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

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 12:41:11 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Stupid George <cg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
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.

OK, but its still not almost always even with that config.

Certainly more than hardly ever tho.

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.

Yep.

We're talking ballpark figures here.

Still hard to decide what size the OS and apps
partition needs to be so it will be big enough for years.

Not our problem what you can't figure out.

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."

Thats messy and cumbersome and risky too.

It doesn't matter when the exact state or uptime of Games & CD&DVD
reference titles aren't worth squat. If they were they'd be in C:

That contains things very often to under 10 gigs.

Nothing like big enough on either of the main work machines here.

And they dont have any of those games at all.

So make them bigger

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.

Thats hard for even someone like me

Not my problem

to do, impossible for someone like him.

You'd think so, wouldn't you

If he outgrows it in a year or two, big woop. Easily fixed.

Not safely it isnt when you need an image of the entire 250G drive.

A good argument for dumping your "plan".

The old images would still be good.

Wrong.

Only with your mess that's true.

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.

Nope.

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.

Thats what user data of every kind means.

get real.

Simple folder direction is like 90% of it.

Pity about the 10%

Pity the other 10% is so friggen easy & done on the fly.

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.

Nope.

Pathetic.

The system image just has to be in step with the
installations & only in certain occurrence the updates also.

I was talking about your claim about back in minutes.

Still no. You're stuck thinking about your big bloated, machine
specific, worn out mess you call a running system and backup image.

It's more clunkey when you install apps to a different
partition, & then restore only the OS, but still verydoable.

Bull***. And takes more than minutes too.

Pathetic.

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.

That aint the only situation where that is an obscene waste of time.

It makes a lot more sense to just document quirks with particular apps.

Yeah that's gonna help when you want to know "which backup had office"
or "which was the one just before I installed office." The quirks
should be fixed before backing up stupid. Who want's to roll back to
your last screw up?

But I doubt that is a case with someone asking about
RAID0 and partitioning. It's helpful elsewhere as well.

Nope, an obscene waste of time.

Yeah. "Copy" & "paste" are very time consuming. Pathetic.

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.

That aint the only way to handle that. It makes a
lot more sense to just document the quirks instead.

Wrong.

And to work out the complexitys with a canned OS install
on a test config instead of logging everything ever done.

Pity when the quirks don't show immediately and/or aren't related to a
new install.

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.

Yep.

For best results the images should be clean & without
use - soley the result of installation & configuration.

Pity that just isnt feasible with a system thats used much.

If you haven't worked it out on a test machine or otherwise
systematized it first it can take some time for the image to be
totally in step. But even then it comes around and the maintenance is
done on your schedule - not troubleshooting which follows Murphy's
law.

The reality is that either the machine's role needs to be limited or
it needs to be refreshed every so often. You claim to plan for years
of use but your plan ensures bloated, slow, hog*** for most of that
time.

It's often worth the time to rollback to
create a new, current, authoritative config.

Pity that just isnt feasible with a system thats used much.

Pity those are the machines that need it the most.

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.

Wrong again. It certainly makes sense to image the OS & apps
partition before an install of something you havent installed before,
or a significant update of that, so you can step back gracefully if it
all goes pear shaped and the restore point isnt enough, but when
it does go pear shaped, its much more efficient to work out why
it went pear shaped with a canned test install of the OS etc and
then install it allowing for the quirk on the restore OS & apps image
instead of trying to create a new, current, authoritative config.

Pity when a problem doesn't show immediately and/or isn't directly
related to an install. Also pity that it's not an either/or option.

In practice I don't usually do it exactly this way anymore.

Yeah, because its a very long winded pain in the arse of an
approach that only the most obsessively anal will ever persist with.

Because I'd rather package an app then install & configure it on
umpteen dissimilar machines.

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.

Not even applicable to his situation.

OK Mr. Relevant.

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.

That aint the only way to handle that, like I said.

Pity when problems & performance issue creep in not always directly
related to the latest install. Then you're cluelessly scrambling
around or simply accepting quirks or slowdowns.

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

It never is with that level of user.

or you set reminders to do a predefined job and the image
procedure comes whenever you sit down to configure.

Nothing like what you were suggesting there.

Then you're not paying attention.

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

Plenty of them can handle simple images fine.

which turn into bloated dog *** which bites them & unnecessarily
jeopardizes personal data & wastes time on an overly long restore.
Then they have to either throw away retention or hold onto a big piece
of hog*** when they replace they computer. All these problems and
general clunkiness are even worse for ppl with more than one machine
like a laptop & desktop.

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.

And is something no simple user ever bothers with.

Simple users don't bother with backup of any kind, stupid. If they do
they buy something like a one-touch because it's "simple." Then they
wonder about things like why now both their computer and their backup
are infected with a virus. Or why it is misbehaving and they can't
restore.

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.

No you dont. You can also decide what is at so low a risk of losing
that it warrants that extra time in the unlikely event it gets lost.

No. Anything and everything is at risk of loss. The issue is what is
dispensable and what isn't.

Yes the things you'd "slash your wrists" if you lost are most
important. But there are very many things that aren't "slash your
wrists" critical, but are useful nonetheless. Sometimes they become
harder to replace as time goes on - or already have a time or other
investment in getting them. It's not worth the time to regularly
reexamine what should be included in the backup cycle. Obviously if
its dispensable it need not be included in the backup.

