Re: RAID, SCHMAID.......

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 05:45:34 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Stupid George <cg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
sublimeone <davidpatrickwelch--@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote

No. That's not a very compelling argument for raid.

i've learned that it's not so i'll work with two separate drives.
Should i partition the c: drive into c: and d: (c for apps/games
d: for the os) and then a separate e: for media?

The lettering is undesirable, better to have C for the OS.

Almost always yes.

Fraid not, hardly ever in fact.

I misread. I thought he meant C: for Windows & apps.

Some tips:

Don't make C: too big. But you do want to allow for growth and
always be running with more than 20% free space in any volume.

And its quite hard to predict that, particularly how that will change
over time. And risky to change it later without a full image backup.

Nah. We're talking ballpark figures here. Also the massive games &
CD/DVD reference titles & such probably don't belong on C: and in the
System images anyway. Too cumbersome. All those big maps,
screenshots, etc could also bee seen as "user data." That contains
things very often to under 10 gigs. But he has access to a computer
now - so that's all he needs to estimate & then tack some extra space
on there for good measure. If he outgrows it in a year or two, big
woop. Easily fixed. The old images would still be good.

Be as disciplined as possible about
putting user data of every kind elsewhere.

Complete waste of time. And risky too because that config
will never be as comprehensively debugged and so can bite.

That's rubbish. I'm talking about everything the user creates or
downloads as well as a script or .reg or whatever can accomplish what
he tweaked. I'm not talking about everything in the "C:\Documents and
Settings\User\" including "Application Data," "Local Settings" & the
like. Simple folder direction is like 90% of it.

When it is a manually configured PC I like to have C: imaged
or cloned so if there is a problem you can be back up in minutes.

You cant do that if the OS and apps are in separate partitions.

Well I'm not recommending that - but you're wrong anyway. The system
image just has to be in step with the installations & only in certain
occurrence the updates also. It's more clunkey when you install apps
to a different partition, & then restore only the OS, but still very
doable.

I also like to keep logs of what was installed or updated and keep them
with & in the system images so I know exactly what's where & done when.

Wota waste of time.

Sure if things are pretty static with all 100% trusted apps. But I
doubt that is a case with someone asking about RAID0 and partitioning.
It's helpful elsewhere as well.

It helps in troubleshooting, & routine as well as non-routine
restores. Furthermore you need to back up these images
elsewhere. Just having a system image somewhere is not a backup
- it's a point-in-time snapshot which can go poof like anything else.

Mindless stuff. The real problem is that a complex system like
Win can make changes without you be aware of those changes.

Right. Hence the history for troubleshooting & backtracking.

C: & the C: image set is always being altered
as needs change or updates come out,

And the system keeps track of how you use the system.

No. For best results the images should be clean & without use - soley
the result of installation & configuration. It's often worth the time
to rollback to create a new, current, authoritative config. It seems
like a waste but it's really a time investment that pays off when you
end up bypassing many other issues & troubleshooting sessions
entirely.

In practice I don't usually do it exactly this way anymore. I'm a big
fan or repackaging apps for automated distribution. Often there is a
core image of OS & drivers. (This can provide a faster restore than
RIS, etc.) Then everything gets installed & updated on bootup. Still
a compromise. & yes there's still a paper trail - but not the
tremendous manual task you're imagining.

Now I don't think he should attempt to undertake this now. But if
he's experimenting and pusing the limits of the machine and/or his
knowledge he needs to be diciplined in what he does lest when things
go wrong its overwheling or subject to "superstition" rather than
accurate analysis & repair.

and its purpose is solely to save the time to reinstall & reconfigure.

Pity that just saving the OS partition wont do that, you have to
save the D partition too to be able to do that, and so they might
as well be in same partition so you cant forget to save them both.

Not if you install everything in C: like I'm proposing. Also not if
what's installed to D: didn't go through an update that affected both.

IMHO it doesn't make sense to try to coordinate that with your
personal data (a different animal entirely). For one thing system
restores via images are destructive. So D: and above are user
data which are backed up through a different, more traditional
file type backup approach with some retention.

That just complicated things for simple
users and isnt likely to be done reliably.

It's not complicated if the system is well organized and the file
backup is automatic or you set reminders to do a predefined job and
the image procedure comes whenever you sit down to configure.

Simple users aren't likely to do anything reliably. It's their
problem if they cannot fully utilize their system or failsafes.

But really these two approaches involve different compromises and
emphasize different strengths. One is easier on the onset, the other
involves a little more planning but is safer and is quicker to recover
& acknowledges & plans for the reality of how problems arise in the
real world as well as how lifecycle & upgrades work.

