several logical partitions or several mounted logical part..

My concern here is not for creating a back up system. I'm sorry if I gave you
that impression (though I don't know how I did). That is already provided on
a secondary drive with Casper XP imaging. I am creating these partitions as
a means of improving system reliability, performance, and organization. My
research shows that it is a highly recommended partition scheme. My question
relates to using mounted drives for the documents, temp folders, and program
files, not to the partition scheme itself.

Can you please comment on the use of mounted drives.
--
2dogs in Oregon USA


"Malke" wrote:

> 2dogs wrote:
>
> > I am building a new small office system and after much research have
> > decided to format my hdd with separate partitions for OS, Documents
> > and Settings, Program Files, Temp files.
> >
> > It seems that the traditional way to do this is to reset paths for
> > each of these items to the new location (in the registry, or
> > environment variables). However, it seems that doing this via mounted
> > logical partitions (logical drives) is a very easy way to do this. For
> > example; I could mount a partition as C:\Documents and Settings, and
> > another as C:\Program Files. In this manner all Documents and Settings
> > activity and all programs installed would automatically be on these
> > partitions. The operation would be transparent to the user.
> >
> > Am I full of BS or is this a viable way to do this? What's the
> > downside if any?
> >
> > Also, I think the Windows Temp folders are moved to a different
> > partition by setting the system environmental variables to the new
> > path. Please correct me if I am wrong. Since the users temp folders
> > are contained in Documents and Settings I suppose they don't have to
> > be redirected unless I wanted them on a partition different than the
> > Documents and Settings partition.
> >
> > I have found virtually no posts in the XP forums relating to Mounted
> > Logical Partitions. Whats up with that?
>
> Just one computer? My suggestion is to have a good solid machine with
> two hard drives and a DVD burner. Put operating system and programs on
> the first hard drive and data on the second drive. Use program options
> to make the default saving location folders on the second hard drive
> (bypassing My Documents). Back up data by burning onto DVD or CD at
> least once a week. Take backup off-site or put in a fireproof. Very
> simple. You can also run SecondCopy (www.centered.com) and funnel all
> backed up data to one folder on the second hard drive (cleverly naming
> it something useful like "SC backup" so backups of multiple folders are
> easy.
>
> Malke
> --
> Elephant Boy Computers
> www.elephantboycomputers.com
> "Don't Panic!"
> MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
>

2dogs wrote:

> My concern here is not for creating a back up system. I'm sorry if I
> gave you that impression (though I don't know how I did). That is
> already provided on
> a secondary drive with Casper XP imaging. I am creating these
> partitions as a means of improving system reliability, performance,
> and organization. My research shows that it is a highly recommended
> partition scheme. My question relates to using mounted drives for the
> documents, temp folders, and program files, not to the partition
> scheme itself.
>
> Can you please comment on the use of mounted drives.

Sorry, no. The only mounting I do is in Linux. You gave me the
impression that you were looking for a way to set up a stable,
easy-to-back up system because you posted in XP basics (although I've
since discovered that you've multiposted elsewhere). You didn't mention
a secondary drive with Casper XP imaging, so there was no way for me to
know that.

My comment on the use of mounted drives is that the more complex you
make a system the more likely it is to fail. If you just want to play
around with different partitioning schemes, set up a testbed machine.
Try a RAID combination - mirroring for redundancy, not striping for
speed. If you'd like to give the url for the research you did showing
that mounted drives is a "highly recommended partition scheme", I'd be
glad to take a look at it.

Malke
--
Elephant Boy Computers
www.elephantboycomputers.com
"Don't Panic!"
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

I never said that MOUNTED partitions were highly recommended. I said the
multiple patition scheme is highly recommended. My whole effort here is to
solicit feedback on implementing such a system using MOUNTED partitions
instead of standard partitions. If you can't comment on my question please
don't comment at all. Im not asking about the prefered partition scheme.
That's already decided. I'm asking about using MOUNTED partitions. I don't
know how many ways I can say this!

Here is a link to one of many articles that discuss reasons to partition:

http://aumha.org/a/parts.htm

If you would quit responding to my post from different forums you would be
aware of all of my responses to you. I already told you I have a backup
system in place.
--
2dogs in Oregon USA


"Malke" wrote:

> 2dogs wrote:
>
> > My concern here is not for creating a back up system. I'm sorry if I
> > gave you that impression (though I don't know how I did). That is
> > already provided on
> > a secondary drive with Casper XP imaging. I am creating these
> > partitions as a means of improving system reliability, performance,
> > and organization. My research shows that it is a highly recommended
> > partition scheme. My question relates to using mounted drives for the
> > documents, temp folders, and program files, not to the partition
> > scheme itself.
> >
> > Can you please comment on the use of mounted drives.
>
> Sorry, no. The only mounting I do is in Linux. You gave me the
> impression that you were looking for a way to set up a stable,
> easy-to-back up system because you posted in XP basics (although I've
> since discovered that you've multiposted elsewhere). You didn't mention
> a secondary drive with Casper XP imaging, so there was no way for me to
> know that.
>
> My comment on the use of mounted drives is that the more complex you
> make a system the more likely it is to fail. If you just want to play
> around with different partitioning schemes, set up a testbed machine.
> Try a RAID combination - mirroring for redundancy, not striping for
> speed. If you'd like to give the url for the research you did showing
> that mounted drives is a "highly recommended partition scheme", I'd be
> glad to take a look at it.
>
> Malke
> --
> Elephant Boy Computers
> www.elephantboycomputers.com
> "Don't Panic!"
> MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
>

