Re: Which partition for recording changes?
- From: "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 15:05:00 +1100
Jim <null@xxxxxxxx> wrote
> Peter, you have my response, I stand by ALL OF IT, as stated,
You can stand anywhere you like, you're just plain wrong.
> if you have question, ask,
No thanks, you clearly dont have a clue about the basics.
> nuff said.
Nope.
> Good Night, Rod.
Pathetic, really.
> "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.
.
- 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
- Re: Which partition for recording changes?
- From: Jim
- Which partition for recording changes?
- Prev by Date: Re: Which partition for recording changes?
- Next by Date: Re: Can't undelete from Recycle Bin on one HD
- Previous by thread: Re: Which partition for recording changes?
- Next by thread: Re: Which partition for recording changes?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
