :]


Thank you very much for the detailed response, MrMagoo!





PS: The forum are saying I'm a spammer but I was just clicking "Refresh Preview"! :(

F u r u y a wrote on Jan 31^st, 2009 at 6:17pm:

I'm planing to partition my HDD's using FDISK and the drive is not clean (actually is quite full). In this case, as I create the partitions they will be placed from outer to inner regions (as the picture shows)?

If you leave the existing partitions on there, then where your new partitions end up will depend on where the current partitions are and how big the new partition is going to be.  I think by default, FDISK tries to put the new partition in the free space that is closest to the outer edge and is big enough to hold the new partition.  Does that make sense?  Many other partition tools behave similarly.  

If there is anyway you can back up the data in the existing partitions to another disk while you repartition this one, that will allow you to remove all the partitions currently there and start from scratch.  While not mandatory, it will give you much more flexibility in where you create the new partitions.


F u r u y a wrote on Jan 31^st, 2009 at 6:17pm:

If the answer won't be too big for you to write here, would you tell me why and how to separte the boot volume from the system volume? I'm curious now :]

Its easy to do, you just have to set your partitions up ahead of time.  The WinXP installer tries really hard to automate the process, so you don't have much control over it.  The boot partition is wherever you tell the installer to install WinXP to.  If that is on a logical partition, then the installer will use the first available primary partition with either a FAT/NTFS file system as the system partition.  I don't think it has to be the first partition, but it does have to be primary.  If your boot partition is a primary partition, I don't think it will use a seperate system partition, as its not needed.

If you don't have a either a FAT16/32 or NTFS primary partition available for the installer to use as a system partition, it will complain and refuse to install.

Note that the system partition doesn't have to be dedicated to the 'system' files.  The system files take up very little space (< 100 MB).  You can make the partition very small if you want.  If the partition is bigger than that, you can still use the space to store other files - videos, songs, documents, whatever.  Just make sure you don't destroy that partition later or Windows will not be able to boot.

That's how I remember it.  Maybe someone who has actually studied the details of the WinXP install could clarify for me.

I hope that is understandable.  I feel like it could be explained more clearly but I can't find the right words.

Sorry I forgot to say that! I will back up the files to other HDD* (a friend got some free space in a 1TB HDD) and I'll remove all partitions prior to creating them. Now, in this case (here we go again), as I create the partitions they will be placed from outer to inner regions (as the picture shows)?


About the system/boot volumes, I wouldn't worry about the explanation because it was prety clear for me :) . The only thing I'm still curious about is why one would like to use separate partitions for system/boot volumes if he do have the choice of either doing or not doing that (my case).




*Actually it's a long history... to resume, my HDD was re-partioned with all my data in it and I will try to recover my files using GetDataBack (is this program 'Ok' to do that?). If there is plenty of space available in my friend's HDD I will make an image of the HDD first. Then, after the recover attempt, I will delete all partitions and create a new partitioning scheme (which is the reason I'm here bothering you guys ;D).

F u r u y a,

With partitioning software (not Microsoft) you can be flexible and put the WinXP partition at the end of the HD if you like. But you wouldn't.

Have a look at the WinXP videos at this site. Especially "Installing Windows XP to its own primary partition". It helps you understand the background of a WinXP installation.

http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/bootit-next-generation-tutorials.htm

fwiw, i've never heard of a drive with more than 1 extended partition .. like the 1 indicated by your graphic at the top .. so 'no,' in that respect, i wouldn' say that is normal.

Thx for your reply Brian and Rad.

@Brian
I'll partition using FDISK because I'll first remove all partitions prior to creating them. Sry but I can't see the movie (I tried VLC but still the movie didn't work here in my old K6-II with Win98SE).

@Rad
Yes, I just realize that after MrMagoo message and FDISK guide. :]



I know that's a lot of things to answer so I will quote just the principal question:

Quote:

I will back up the files to other HDD* (a friend got some free space in a 1TB HDD) and I'll remove all partitions prior to creating them. Now, in this case (here we go again), as I create the partitions with FDISK they will be placed from outer to inner regions (as the picture shows)?

