Re: Which partition for recording changes?
- From: "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 20:49:32 +1100
Jim <null@xxxxxxxx> wrote
> And to add more complications, I also said before that RAID 1
> (mirroring) is really the better solution to your problem. Based on your
> replies, it seems you are primarily concerned about protection against
> a failed HD, and thus the loss of XP. Well, that's what RAID 1 is for!
Pity its got its own downsides!!
> It provides fail-over protection by realtime replication
> of your data across one ore more HDs.
And is another single point of failure. No thanks.
> I use it myself to solve this very problem.
More fool you.
> The only reason we're even talking about using a boot manager
> is because of the way you attempted to solve this problem.
Wrong again.
> You attempted to multi-boot XP,
No he didnt, Terry did.
> but relied on the Windows default boot
> loader, which was the primary mistake.
Wrong, again.
> Without partition hiding, this caused the behavior you saw.
Wrong, as always.
> I suggested the use of a replacement for that boot loader
> in the name of BootIt NG, since it specifically addressed
> the problem your initial solution created.
Pity it doesnt.
> But in actuality, a boot manager is better suited to someone
> trying to use only one HD and boot more than a single OS
> (i.e., multiple OS partitions on the same drive). But using
> BootIt NG as I've described in my other posts will work too.
Adds nothing at all.
> Only problem is, you won't have a realtime copy of your
> current working XP installation. The cloned XP partition
> will always be out of date as changes are applied to
> your working XP installation.
Nothing to stop you cloning again when you do make changes.
> Perhaps this is what you want, sort of an archived version.
Yep, RAID1 has real downsides.
> If so, then use of BootIt NG is better, indeed, necessary,
Wrong, as always.
> as a RAID 1 solution would result in realtime replication.
> Truth be told, the latter is what most ppl want.
Wrong, as always.
> But it's totally up to you.
And you can have both if your silly 'advice' is ignored.
> "Peter" <peterfoxghost@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:aEcdf.21710$1L3.993412@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Peter, you have my response, I stand by ALL OF IT, as stated, if
>>> you have question, ask, nuff said.
>>
>> I'm not sure if I have seen your response to my questions. Let me
>> repeat:
>>
>> Because none of my OS-es use FATxx anymore; it is NTFS or else, I
>> would be forced to create additional partition for BootIt NG. I
>> don't like that.
>>
>> So that means if a hard drive with BootIt NG partition fails, I
>> would have to restore BootIt NG partition somewhere, BEFORE I could
>> use any systems on other hard drives?
>>
>> "unknown partitions" are good and bad. One could forget about what
>> those "unknown partitions" are, and delete them by mistake.
.
- 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
- Re: Which partition for recording changes?
- From: Peter
- 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: sector zero corruption needs help
- Previous by thread: Re: Which partition for recording changes?
- Next by thread: Re: Which partition for recording changes?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
