Re: Which partition for recording changes?
- From: "Jim" <null@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 18:09:34 -0800
Peter, you have my response, I stand by ALL OF IT, as stated, if you have
question, ask, nuff said.
Good Night, Rod.
"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3tkvakFtiei7U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Jim <null@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:3tkocnFs76s3U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Jim <null@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> Does BootIt NG require its own partition on one of the hard drives?
> >>>
> >>> It's quite flexible. There are several options.
> >>>
> >>> You could define its own partition, and use either FAT16, FAT32, or
> >>> the BootIt NG proprietary format. It only requires 8-16mb. In my
> >>> case, I opted to create a small 16mb FAT16 at the head of my HD
> >>> formatted as bootable DOS. I did this so I could gain access to the
> >>> BootIt NG files by simply booting it directly. It can be
> >>> advantageous to do this, for example, BootIt NG allows you to ad
> >>> your own sound files, background bitmaps, etc.
> >>>
> >>> Another option would be to simply create a small 8-16mb FAT16
> >>> partition, format it, and install BootIt NG there.
> >>>
> >>> And of course, you could install it to your Windows XP partition, or
> >>> any other FAT16/FAT32 partition (not sure if NTFS is supported, I'd
> >>> need to check further). This is obviously the easiest installation
> >>> since it requires no reworking of the partitions, BUT, it places a
> >>> dependency of the boot manager into your OS partition, something I
> >>> prefer to avoid. At times, I even install BootIt NG on its own HD,
> >>> which then always boots various OS's on other HDs. Whatever free
> >>> space remains on the BootIt NG drive I use for storing OS image
> >>> copies, work partitions, etc.
> >>>
> >>> So you pretty much can do whatever suits your preferences.
> >>
> >>>> What happens if that drive dies? Can I still easily
> >>>> boot my OS installed on a third hard drive?
> >>
> >>> A fail HD is a risk to ANYTHING on that drive, nothing special about
> >>> BootIt NG. Just like anything else, you should backup the BootIt NG
> >>> partition from time to time. And being so small, it's quite easy to
> >>> do. I just use its built-in image copy facility and store it on
> >>> DVD/CD media. Or perhaps an external USB HD. BootIt NG will even
> >>> backup to floppy.
> >>
> >> The whole point of having two copys of XP is so that if
> >> one of the drives dies, you can just boot off the other one.
> >>
> >> Its perfectly doable without doing a backup and restore.
>
> > I was only responding to the question about what happens should the
> > drive the boot manager was on die (that's what was asked). I was
> > only assuring him that the boot manager partition could be backed up
> > like any other partition and recovered. Thus, not losing access to
> > the installed OS's to which it refers.
>
> But what Terry wants to do is to have either drive bootable on drive
failure.
>
> If he was going to restore on boot failure, there
> isnt any need for two copys of the OS at all.
>
> > But before the whole discussion gets mired in boot managers, let's
> > face it, a big part of the problem here is that the OP requested help
> > (even an explanation) as to why things went awry AFTER the fact.
> > The OP did not understand the implications of the way he was trying
> > to solve this problem, a problem that has never been totally defined.
>
> While he may not have done that formally, its pretty obvious
> what he is trying to do, have two copys of the OS so he can
> boot the other if one copy becomes unusuable for whatever reason.
>
> > So let's define it now, what should have been
> > done before the current mess was created.
>
> That's just one way of doing things.
>
> > Q. How do I protect my current installation of XP
> > against possible lose, perhaps due to HD failure
> > or partition corruption? What are my options?
>
> A better question would be how to recover
> gracefully regardless of what happens.
>
> > A. I can think of three possibilities.
>
> There's a lot more than just 3.
>
> > First and most straight-forward, RAID 1 (mirroring).
> > You can pick up an ATI FastTrak 100 TX2 off eBay for a
> > few bucks, works great. Each write operation is merely
> > replicated to the other drive. Simple solution and it works.
>
> But doesnt protect you against something stuffing up the
> XP install, that will often stuff up both copys simultaneously.
>
> And most dont actually need the speed
> of recovery that that config has either.
>
> And you are introducing another potential
> point of failure, the RAID hardware. No thanks.
>
> > Second possibility is to image/copy the current XP partition
> > to DVD/CD media, or another HD (internal or external).
>
> He's already got two copys of XP and an image as well.
>
> > Now here's where the caveat comes in -- you have to be careful
> > you don't use the COPIED partition while the old partition is visible,
> > lest you end up w/ the OP's problem. At the very least, use the
> > ORIGINAL XP partition, and even though the copied partition (H:)
> > is exposed, if you leave it alone, no harm done, it just sits there
> > as a data drive. Unfortunately, the OP booted the H: partition
> > (w/ all it's embedded C: references) and NOT the C: partition,
> > as he should have done. BIG MISTAKE!
>
> Its more complicated than that in practice. Its perfectly possible
> to produce a pair of copys of XP that get the C drive letter when
> booted, and fix the letter the other partitions get, and have that
> work fine regardless of which of the copys of XP is booted,
> and you dont have to hide the original except on the first boot
> of the copy after the copy has been made.
>
> The big advantage of this approach is that no additional
> hardware or software is required at all except to actually
> make the copy and you have that already anyway.
>
> > Third possibility it to use something like the
> > Trios, which is a hardware solution that allows
> > you to switch *physically* between bootable HDs.