Just another question:

• A WinXP.Pro.SP2 installation CD will recognize my 250GB HDD entirely will all the partitions I created with FDISK? Or it will recognize only 128GB as happens under WinXP environment without SP2?

Quote:

Note that most of us here on this forum have decided that there is very little perceivable performance difference between inner and outer partitions.  I think that this is likely true because most of your performance is based on seek times, rather than read times.

With respect to performance, there is a consideration regarding the placement of files within a partition.  The I-FASST technology by Diskeeper, for example, provides this functionality and may deliver a 10%-20% speed enhancement.

Yeah Pleo, that's because these days all hard drives are zoned; the difference is there and measurable for all of them, provided that the interface to the drive is fast enough to avoid being a bottleneck, which it generally wasn't pre-SATA.

The fact that SATA has made the presence of zoning visible in synthetic benchmarks to more people doesn't mean it's worth worrying about in practice though. In real use for filesystems it's so far down the list of performance factors it's a total non-issue.

Guys, I don't wanna to rush you, but my friend who owns 1TB+ of storage said that he will be available next wednesday, so I would appreciate if anyone could answer those two questions:



Quote:

1. I will back-up the files of my HDD's into other HDD 2. I'll remove all partitions 3. I'll create the partitions In this case, as I create the partitions with FDISK will they be placed from outer to inner regions and will that apply to the logical drives as well (like in the picture)?

Quote:

After booting from a WinXP.Pro.SP2 installation CD, will the installation recognize my 250GB HDD entirely will all the partitions I created with FDISK? Or it will recognize only 128GB as happens under WinXP environment without SP2 and with standart WinXP.Pro installation CD?

And thanks for the information, Pleonasm.

F u r u y a wrote on Feb 1^st, 2009 at 9:57pm:

In this case, as I create the partitions with FDISK will they be placed from outer to inner regions and will that apply to the logical drives as well (like in the picture)?

MrMagoo wrote on Jan 31^st, 2009 at 3:41pm:

If you are starting from a clean drive, the first partitions you make will be placed on the outside of the drive.Subsequent partitions will be placed further and further in.

F u r u y a wrote on Feb 1^st, 2009 at 9:57pm:

After booting from a WinXP.Pro.SP2 installation CD, will the installation recognize my 250GB HDD entirely will all the partitions I created with FDISK? Or it will recognize only 128GB as happens under WinXP environment without SP2 and with standart WinXP.Pro installation CD?

I haven't had this issue with my WinXP installations.  I think it depends on your BIOS, not Windows.  My large drives (200GB+) are always recognized.  Maybe I slipstreamed in some magic a long time ago I've forgotten, so someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I asked again about the placement because I thought you meant that that was true only for partitions (and not for logical drives). So if the logical drives will too follow the order 'outer to inner', now I have *peace of mind* (excuse-me mr. Rad for stoling your expression :) )


I took a look now in the manual of my mobo (EPoX 8RDA+) and I couldn't find anywhere saying about HDD limitation. But today I'll get the WinXP.Pro.SP2 CD and I'll boot it to see if this time it recognizes my 250GB HDD.



Thanks again MrMagoo.

wrote on Feb 1^st, 2009 at 6:36pm:

In real use for filesystems it's so far down the list of performance factors it's a total non-issue.

Nigel,

I'm a bit confused about zoned HDs. Does this mean it doesn't matter (speed wise) if you have the OS partition at the "end" of the HD as opposed to the "start" of the HD?

Brian wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2009 at 2:04am:

Does this mean it doesn't matter (speed wise) if you have the OS partition at the "end" of the HD as opposed to the "start" of the HD?

In practice, not really, because there are almost no circumstances at all where you're a) doing really large sequential reads, in a situation where b) the reading is transfer-bound, for the difference in transfer speed between zones to make any real difference. Programs are page-faulted in, not sequentially loaded, for instance, so program startup is a situation almost never bound by sequential transfer speed. And in almost every kind of normal situation where a program is reading a really big file it's doing something with the data - so it tends not to be transfer-bound either.

