 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hildur K. wrote:
> Early on (after my first HD crash which
> each on a single physical drive, which means I use the primary partition (C)
> for the OS, drivers and programs, and the other partitions (D,E,F) for all work
> and data (NEVER saving to "MyDocuments" or "Desktop"). The hard drives are much
>
> In the (very likely) case my OS eventually crashes, I can reinstall or upgrade
> without touching the other partitions so there is no loss of data.
I do this.
I mean, *now* I have multiple seperate physical HDs so it's kind of
unavoidable having seperate logical volumes. But I did it back when I
only had one drive too. Makes reinstalling the OS that much easier
without losing work. (If anything on my PC could be considered "work".)
I also have a big folder containing the installers for every program
I've ever downloaded, so I can reinstall them all quickly without having
to redownload them. (OTOH, I typically end up downloading a newer
version anyway, so I'm not sure who I'm kidding...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>
> I also have a big folder containing the installers for every program
> I've ever downloaded, so I can reinstall them all quickly without having
> to redownload them. (OTOH, I typically end up downloading a newer
> version anyway, so I'm not sure who I'm kidding...)
-Ditto-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I also have a big folder containing the installers for every program
>> I've ever downloaded, so I can reinstall them all quickly without having
>> to redownload them. (OTOH, I typically end up downloading a newer
>> version anyway, so I'm not sure who I'm kidding...)
>
> -Ditto-
I gave up doing that a few years ago. Nowadays I don't install anything
after the OS until I need it, then I download the latest version and
install. Usually faster than searching through CDs anyway ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> I also have a big folder containing the installers for every program
>>> I've ever downloaded, so I can reinstall them all quickly without having
>>> to redownload them. (OTOH, I typically end up downloading a newer
>>> version anyway, so I'm not sure who I'm kidding...)
>>
>> -Ditto-
>
> I gave up doing that a few years ago. Nowadays I don't install anything
> after the OS until I need it, then I download the latest version and
> install. Usually faster than searching through CDs anyway ;-)
No no, I keep the installers *on my HD*. ;-) It would take far too many
CDs... (Do you know how big 3Dmark is?? How about WinXP SP3?)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> No no, I keep the installers *on my HD*. ;-) It would take far too many
> CDs... (Do you know how big 3Dmark is?? How about WinXP SP3?)
Oh ok, my hard drive wasn't big enough before to do that ;-) I download too
much junk, install it, use it a bit then uninstall it... But yeh, I have
loads of CDs and DVDs full of old versions of certain programs that I
probably should get around to throwing away some day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>
> I didn't want to be definite.
Me neither ;).
> I *have* seen hard drives designed to
> replace memory sticks in high-end cameras. (Compact Flash-shaped hard
> drives, I think?)
>
Yep, they do exist. But then, it would be pretty hard to fit even 1,8"
hard disk to CF-slot - it's easy to have 3,5" HD mounted in little case
with the USB-interface.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
> I mean, *now* I have multiple seperate physical HDs so it's kind of
> unavoidable having seperate logical volumes.
No, it isn't. With RAID you can combine several HDs to one logical
volume, which even can hold if one of the disks break down.
> But I did it back when I
> only had one drive too. Makes reinstalling the OS that much easier
> without losing work. (If anything on my PC could be considered "work".)
Yep, that's true and very reasonable. You should also RAID the
work-partition and take scheduled backups ;).
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>>
>> I mean, *now* I have multiple seperate physical HDs so it's kind of
>> unavoidable having seperate logical volumes.
>
> No, it isn't. With RAID you can combine several HDs to one logical
> volume, which even can hold if one of the disks break down.
Or just mount the separate volume as a subdirectory of the system
volume. :-)
Note you can also make "my documents" and "desktop" (and a bunch of
other system-defined folders) point to anywhere you want, including
other drives.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> I mean, *now* I have multiple seperate physical HDs so it's kind of
>>> unavoidable having seperate logical volumes.
>>
>> No, it isn't. With RAID you can combine several HDs to one logical
>> volume, which even can hold if one of the disks break down.
>
> Or just mount the separate volume as a subdirectory of the system
> volume. :-)
Does Windoze let you do that yet?
> Note you can also make "my documents" and "desktop" (and a bunch of
> other system-defined folders) point to anywhere you want, including
> other drives.
Heh. If only that were actually true...
[No, wait. I take that back. If I had *my* way, I'd have that hated My
Documents folder permanently removed.]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I mean, *now* I have multiple seperate physical HDs so it's kind of
>> unavoidable having seperate logical volumes.
>
> No, it isn't. With RAID you can combine several HDs to one logical
> volume, which even can hold if one of the disks break down.
Does anybody actually use RAID on a home system?
My dad is the only person I know who's tried it, and he has lost far
more data due to RAID glitches than to any physical hardware failure!
to it in a RAID-1 configuration. Every 6 hours or so, the RAID
controller would "fail" one of the drives and stop using it. Then you'd
have to tell it to rebuilt the array (BE CAREFUL TO SELECT THE RIGHT
SOURCE DRIVE!) and wait many, many hours for that to complete. And then
it would work for another few hours before failing one of the drives again.
In summary, it was hopeless and an utter waste of time.
Now all the *servers* here at work have RAID on them, but they have
expensive high-end UltraSCSI 360 RAID controllers with the
battery-backed RAM and so on and so forth. Nobody is rich enough to put
those in a desktop machine.
>> But I did it back when I only had one drive too. Makes reinstalling
>> the OS that much easier without losing work. (If anything on my PC
>> could be considered "work".)
>
> Yep, that's true and very reasonable. You should also RAID the
> work-partition and take scheduled backups ;).
Backup onto *what*?
I have, like, 100 GB of data now. I'm not aware of anything large enough
to hold that other than another HD. (Or an LTO tape...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
