and the site receives a small commission
Partioning advice
- Thread starter mushy
- Start date
- Messages
- 9,421
- Edit My Images
- No
There was a time when I would have agreed whole heartedly with that advice.
Nowadays, with disk cloning software having got to a level of stablity that I think we can trust, I'd suggest doing a full clone, unless the operating system and data are on separate physical drives, in which case you need to allow the extra time to clone both the operating system drive and the data drive.
However, so long as you stick to whatever choice you make and do it regularly, this is entirely a matter of choice.
ancient_mariner
Moderator
- Messages
- 23,770
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
No. I've never found a need to partition, although I know some like to do so.
If your backup is incremental then it will make little difference.
If your backup is incremental then it will make little difference.
Last edited:
There's no advantage in partitioning a SSD, and it just means you double the risk of running out of space.
With the price of a 2Tb SSD these days I'd be looking to grab a second one, adding that as a data drive and moving your photos to it (assuming this is a desktop to has space to easily add a second drive).
Then backup the data drive regularly.
With the price of a 2Tb SSD these days I'd be looking to grab a second one, adding that as a data drive and moving your photos to it (assuming this is a desktop to has space to easily add a second drive).
Then backup the data drive regularly.
- Messages
- 2,893
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thats exactly what I do
- Messages
- 4,352
- Name
- Martin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 2,216
- Name
- Steve, Coventry, England
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I still do it, simply because the chances of a windows failure are greater than a disk failure. I haven't had a disk failure at home for about 15 years, and in the last 20 years I have had two at work, both in servers.
When windows won't start, and runs in circles through the repair process, it is far quicker to re-install/image than fix.
However I wouldn't split a 2TB disk into two 1TB partitions, I would have 250GB for system and the rest for data.
This makes cloning the OS partition much quicker, and needs a smaller disk to store the image.
The data I backup to multiple places, and don't bother to clone, because it can just be re-synced from a backup.
Windows may well be more stable, but after using it for nearly 30 years, most of that time for work, the idea that it is stable enough not to take precautions is hard to accept
If the OP has space for two discs, I would use the fastest 250-500GB drive I could get got the OS, and the 2TB for data.
As has been said, data backups are an absolute must. Over the years I have had a steady stream of staff in tears because their USB stick/drive has failed and they have not backed it up. In most cases I have been able to recover much of the data, but it takes time, and they usually needed some of the data straight away.
I will stick with a separate disk or partition for the OS, I don't see any of the disadvantages mentioned as being a reason not to, and has definite advantages to do so.
Hi
Thanks for the advice. My laptop only has a slot for one drive. I'll not partition it as on balance I think the disadvantages of adding in restrictions on what I can use the space for outweigh the advantages
I hadn't thought of cloning the entire drive when I backup. That actually makes a ton of sense.
Thanks for the advice. My laptop only has a slot for one drive. I'll not partition it as on balance I think the disadvantages of adding in restrictions on what I can use the space for outweigh the advantages
I hadn't thought of cloning the entire drive when I backup. That actually makes a ton of sense.
- Messages
- 2,216
- Name
- Steve, Coventry, England
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What are the disadvantages?
Not questioning your decision, just interested to know, as far as I have ever seen, in use two partitions is the same as two discs
Well if I have 2TB and no partitions, then I have complete flexibility on how to use that space. I keep on adding photos and that uses up some space but then all remaining space is completely free for other software, games etc
If I partition it to say 0.75 gig for software and 1.25 gig for data, and then later install some games or other software, I could use up the 0.75 gig and then find I don't have enough space. Things start going wrong if I then try to install programs in the data partition. So I'd have to re-partition.
The reason I was thinking of partioning was to protect data in case of an O/S failure. But the advice to simply clone the entire disk every few months is actually very sound IMO
Last edited:
I am IT professional who uses Linux and my opinion on partitioning might be different (?maybe because different OS) but as far as I know windows doesn't natively support to move /Users folder easily to the other partition so it probably doesn't make a big sense and you can leave it like that .. Normally I just use a separate partition for a system (would be a base drive C: in windows terminology) and separate partition for user data (would be D: which will contain "Users" folder and I would install everything non-system (games, programs, etc) into user's home folder, for example D:/Users/yourname/opt will be my destination .. in Linux/Mac it will be /home/myuser/opt)
But I do not recommend to store any data in computer .. only temporarily, so your photos and everything should be always kept on some external device (offline external disk or online home SAN/NAS) so your windows is just a workbench and when you finish working on something (processing the photos) you'll sync them outside the computer ...