Sustained transfer speed used to matter once upon a time - we're talking 10+ years ago - because the sustained write performance you got with commodity gear couldn't meet some critical criteria. For instance, when I was first getting into DV video it was a pain with regular PCs to be able to maintain sustained transfers off DV tape to hard disk without getting glitches (so you raid-0 striped your video storage, and such like). These days, the vast and consistent year-on-year increase in areal density and drive interfaces (and thus transfer rates) mean that even a cheap-ass 5400rpm laptop drive can do that kind of thing now.

Get one of today's insanely huge disks, format it with one NTFS partition, and just relax and get on whatever you want to actually DO with the computer. That plus virtual machines if you need 'em = maximum flexibility, lowest maintenance, and no stress. Life's too short to waste.

Quote:

In real use for filesystems it's so far down the list of performance factors it's a total non-issue.

Empirically, my experience contradicts this assertion. On a Windows XP system, I found a noticeable and nice 18% advantage delivered by the wise placement of files on the operating partition by Diskeeper’s I-FASST.

In fairness, I should note that some users of I-FASST have not been so fortunate.

wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2009 at 4:03am:

Get one of today's insanely huge disks, format it with one NTFS partition, and just relax and get on whatever you want to actually DO with the computer. That plus virtual machines if you need 'em = maximum flexibility, lowest maintenance, and no stress. Life's too short to waste.

For sure.  I'm with Nigel on this one.


Pleonasm wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2009 at 8:46am:

Empirically, my experience contradicts this assertion. On a Windows XP system, I found a noticeable and nice 18% advantage delivered by the wise placement of files on the operating partition by Diskeeper’s I-FASST.

I think that most benchmarks would agree with you.  But, Nigel isn't talking about how HD benchmarks work, he's talking about the way programs you use every day interact with your hard drive.  Despite improved benchmarks, most people don't notice a worthwhile speed improvement in everyday tasks by moving data to faster parts of the disk.  

Although, on F u r u y a's behalf, it seems he is a little new to all of this, and the knowledge he is gaining from the experience may be worth the trouble, no matter if he sees a speed improvement or not.  

Good news, I'm with the WinXP.Pro.SP2 CD and it did recognize the entire space of the 250GB HDD.


Nice discussion about the placement. I do some video encoding (which deals with large files, 2GB+), so maybe would be a better ideia to use the outer partition to do this instead of O/S?

I suppose I will get some perceivable improvement if I use the outer partition of both HDDs to do that: reading source video from one HDD and writing the encoded video to the other HDD (assuming little fragmentation). Actually I always did that (using both HDDs to encode videos), but I never worried about using the outer partitions.

F u r u y a wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 5:22am:

I do some video encoding [...]so maybe would be a better ideia to use the outer partition to do this instead of O/S?

It's an incredibly bad idea to partition these disks at all, and the location of the files on the disk is almost certain to be completely immaterial on a task like video re-encoding for files in consumer size ranges; for that performance is typically dominated by the activity of the video codecs, not I/O throughput (in professional situations to address the real difficulty with genuinely large raw HD video - in the 100Gb+ range - of moving around that data, things like FiberChannel-based shared storage get used).

The innermost - the slowest - zones of a 2008-vintage 1Tb drive should be delivering around 60Mb/s of sustained read throughput, a speed that would have been considered exceptional for the outermost zones of a drive from 4 years ago, and the 2009 models due out shortly from WD and Seagate should have even higher sustained transfer speeds across the board.

Since this is a consumer and not a professional situation the only task you'll every do in which the sustained throughput performance will matter is copying those files around, and by excessive over-partitioning in pursuit of tiny micro-optimizations the more of that you'll force yourself to do - so you end up spending all your time manually shuffling data instead, which will cost you more than any gain you think you might get from second-guessing drive performance. It's a penny-wise, pound-foolish approach.

Alright, you convinced me.


I was reading about changing cluster size. I have about 100GB+ of video files (average 800MB each file I guess). It's worth making a partition with an increased cluster size for those videos? If yes, what would be a good size?



ATM my plan is:
The list below should be read as:
*Placement*: *type of data* [*Number of primary partitions or logical drives*]

• Outermost: O/S and swapfile [two primaries]
  
• Second outermost: Games and Applications [two logical drives]
  
• Rest: Movies, Images, Temporary (for video-encoding), Installation files of applications, Personal data (including music). [to be defined]
  

There are two primaries and two extended, one of each in each HDD.