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. ;)

Who knows that while some things would take some time to recover,
that the risk of losing it is very low with the way they do their system.

After there's a problem it's 100%; the odds don't matter.

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-)

Figures. You aint called stupid for nothing, stupid.

No. No one has ever been enough of a delusional ignoramus to call me
that but you. But then you call everyone stupid, stupid.

Beware of throwing stones. You're not called a sociopathic,
half-assed, bull*** artist troll for nothing, goatfucker.

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.

And I was just pointing out that it makes more
sense to have the optical drives start higher than E

Moron, in reality it makes no difference where they start. Higher
letters for optical drives are totally unnecessary, even for cosmetic
tidiness, when there aren't many disk volumes, stupid.

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.

Nope.

I don't mean he should further partition for organizational purposes.

I wasnt commenting on that at all there.

I just meant that proper volume labels make
a lot more sense the drive letters for most work.

Pathetic.

But when you mount the volume you have to calll it something.

Yes, but it doesnt have to be as meaning free as a single letter.

Duh!

Sometimes there's value in using a letter other than
what's next and leaving it labeled "New Volume."

Even you should be able to manage better than that.

Pathetic.

It's a minor point, though,

No it isnt.

Pathetic.

that probably doesn't warrant all this discussion.

Fraid so.

Pathetic

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

Nope. Bet you wouldnt even be able
to pick it in a proper double blind trial.

You're on.

OK pay up.

The world's moved on.

to what exactly?

To not needing to bother with that.

in your imagination. It's not my problem if you don't know how to
hammer a disk subsystem.

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

Never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

only just as comical

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

Hardly ever with modern systems.

Rubbish.

Fact.

Pay up now. Better have my money.

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

Bet you wouldnt even be able to pick it in a proper
double blind trial without being allowed to use a stopwatch.

I won already. Pay up. I accept cash or kneecaps.

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.

Pathetic.

<eyes rolling>

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.

God knows what you 'think' thats supposed to mean.

<eyes still rolling>

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 backup over the lan to drives on other PCs.

How impressive. A real cluster*** indeed.

I mean I know you copy stuff to other computers on your
home LAN but how to you take copies offline for safekeeping?

I only bother to do that with the stuff I'll slash my wrists if I lose,
because I now that its impossible to flood my house, extremely
unlikely that it will ever go up in flames, and no burglar will be
able to steal all drives before the cops show up.

more delusions.

I basically write DVDs with the stuff I'll slash my wrists if I lose
and accept the fact that if my house does have a plane crash
into it or something, that I'll have to replace all my toys and
the house and that its no big deal to do clean installs on the
new toys and then just run in the stuff that I'd slash my wrists
if I lost them off the DVDs that are offsite. That includes my
notes on the apps I use.

If a plane hit my house there'd be such a shitload of paperwork &
other inconveniences I wouldn't want be piddling around reinstalling
and redownloading. For some of us even personal machines are more
than just toys & game consoles.

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

You dont need media rotation if you only use the image
when the restore point doesnt do what you need.

nice dream world you got there. I guess trolls don't know what media
rotation is.

& doesn't fully address the needs of a robust backup scheme.

I dont need that. The chance of needing that is so remote
that I'm happy that it will take some time. But then so
would the replacement of the house and all my toys too.

nobody cares what you think is a reasonable risk. You don't seem
reasonably rational in the first place. In the second play you're
dicking around with toys, instead of accomplishing anything with
tools.

Frankly I wouldn't trust my data to SR.

I dont. Its just the first level of backup with two
more levels past that for when it isnt adequate.

Much too limiting & minimalistic.

Having fun thrashing that straw man are you ?

Pathetic

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***.

Fact.

More delusions

Organization, backup systems, media rotation, load balancing
& general planning are concepts that are separate from
specific storage interface, spindle speed, etc.

Nope. The reason I only bother with DVD for the stuff
I'll slash my wrists if I lose is because the speed and
operational stuff is too awkward to bother with for
full hard drive images with modern 300G+ drives.

Another argument against your "system".

They are only connected when the planning includes
tiered storage, but even then the principles are the
same regardeless of specific products.

Mindless pig ignorant waffle.

Pathetic.

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.

You just said there were.

Once a liar, always a lying tool.

Only basic principles & alternate solutions for
him to reflect on and decide what works for him.

And what is practical does indeed
vary with the workstation storage type.

Duh!

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

Yours arent evolving with the OS capabilitys.

Rubbish.

Fact.

Pathetic.

It's true though I still have limited faith in overly complex OS's with
insufficently protected design, that have not yet evolved enough.

And you havent adjusted your backup strategy to allow
for restore points that do work fine much of the time.

Clueless. SR only give extra operational fudge factor. It's
worthless for backup.

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.

You didnt even mention them. You should have and are only
waffling now when your nose has been rubbed in that dinosauring.

Because they have nothing to do with backup. It is useless beyond
providing some extra wiggle room.

But, since you bring it up, it is overly limiting
& foolhardy to have a primary reliance on IMHO.

Pity no one ever said that it should be primarily relied on.

Then get off my balls about it already.

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

Good luck.


.