In other words - I do not consider as crucial (or even useful) to have a big internal storage in computer because I store all my data on external devices ... but of course, if computer already contains a big internal storage it's just a plus ..
in your case, I would be probably partitioning 2TB drive to have a C: (?500GBs) and D: for data (rest) and I would be eventually considering if it is possible (meaningfully) to have /Users folder on the D: --- but all this only if you plan to store the data in computer, otherwise I wouldn't care and leave everything in C:
But I do not recommend to store any data in computer .. only temporarily, so your photos and everything should be always kept on some external device (offline external disk or online home SAN/NAS) so your windows is just a workbench and when you finish working on something (processing the photos) you'll sync them outside the computer ...
In other words - I do not consider as crucial (or even useful) to have a big internal storage in computer because I store all my data on external devices ... but of course, if computer already contains a big internal storage it's just a plus ..
in your case, I would be probably partitioning 2TB drive to have a C: (?500GBs) and D: for data (rest) and I would be eventually considering if it is possible (meaningfully) to have /Users folder on the D: --- but all this only if you plan to store the data in computer, otherwise I wouldn't care and leave everything in C:
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,760
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- No
I have just had my old Dell Lattitude upgraded to take Windows 10, in the process I had the hard drive cloned first before updating to Win 10 as I wanted to keep functionality of my old no longer supported Lightroom 6.14 (a long other story). In doing the upgrade I had the rather small hard original hard drive (160GB IIRC) to a 1TB hard drive and I asked my computer guru about partitioning, he said in the old days it was almost essential but these days with all the software improvements it is no longer necessary so I didn't bother. FYI my photos alone are just over 1TB so I couldn't store them on the laptop anyway.
My desktop which the same guy built for me about 5 years ago recently sh*t istelf and wouldn't start Windows (10) so I toook it around to him and he found the rather small hard drive (50GB IIRC) was too full ru launch Windows so we fitted a new hard drive (500GB0 for the operating systems and kept the 4TB second drive for data (again he cloned the old system so I could keep my Lightroom working).
Both are working fine now as is my lightroom on both.
Although I keep my photos on the second drive of my desktop I routinely run 2 separate external drives with all my data copied on to them, one stays with my desktop (encrypted) and the second is for when I go away from the desktop so I can use my laptop while travelling then re-copy everything back to the other 2 drives when back home.
I do agree with @ntz regarding not permanently storing your photos on your computer I do it on my desktop because Lightroom and Photoshop work faster direct to the D drive rather than vua the USB external drives.
My desktop which the same guy built for me about 5 years ago recently sh*t istelf and wouldn't start Windows (10) so I toook it around to him and he found the rather small hard drive (50GB IIRC) was too full ru launch Windows so we fitted a new hard drive (500GB0 for the operating systems and kept the 4TB second drive for data (again he cloned the old system so I could keep my Lightroom working).
Both are working fine now as is my lightroom on both.
Although I keep my photos on the second drive of my desktop I routinely run 2 separate external drives with all my data copied on to them, one stays with my desktop (encrypted) and the second is for when I go away from the desktop so I can use my laptop while travelling then re-copy everything back to the other 2 drives when back home.
I do agree with @ntz regarding not permanently storing your photos on your computer I do it on my desktop because Lightroom and Photoshop work faster direct to the D drive rather than vua the USB external drives.
- Messages
- 2,216
- Name
- Steve, Coventry, England
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Fair enough, I hadn't seen the bit about games, but for other software it would be very hard to fill 500GB (I assume you meant .75 and 1.25 TB) on a system partition.
I have no idea if games are not able to store some of their needs off the system disk.
Out of interest, how long would it take to clone the whole 2TB?
Incremental backups or syncs are very quick when done regularly.