Please feel free to suggest modifications. I'll do the all the things (backup/partitions/restore) at my friend's place today from 20GMT.

F u r u y a wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 10:17pm:

Alright, you convinced me

My aim is not to convince; merely making sure that baseline accurate information is at least presented once by someone.

[ It may be on occasion that it is reasonable to do something different, but it needs to be done on the basis of measurement and analysis; such measurements should be considered highly contingent on the context in which they are taken, and not extrapolated to other contexts without appropriate care. ]


F u r u y a wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 10:17pm:

It's worth making a partition with an increased cluster size for those videos?

It is basically never appropriate to vary the NTFS "cluster size", because NTFS works on an extent basis like all high-end filesystems do.

Cluster size in NTFS only comes into play after you have stressed a filesystem by letting it become excessively over-fragmented (which is almost always due to letting it reach a critical load factor; yet another one of the negative things made more likely by over-partitioning). Under normal circumstances a properly sized NTFS partition would not benefit at all from defragmenting more than once every six months, tops.

wrote on Feb 4^th, 2009 at 12:59am:

Under normal circumstances a properly sized NTFS partition would not benefit at all from defragmenting more than once every six months

What minimum partition size fits into this category? And at what percentage of free space in the partition? That's a very interesting comment.

Nigel Bree, thanks for the accurate informations. I understand your point.


Ok, so I won't change cluster size. Althought the Movie Partition are not likely to be fragmented (because of very little moving/writing files; it's basicaly read-only storage and few writing of large files).

My set up is finally defined:


:: 80GB ::

• Primary
  
  • - O/S

• Extended
  
  • 1. Applications
    
  • 2. Temporary for video-encoding + video-encoding Applications
    
  • 3. Images
    

:: 250GB ::

• Primary
  
  • - Swap
    

• Extended
  
  • 1. Games
    
  • ?. Personal data + Music
    
  • ?. Movies
    

I created one primary in each HDD in case of one of them fails, so I'll need a primary in the other HDD in order to install the O/S.



My last doubt is the order of the last two Logical Drives of the 250GB HDD. Some of the movies I'll use as source for video-encoding. Should I put it before the Personal data? Or I let all those large files in the end of the HDD? Or it doesn't matter at all?

Brian wrote on Feb 4^th, 2009 at 1:36am:

And at what percentage of free space in the partition?

That's one of the two critical factors, because the higher the load factor in the partition the more constrained the filesystem is in choosing where to place things. For pretty much any filesystem, from 80% upwards fragmentation becomes basically inevitable and the longer things stay at those higher load factors the worse and worse it gets. That's an inevitable mathematical result, as I've explained in the past; it's a packing problem - i.e., NP hard, but made in effect impossible because the packer - the OS - is presented with items in no particular order and they can change size after being placed. More free space headroom means less likelihood of the OS initially placing things such that a later change can't be accomodated by extending the object in-place.

[ Of course, things like System Restore can cause problems by driving what appears to be a safely sized disk - relative to the actual data in use - into being critically full. Having System Restore on is the right default for consumers; its space consumption can have negative performance impacts, though. ]

The other critical factor is usage and application behaviour; the number of files being written (which the filesystem has to choose places for), and how the applications write them. The Windows OS (like most others) has APIs which allow applications to indicate how big a new file will become, so it can efficiently allocate the necessary space in a single contiguous extent; applications that don't use them (which is most of them) force the OS to make guesses when choosing where to place things, so things work less well, and in rare cases there are pathological application behaviours which defeat the OS heuristics and trick it into placing things poorly (forcing fragmentation even on a modestly loaded disk). These aren't problems in the OS, they are problems with badly-written applications.

By the way, that 80% figure is a very very rough approximation. In reality, there are ways to analytically model load that come up with more satisfying formulas about the free space goals, but they are ... complicated. A simple figure like 20% has the disadvantage that it doesn't attempt to capture the damage done by partitioning; at most one filesystem per disk is the goal to aim for! However, it has the signal advantage that it's both simple enough to apply generally, and captures an important behavioural scaling observation - if folks have more space, they store *bigger* files in addition to more of them, changing the distribution of file sizes and thus ... well, you hopefully get the idea.