2dogs wrote:

> I never said that MOUNTED partitions were highly recommended. I said
> the multiple patition scheme is highly recommended. My whole effort
> here is to solicit feedback on implementing such a system using
> MOUNTED partitions instead of standard partitions. If you can't
> comment on my question please don't comment at all. Im not asking
> about the prefered partition scheme. That's already decided. I'm
> asking about using MOUNTED partitions. I don't know how many ways I
> can say this!
>
> Here is a link to one of many articles that discuss reasons to
> partition:
>
> http://aumha.org/a/parts.htm
>
> If you would quit responding to my post from different forums you
> would be aware of all of my responses to you. I already told you I
> have a backup system in place.

Well, I guess you really told me off. I'm sorry that I was unable to
help you and that I apparently misinterpreted your posts and what you
were really asking. Good luck with your small office setup.

Malke
--
Elephant Boy Computers
www.elephantboycomputers.com
"Don't Panic!"
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

2dogs wrote:

> My concern here is not for creating a back up system. I'm sorry if I
> gave you that impression (though I don't know how I did). That is
> already provided on a secondary drive with Casper XP imaging. I am
> creating these partitions as a means of improving system reliability,
> performance, and organization. My research shows that it is a highly
> recommended partition scheme.


You can always find lots of people to recommend almost anything, so almost
any partitioning scheme is likely to come highly recommended by *some* group
of people.

However your research has led you astray. You are planning on too many
partitions. Separating data from everything else can be of benefit, but
separating program files and temp files has no value and is disadvantageous.

Most people who separate program files from the operating system do so
because they think that if they ever have to reinstall the operating system,
they can keep the installed programs. However that is emphatically *not* the
case. All programs but the trivial have many references to where they are
installed (and other things like dll files) within the windows folder, in
the registry and elsewhere. If you reinstall the operating system, you lose
all of this and the installed programs are uselss and have to be
reinstalled.

Regarding temp files, putting them in a partition separate from the
operating system moves them far away from the operating system, and
increases head movement to and from these files. That in turn, slows it
down.Moreover, how much temp file space you need is highly variable,
depending on what apps you are running. Today you may need relatively
little; tomorrow you may need much more. If you don't have enough space on
your partition for temp files, programs can fail. On the other hand if you
allocate more than you need to be safe, you waste disk space. Far better to
have temp files in the same partition as the operating system, where the
space can expand and contract dynamically as needed.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup


> My question relates to using mounted
> drives for the documents, temp folders, and program files, not to the
> partition scheme itself.
>
> Can you please comment on the use of mounted drives.
>
>> 2dogs wrote:
>>
>>> I am building a new small office system and after much research have
>>> decided to format my hdd with separate partitions for OS, Documents
>>> and Settings, Program Files, Temp files.
>>>
>>> It seems that the traditional way to do this is to reset paths for
>>> each of these items to the new location (in the registry, or
>>> environment variables). However, it seems that doing this via
>>> mounted logical partitions (logical drives) is a very easy way to
>>> do this. For example; I could mount a partition as C:\Documents and
>>> Settings, and another as C:\Program Files. In this manner all
>>> Documents and Settings activity and all programs installed would
>>> automatically be on these partitions. The operation would be
>>> transparent to the user.
>>>
>>> Am I full of BS or is this a viable way to do this? What's the
>>> downside if any?
>>>
>>> Also, I think the Windows Temp folders are moved to a different
>>> partition by setting the system environmental variables to the new
>>> path. Please correct me if I am wrong. Since the users temp folders
>>> are contained in Documents and Settings I suppose they don't have to
>>> be redirected unless I wanted them on a partition different than the
>>> Documents and Settings partition.
>>>
>>> I have found virtually no posts in the XP forums relating to Mounted
>>> Logical Partitions. Whats up with that?
>>
>> Just one computer? My suggestion is to have a good solid machine with
>> two hard drives and a DVD burner. Put operating system and programs
>> on the first hard drive and data on the second drive. Use program
>> options to make the default saving location folders on the second
>> hard drive (bypassing My Documents). Back up data by burning onto
>> DVD or CD at least once a week. Take backup off-site or put in a
>> fireproof. Very simple. You can also run SecondCopy
>> (www.centered.com) and funnel all backed up data to one folder on
>> the second hard drive (cleverly naming it something useful like "SC
>> backup" so backups of multiple folders are easy.
>>
>> Malke
>> --
>> Elephant Boy Computers
>> www.elephantboycomputers.com
>> "Don't Panic!"
>> MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User