You would only need to clone a system disk when there major changes.
- Messages
- 9,421
- Edit My Images
- No
You appear to have missed the important point in this discussion: Mushy is running Windows on a laptop.
That suggests he doesn't want to drag around extra drives, when there's 2 gigabytes sitting inside the casing. Windows being what it is, I can't see any advantage in this particular case to be gainedfrom partitioning the drive.
You don't appear to understand how Windows goes about things. In short, the operating system doesn't care where you put your data, just so long as you leave the system directories alone.
It might be to your advantage to investigate how Windows works. It is quite different to any of the Unix derivatives, including Apple's OS-X.
@Topsy - I dare to say that with USB 3.2 which is almost an industry standard is not the bandwidth and throughput to external device any issue even for demanding activities like processing video or something alike ... ofc using m2 ssd drives instead of previous generation mechanical HDDs is implicit ... if there is an issue with something it would rather be what is a good long-term offline archiving medium ? I don't have any definitive answer on it myself since it fluidly changes every 5 years approximately ... I've been playing in past with a special DVDs for archiving (the technology was called Data Tresor Disc but the brand ceased, there's M-Disc from Verbatim tho), this is my current plan but it might change .. so for storing my data I use some kind of online home NAS/SAN (which I eventually upgrade every 5 years and I migrate data from old to new) ++ I started building an offline backup store based on archiving DVDs ... Standard external drives are tier where I have data duplicated .. so yeah, it's big mess ..
it's absolutely insignificant if he uses windows, Linux, OS X or Android .. point is that storing any data in computer is bad idea .. Computer is a workbench .. He can store in there whatever he wish as long as he has a free space in it but the primary (backup) copy shall be stored elsewhere outside from computer ... In other words, if somebody buys a laptop with 2GB internal space and he/she plans to use it for processing his photos (and/or storing other data which represent his work) he/she also should buy along with that the external storage where he/she will be regularly and periodically syncing the data from computer .. this is the biggest misconception that a lot of people not understand and that underestimate ... if he should slice his internal storage into more is kinda academic debate and I was also saying that it probably doesn't matter ...
I understand it very good and because so my opinion is that there is always an advantage to have a separate partition for data from OS/system. Partitioning has cons and pros and there's absolutely not any generic rule for to do it or not do it .. Generally speaking - more experienced and advanced users tend to benefit from splitting the partition ... Your strong opinions on the matter indicate that perhaps it should be you who could benefit from improving his knowledge in this area when you emit so wise statements and recommending to other to learn how foo works ...
Hi all
Wasn't wanting to cause arguments. I have a laptop which has one slot for a SSD. I've got a 2TB SDD and I will store everything on there while also backing up every month or so to an external SSD. I haven't quite decided yet whether I'll just back up the data regularly or whether I'll clone the entire drive (might need to pay for some software to do that).
I don't have a NAS or anythign fancy like that
Wasn't wanting to cause arguments. I have a laptop which has one slot for a SSD. I've got a 2TB SDD and I will store everything on there while also backing up every month or so to an external SSD. I haven't quite decided yet whether I'll just back up the data regularly or whether I'll clone the entire drive (might need to pay for some software to do that).
I don't have a NAS or anythign fancy like that
- Messages
- 2,216
- Name
- Steve, Coventry, England
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You didn't cause any arguments
Has your laptop got an optical drive? If so, you should be able to get a caddy to fin another hard drive in its place
- Messages
- 9,421
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 9,421
- Edit My Images
- No
You didn't.
It was just unfortunate that someone with limited knowledge was providing misleading advice.
!!! awesome self-reflection !!!
@mushy - as it has been said .. to split a drive makes a sense .. there are literally thousands of articles on the internet debating that .. it is not required by any means but it can make your life a lot easier while taking backups, migrating or re-installing computer later .. with big drives (that are N*times bigger than OS requirement) I would tend to do it in general, with smaller drives (like for example my corporate laptop that came with 512GB) I wouldn't care ...
- Messages
- 4,352
- Name
- Martin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That's what I do, much easier than cloning drives with possibly dodgy free software. Just keep two or three backup hard drives and either use something like Synctoy or even just delete the contents of one backup drive at a time and re-copy. I do keep a couple of MS restore flash drives too.