A larger absolute amount of free space is better, and fewer partitions (so that all the free space on the disk can play a useful role) is also better.

wrote on Feb 4^th, 2009 at 10:44pm:

A larger absolute amount of free space is better, and fewer partitions (so that all the free space on the disk can play a useful role) is also better.

I agree. At one time I had multiple partitions for different files say... documents and pictures, videos, music, ghost images. I soon found that some were filling up while I still had lots of space on others. I have found that using one large partition for all data storage on a disk and seperating using folders is much easier. The only seperate partition I utilise is for the operating system. Though this is all for storage concerns and not performace.

wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2009 at 4:03am:

Get one of today's insanely huge disks, format it with one NTFS partition, and just relax and get on whatever you want to actually DO with the computer. That plus virtual machines if you need 'em = maximum flexibility, lowest maintenance, and no stress. Life's too short to waste.

Hi Folks,

This is my first post. Very helpful site! I initially arrived because of the partitioning info, but Nigel's comment suggests there's been a change in thinking? Am I correct that you no longer feel partitioning is necessary or advisable? (Incidentally, Nigel, when you say "one NTFS partition," I assume you mean just use the disk as is, with no partitions? Or do you actually mean one partition (two volumes), to keep the OS separate?)

I'm about to buy a PC, and the sales guy suggested, instead of partitioning, using two HDs--one for the OS and apps and the other for data. I don't have anywhere near 160GB of apps and data, so I'm wondering if it might be more practical to put everything on one disk and image it periodically to the other, so that when the main HD eventually dies, I can run off the second one?

Thanks for your help!

ml3 wrote on Feb 12^th, 2009 at 12:11am:

you no longer feel partitioning is necessary or advisable

I wouldn't say my view is the consensus at all; it's more a matter of how you want to deal with your computer, and deciding whether the negatives of partitioning outweigh the benefits. Just bear those negatives in mind, that's all, and consider that maybe some of the positives aren't as compelling as they used to be - bearing especially in mind how technology has changed, so that most people now buy laptops with only a single drive bay, for instance, and how easy it is to get enormous external drives we can walk around (unlike the hideous, unreliable optical media most folks were using for backups before), and how drives have gotten smarter and better at handling errors even as they have gotten bigger and faster and cheaper.

And other changes: software has gotten better too; FAT32 is a fading memory on most systems (which is a good thing) and NTFS is incredibly robust. Windows XPSP2 and above are in practice incredibly reliable compared to any version of Win9X that ever was, so it's actually extremely rare for people's OS to simply eat itself and leave an unbootable mess the way Win9X used to. Backup speeds really mattered when Rad was writing his guide, when you had to sit and wait in front of the machine to change media or take the machine offline while it was going on. Now, with external drives and with volume snapshot giving online backups while you keep using the machine, it's less compelling to micromanage that stuff.

The other thing you need to do in chopping up your disk is that you suddenly need to classify all this stuff to figure out where it goes. Now, that's fine if you have, for instance, a clear set of categories in mind for everything so you can figure out where they ought to go in terms of "these don't need to be backed up, this does". Figuring out those kinds of things for everything you put into your computer is, realistically, a lot of work, and the question is, is it worth doing that work?

For me, the answer is a clear no.


ml3 wrote on Feb 12^th, 2009 at 12:11am:

Or do you actually mean one partition (two volumes), to keep the OS separate?

I don't keep the OS separate either - haven't done in years.


ml3 wrote on Feb 12^th, 2009 at 12:11am:

I'm wondering if it might be more practical to put everything on one disk and image it periodically to the other, so that when the main HD eventually dies, I can run off the second one?

It's a absolutely fine idea to have a second disk to store your backups of the primary onto. Really, really good.

That said though, there's less to separate internal and external hard disks nowadays - a good drive in a quality eSATA/FireWire800/USB2 external enclosure is going to be just as quick as an internal one if you can use eSATA or Firewire800 - and to be able to just pick up and keep running when the primary drive fails is hard unless you just RAID-1 them - unless you think about having a system where you can mount and run the backup in a virtual machine if you had to, which is a *great* place to be in but again requires some planning.