Really I'm suggesting you give thought from the beginning about
using partitions as well as folders to help organize how you
generate, backup & restore all your data. This sounds obvious,
but so many ppl make a mess of things esp with today's big drives.

You dont necessarily need to backup ALL the data.

If you don't have a lot of disposable time you need to back up
ANYTHING that would take time to replace. Not just the stuff you'd
"slash your wrists" if you lost. But look who I'm talking to. The
guy with all the time in the world. ;)

It's at this point some ppl start asking about a NAS or have a file
sever online. The idea is consolidation, organization, and online
duplicates of important files. It's typically unnecessary for a
single user but can often be of value for even small home networks.

And it can be a lot simpler to just put full images there.

Stay where you are now, though. Sort out your needs on a single
machine first. I'm just planting a seed that may never need to take.

I like to reserve E: as the first optical drive, but
that's just an old habbit/personal preference.

Makes more sense to reserve a later
letter for that with that many partitions.

Perhaps. It's personal preference.

I like

A: 1st Floppy
C: 1st HDD
E: 1st optical

Because that's the way it was years ago and the letters make a musical
triad. 8-)

Lately I find myself often making R: 1st recordable drive, V: 1st
virtual cdrom, etc. So even I'm moving away from that myself. But
it's only the basic idea of establishing personal conventions I'm
selling to him.

As I do that, take advantage of labeling & drive letters to make things
easy to remember & navigate. Sounds obvious but little things help.

Some of us dont bother with the letters anymore for that.

Maybe I was unclear. I don't mean he should further partition for
organizational purposes. But when you mount the volume you have to
calll it something. Sometimes there's value in using a letter other
than what's next and leaving it labeled "New Volume." It's a minor
point, though, that probably doesn't warrant all this discussion.

Give some thought to having temp files & folders or
the files you "chew on" on the second disk (or projects
divided among the disks) for performance considerations.

Complete waste of time with modern systems.

Rubbish

The world's moved on.

to what exactly? So I guess load balancing for networks is obsolete
as well?

Through planning you can reduce being bogged down
by Disk IO with certain kinds of multitasking, etc.

Hardly ever with modern systems.

Rubbish. All the time with common disk intensive tasks i.e.
archiving, archive testing, slipstreaming, mainting virtual disks,
repackaging, usenet warzing, etc.etc.etc

This is where you can get some extra peppiness outside of or in addition
to what raid or 10K+ drives or other new drives bring to the table.

There is no table.

cute.

There was prior reference in this thread to using the second drive for
backups. Having just a second copy on a second media is insufficient.
Furthermore any online media is subject to a host of potential data
jeopardizing problems. So maybe instead of a second drive you want
2 second drives in drive trays or enclosures.

No thanks. Most of them flout the drive standards and even
when they dont they are too hard to cool reliably and quietly.

It's doable but barely minimalistic. It's not what I use for personal
use either.

Tell us Rod, if "Tape has passed its useby date" how do you handle
these backup HDDs.? I mean I know you copy stuff to other computers
on your home LAN but how to you take copies offline for safekeeping?

Maybe you want more than that kind of minimal
protection, i.e. Grandfather-Father-Son, etc.

Not necessarily for the OS/apps partition tho
with modern OS that support restore points.

Has nothing to do with media rotation & doesn't fully address the
needs of a robust backup scheme. Frankly I wouldn't trust my data to
SR. Much too limiting & minimalistic.

IMHO these types of considerations, plans, & work habits are far more
important and contribute far more to productivity (& your sanity) than
ATA Raid 0 or SATA II 3gbs. They are also technology agnostic.

No they arent.

Bull***. Organization, backup systems, media rotation, load
balancing & general planning are concepts that are separate from
specific storage interface, spindle speed, etc. They are only
connected when the planning includes tiered storage, but even then the
principles are the same regardeless of specific products.

These decisions you make can be applied to any workstation storage type.

They arent necessarily practical with some.

There are no hard & fast rules here. Only basic principles &
alternate solutions for him to reflect on and decide what works for
him.

They hopefully will stay with you as core
computing practices & will evolve over time.

Yours arent evolving with the OS capabilitys.

Rubbish. It's true though I still have limited faith in overly
complex OS's with insufficently protected design, that have not yet
evolved enough. They are still too vulnerable to too much which too
easily compromises their "capabilities". I never said he shouldn't
use SR - or that I never so. But, since you bring it up, it is overly
limiting & foolhardy to have a primary reliance on IMHO.

So much for your "is raid0 worth it" type question.

Good luck.
.