Re: Which partition for recording changes?

Jim wrote:

> Peter, you have my response, I stand by ALL OF IT, as stated, if you have
> question, ask, nuff said.

There's one part you shouldn't stand by. He's going to be a long time
looking for an _ATI_ FastTrak 100 TX2. Now if he looks for a _Promise_
FastTrak 100 TX2 . . .

> 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.
>>
>>

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Which partition for recording changes?
    ... >>> one of the drives dies, you can just boot off the other one. ... >> drive the boot manager was on die. ... >> like any other partition and recovered. ... > isnt any need for two copys of the OS at all. ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage)
  • Re: Which partition for recording changes?
    ... >>> drive the boot manager was on die. ... >>> like any other partition and recovered. ... >> isnt any need for two copys of the OS at all. ... >> So, when he wants to have 2 200G drives, with only a tiny part of ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage)
  • Re: Notebook With Plug In Hard Drive?
    ... Vista/Windows 7 BCD boot manager has the rest of them beat anyway. ... my Windows XP on the drive. ... My 500GB and larger drives I use for backups and data. ... As there is always extra room on some partition somewhere which I ...
    (alt.sys.pc-clone.dell)
  • Re: Boot Manager
    ... No boot manager that usurps the MBR bootstrap area will cooperate with a drive overlay manager which also usurps the MBR bootstrap area. ... If you actually need to use the drive overlay manager, you'll need to find a boot manager that does NOT use the MBR bootstrap area (which means it might requires its own partition or share one). ... You might need to consider getting a new motherboard with a newer BIOS that can actually support the large drives that you want to use, or use an IDE controller card that has newer BIOS to support the larger drives. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Partition and Dual Boot Vol IV (Options/Inclinations)
    ... installations of W98 and it's an easy way to achieve that. ... > to Create the otther Partitions (the Extended Partition & the Logical ... That doesn't achieve what he wants, without a boot manager anyway. ... >> allows you to install W98 on the new active drive. ...
    (uk.people.silversurfers)
Loading