Partitioning was useful and necessary 10 or 15 years ago.  Modern file systems can address tens of terabytes at a minimum, so size isn't an issue, like it used to be.  There also used to be a thinking that partitions toward the outside of the disk made those partitions faster.  As  you can see in this thread, there is a majority consensus that this is also not a factor these days.

Now, that isn't to say that it is not good to partition.  There are good reasons to do it.  For example, I like to make a small (say 1GB) partition just for my page file.  This is to ensure the page file never gets fragmented.  As another example, the OpenBSD install guide suggests using several specific partitions for security reasons.

I would say for most Windows home users, it is best to use 3 or less partitions.  Normally, 1 partition will serve you just fine and does provide the most flexibility.

Your idea of using your second physical hard drive for images has a lot of merit, and is, in fact, recommended on various guides on this site.  That way, if your main HD dies, you still have access to your backups.  You might even consider putting the second HD in an external USB enclosure.  The advantage is that you can power off the second HD when you are not using it to make/restore a backup, saving both electricity and wear on the drive.

Have fun and let us know if you have any other questions.

Thanks, guys. I'm all for simplicity, so I'll skip the partitions. I do have an external drive, and I image my internal HD to it--I'll just continue with that. Thanks again!

ml3,

I prefer separating data from the OS. I use two partitions and back them up differently. Images for the OS and data backup software for the data partition. It's automated so it wouldn't be any less or more work for me if I just had a single partition but I'd need a lot more backup HDs than I have at present.

wrote on Feb 12^th, 2009 at 8:39pm:

and to be able to just pick up and keep running when the primary drive fails is hard unless you just RAID-1 them - unless you think about having a system where you can mount and run the backup in a virtual machine if you had to, which is a *great* place to be in but again requires some planning.

Actually, this is something I've been wondering about. If I have a second HD with an image (which I do), and my main drive fails, I pull out the dead one, stick in a new one ... and then what? How do you get running (and on which disk) in order to mount the image on the main HD? Is it just a few steps or a long, agonizing procedure (which I suspect is more likely)? If the latter, would anyone (Rad?) care to write an article on how to do it?
Update: On looking into this further, I find it can be done by booting to a rescue disk previously created with your imaging program (e.g., Ghost or Acronis). This allows you to mount the image from the backup disk on the new (previously formatted) HD.

Nigel, how and/or why would you run the backup in a virtual machine if the drive you're going to run it on is dead, or you've just replaced it with a new, unformatted HD?

ml3 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2009 at 3:12pm:

If I have a second HD with an image (which I do), and my main drive fails, I pull out the dead one, stick in a new one ... and then what?

The installation CD for Ghost also serves as a 'rescue' disk.  You can use it to restore images.  The process is actually fairly easy.  The menus in the rescue environment are mostly intuitive.  Boot up the CD and you'll see what I mean.


ml3 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2009 at 3:12pm:

how and/or why would you run the backup in a virtual machine if the drive you're going to run it on is dead, or you've just replaced it with a new, unformatted HD?

You would need to have an OS installed on the second drive or on another computer.  You could then use the image as a virtual disk for a virtual machine on the working computer.  If done right, the virtual machine would look/act just like your old machine did when you took the image.  This would be really useful if you have things on the dead machine that you need to be able to get to with very little interruption if your HD dies and you don't happen to be able to get a replacement for it in a short time.

There are a few other threads on this forum that discuss mounting images in a virtual machine.  If you are confident you can get a new HD to replace the dead one in a short time (or can live without access to your computer for that time,) then repalcing the dead HD and restoring from backup is probably less complicated.

Thanks!

ml3 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2009 at 3:12pm:

Nigel, how and/or why would you run the backup in a virtual machine if the drive you're going to run it on is dead, or you've just replaced it with a new, unformatted HD?

The why is because drive failure isn't the only reason - or even really that common, nowadays - to need or even want to use a backup that way. The rest of the machine is vulnerable too, after all. And since laptops have for some years been the most popular kind of machine for consumers to buy, the fact they get lost and/or stolen at a terrifying rate is worth considering in terms of general advice on backup.

So, being able to get going again - really rapidly - from the last backup on whatever other hardware you might be able to get to source to plug your external backup drive into is a pretty neat proposition (even if just temporarily, while you source permanent replacement hardware).