- Messages
- 4,705
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You need to look at how drives fail, with SSDs it tends to be the whole device, so makes no odds if you partition it, the whole lot will go.
If you can fit 2 devices, spliting the data from everything else make sense.
If you can fit 2 devices, spliting the data from everything else make sense.
- Messages
- 2,216
- Name
- Steve, Coventry, England
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Very true, however it still helps when windows stops playing fair.
To me it is about data security, then ease, speed and convenience of recovering from an OS wobbly.
Data is on one drive, and synced to a USB drive, which is then synced to another server and two NAS boxes, all very quick and involve very little user time, and stupidly simple.
OS drive is imaged, and re-imaged if there are any major changes, which means I can get up and running in minimum time, and then update and install additionals as needed.
I used a similar system on servers, which enabled me to get things going quickly after a complete server failure (failure aided by an IT contractor who it seemed would be better of with a ZX81)
I don't think any one is right or wrong, different people see different ideals, and what matters to one doesn't matter to the next.
- Messages
- 9,421
- Edit My Images
- No
I agree that this is the least bad solution.
That is how we run our home network, with two external drives permanently connected to a an old MacBook Pro, which has been retired to the undemanding task of home server. We use Carbon Copy Cloner, which is an Apple specific application based on proven Unix utilities. The primary drive is used for storage and retrieval and a secondary drive is used as backup. A third drive (named, with great imagination, Tertiary) is regularly plugged into the Macbook to provide a second clone of the Primary drive. I also have copies of the data on ExFAT formatted drives, so I can access it directly from Windows and Linux.
It may seem like overkill but I've seen enough data disasters that I prefer safe to sorry...
Last edited:
- Messages
- 4,352
- Name
- Martin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If your drives are always attached, do you not run the risk of also duplicating viruses or ransomeware, should you be unfortunate enough to contract such things? I keep my backups separate just in case of this eventuality as well as in case of normal data loss, as even the best security software can be circumvented.
- Messages
- 1,499
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Andrew is using Mac OS, cannot duplicate what is not there
sphexx
Likes a dare
- Messages
- 14,819
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 9,421
- Edit My Images
- No
If there's malignant software on a computer, it will generally infect every writeable device, whenever that device is attached.
Disconnecting a drive when not in use won't protect your data.
- Messages
- 4,352
- Name
- Martin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Au contraire. If I have a backup I made, say, two weeks ago and yesterday I pick up some sort of malware that requires drastic and terminal action to my operating system, I still have a clean data disk from which I can restore when my PC is clean again.
- Messages
- 9,421
- Edit My Images
- No
That is true.
However, do you know that you have malignant software on your boot drive? If so, you will of course clean it, where possible. If you don't know it's present, you have probably already copied it to that disconnected drive, the last time you used it.
That is why anti virus programmes were invented.
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,730
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
Whatever you do don't leave a single copy of important files. Particularly on external drive. I lost some unedited shots that way, luckily nothing too important that I can't live with but annoying enough.
I think I could in theory ressurect that nvme but I need to buy a donor one are resolder a capacitor that just fell off and hope there is no more. I'm just not at that level of precision yet
I think I could in theory ressurect that nvme but I need to buy a donor one are resolder a capacitor that just fell off and hope there is no more. I'm just not at that level of precision yet
- Messages
- 4,705
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You need to check out https://www.macworld.com/article/672879/list-of-mac-viruses-malware-and-security-flaws.htmlAndrew is using Mac OS, cannot duplicate what is not there
- Messages
- 1,978
- Name
- Jason
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Works well until the cat knocks a glass of pop or the water tank in the roof goes bang onto the backups... Which is why my backups are copied off-site overnight over a VPN to my brother-in-law's house & his to my house... Plus a cloud backup.
- Messages
- 120
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I would be backing up more frequently than monthly.
- Messages
- 4,352
- Name
- Martin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And why I use them. I use a paid version of Malwarebytes as computer security has moved on from just viruses, one has to factor in all sorts of malefactor attacks; as you will know there are many methods by which hostile agents can try to ruin other people's fun.