>
> > http://www.3dgameman.com/vr/romtec/trios2/video_review.htm
>
> Cant see the point in proprietary hardware
> when its perfectly possible to do it without that.
>
> Its just another potential point of failure.
>
> > You copy the XP partition from one HD to the other. Install the
> > Trios, and boot one of them, leaving the other alone (it's never even
> > started). If one fails, you shutdown, toggle to the other drive, and
> > reboot. Pretty simple actually. Of course, this doesn't keep the
> > HD's "synched" as the RAID setup does. But frankly, the OP never
> > indicated this was a requirement or desired anyway. So it has to be
> > at least considered.
>
> > Finally, use a boot manager so you can to LOGICALLY hide a
> > HD, some or all of its partitions. This is in contrast to the previous
> > solution which PHYSICALLY hides one HD from the other.
>
> Hiding is just one approach, its perfectly possible to do it without
hiding.
>
> > In a nutshell, that's the answer(s) to this problem. Pick your poison.
>
> Or just work out how to do what he is trying to
> do with what he has already got. Perfectly doable.
>
> > One thing we know for sure, the OP's original approach was wrong.
>
> Yes.
>
> > ANY of the approaches I described above would
> > allow the OP a fail-over solution should one HD fail.
>
> So would doing what he tried to do correctly.
>
> > The question for the OP to consider is what best
> > suits his objectives and economics. For most
> > people, RAID is a cost effective solution for realtime
> > replication. No, it doesn't provide incremental or
> > archival protection, but the OP never asked for that.
>
> Doesnt matter what he asked for, what matters is the very
> real downsides of that approach. They are real and can bite.
>
> The last thing he needs is to realise that he didnt ask
> the right question initially when he has fangs in his arse.
>
> It makes a lot more sense to point him in the direction of
> an approach which cant result in fangs in the arse instead.
>
> And two copys of XP on separate hard drives and
> an image as well does that fine when done properly.
>
> > The OP's original post resulted in such protection,
> > but it was incidental. I assume the OP really
> > wants HD fail-over protection, not archival backup,
>
> Your assumptions are irrelevant, what
> matters is what make most sense.
>
> > so RAID is perfect.
>
> Nope, its got real downsides that you didnt even mention.
>
> > OTH, if archival backup is desired, the use of the Trios
> > or boot manager solution is better. As usual, these
> > approaches bring there own advantages and disadvantages.
>
> And doing it properly with what he already has doesnt.
>
> > For example, the Trios (AFAIK) permits one or the other HD, not both.
>
> So, when he wants to have 2 200G drives, with only a tiny part of
> each of those with the XP install on them, its a lousy approach for him.
>
> > So you probably can't copy from one to the other directly (of course,
> > this is perhaps exactly what the OP wants, heck, who knows).
>
> Corse it is if he wants to keep the two copys of XP in synch.
>
> > On the other hand, the use of a boot manager makes
> > hiding and unhiding partitions trival, and thus you get
> > the benefits associated w/ hiding when you want it
> > (e.g., booting the OS), vs. the benefits of unhiding
> > (e.g., when copying a partition from one HD to the other).
>
> But isnt as convenient when one drive dies.
>
> > Of course, using a boot manager is more complex than
> > the Trios, and perhaps more risky, in the sense that you
> > are manipulating the HD master boot record, have the
> > boot manager installed, etc. The Trios is just a simple
> > toggle switch setup, pretty mundane, but effective.
>
> But essentially useless in his situation.
>
> > Not sure what more I can say. Those are the options.
>
> You left out the best option.
>
> > There are good and bad points for each. But you can't use
> > the OP's original approach, as we've seen, it doesn't work.
>
> It does work if done correctly.
>
> >>>> Does Disk Manager in Windows see other disks and partitions?
> >>
> >>> Disk Manager is NOT a boot manager. It's just Windows interface to
> >>> the HD's in your system. It will let you define partitions, format
> >>> them, etc. BUT, if you're using a boot manager like BootIt NG,
> >>> while the Windows Disk Manager will see the HD's on the system, it
> >>> will ONLY see the partitions that BootIt NG has not hidden!!!
> >>> That's the whole of this problem. When Disk Manager is started in
> >>> Windows and you have TWO partitions using the plain ol' Windows
> >>> boot loader, Windows has no choice but to label one C: and the
> >>> other H:. Using BootIt NG, you'd create a boot menu item that
> >>> EXCLUDED the H: partition so that Windows Disk Manager nevers see
> >>> it. Yes, it sees the actually HD, but it will show up under Disk
> >>> Manager as either unpartitioned space or unknown partitioned space.
> >>> And as such, it will not, indeed CAN NOT, assign a drive letter.
>
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Which partition for recording changes?
- From: J. Clarke
- Re: Which partition for recording changes?
- From: Rod Speed
- Re: Which partition for recording changes?
- From: Peter
- Re: Which partition for recording changes?
- References:
- Which partition for recording changes?
- From: Terry Pinnell
- Re: Which partition for recording changes?
- From: Jim
- Re: Which partition for recording changes?
- From: Jim
- Re: Which partition for recording changes?
- From: Rod Speed
- Which partition for recording changes?
- Prev by Date: Re: 2.5" drive recommendations?
- Next by Date: Re: Which partition for recording changes?
- Previous by thread: Re: Which partition for recording changes?
- Next by thread: Re: Which partition for recording changes?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
