f



Two drives: OS on Drive 1, Progs on Drive 2, My Docs on which?

Hi

I'm considering my partition options to give the best performance.

I already have a single Western Digital Raptor WD1500 ADFD.

I have my OS (XP Pro), applications and documents in separate partitions so 
obviously
the drive head is having to spend a lot of time moving between them.

I wondered what improvement might be gained if I bought a second WD1500 and
changed where I store things.

So would it be better to have the OS and apps in separate partitions on
Drive 1 and My Docs on Drive 2? Or OS on 1, apps on 2, My Docs on which?

Is there another arrangement you would recommend?

Maybe we're talking milliseconds of time saving but if my perceived
performance is of a more responsive system I'd be happy.

From what I've read there's little to be gained from a striped RAID with
these drives.  Is that still the case?

FYI I'm using an AMD 4200x2 on Asus A8N-SLI Premium with 1GB RAM.

Thanks for your time.

Ian




0
Ian
1/18/2007 12:35:29 AM
comp.pc.hardware.storage 8701 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

15 Replies
666 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 54

Previously Ian R <sorry@nospamthanks.com> wrote:
> Hi

> I'm considering my partition options to give the best performance.

> I already have a single Western Digital Raptor WD1500 ADFD.

> I have my OS (XP Pro), applications and documents in separate partitions so 
> obviously
> the drive head is having to spend a lot of time moving between them.

> I wondered what improvement might be gained if I bought a second WD1500 and
> changed where I store things.

> So would it be better to have the OS and apps in separate partitions on
> Drive 1 and My Docs on Drive 2? Or OS on 1, apps on 2, My Docs on which?

> Is there another arrangement you would recommend?

> Maybe we're talking milliseconds of time saving but if my perceived
> performance is of a more responsive system I'd be happy.

> From what I've read there's little to be gained from a striped RAID with
> these drives.  Is that still the case?

> FYI I'm using an AMD 4200x2 on Asus A8N-SLI Premium with 1GB RAM.

> Thanks for your time.

The answer depends very much on what you do with your system If
you have usually enough RAM and are not doing vidoe cutting or
the like (i.e. work with large files), don't expect anything
more than a few percent more speed. For reference, most people
do not notice anything at all if the system becomes less than 
15% faster or slower.

One reason to separate OS and applications is that you can 
more easily do backups for both. An other is indeed reducing
seek load. However the OS and normal file acess are usually not
in competition, unless the system starts swapping (i.e. is low 
on memory). In my experience a faster disk make much more 
difference.

Arno


0
Arno
1/18/2007 2:43:53 AM
Ian R <sorry@nospamthanks.com> wrote

> I'm considering my partition options to give the best performance.

Its a waste of time.

> I already have a single Western Digital Raptor WD1500 ADFD.

> I have my OS (XP Pro), applications and documents in separate partitions

Presumably you mean 3 partitions.

> so obviously the drive head is having to spend a lot of time moving between them.

Probably not unless you are web browsing and having something
massage the data at the same time, and even then, its unlikely that
you would even be able to pick the difference in a double blind trial.

> I wondered what improvement might be gained if I bought a second WD1500 and changed where I store 
> things.

Bet you wouldnt be able to pick it in a double blind trial except
in the most unusual situations of very aggressive data massaging.

> So would it be better to have the OS and apps in separate partitions on Drive 1 and My Docs on 
> Drive 2? Or OS on 1, apps on 2, My Docs on which?

There isnt normally any point in separating the OS
and apps, and even with the documents, it would only
make any difference in the most unusual situations
just because the documents arent used aggressively
unless you have some really stupid apps like a
database which doesnt use proper indexes etc.

> Is there another arrangement you would recommend?

All in the one partition unless you want to do safety
incremental images of the OS and apps partition before
doing any updates or installs etc and the data does see
a high change rate or the system is used as a PVR etc.

> Maybe we're talking milliseconds of time saving but if my perceived
> performance is of a more responsive system I'd be happy.

I bet you wouldnt even be able to pick it in a double blind trial.

> From what I've read there's little to be gained from a striped RAID with these drives.  Is that 
> still the case?

Nope, there isnt anything special about those drives in that regard and there
is little to be gained with a striped raid with most personal desktop systems.

> FYI I'm using an AMD 4200x2 on Asus A8N-SLI Premium with 1GB RAM.

You may see some benefit with more ram depending on how you use that system. 


0
Rod
1/18/2007 3:07:37 AM
Rod Speed wrote:

>> Is there another arrangement you would recommend?
>
>All in the one partition unless you want to do safety
>incremental images of the OS and apps partition before
>doing any updates or installs etc and the data does see
>a high change rate or the system is used as a PVR etc.

I find it's very nice to have a seperate partition for all your data,
for when it's time to re-install or upgrade your OS.  Wipe C: clean,
and have all your data sitting pretty in D:

I suppose those who, say, backup to DVD, may not see the above as much
of an advantage, but it works for me.  I use the "two PC" backup
system, occasionally blasting files across the home network to the
kids PC.

0
chrisv
1/18/2007 3:40:05 PM
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>> Is there another arrangement you would recommend?

>> All in the one partition unless you want to do safety
>> incremental images of the OS and apps partition before
>> doing any updates or installs etc and the data does see
>> a high change rate or the system is used as a PVR etc.

> I find it's very nice to have a seperate partition for all your
> data, for when it's time to re-install or upgrade your OS.
> Wipe C: clean, and have all your data sitting pretty in D:

The trouble with that arrangement is that you need to reinstall
almost all the apps too with modern apps and reconfigure etc
with a reinstall so you are better off doing a repair install with XP.

And it isnt trivial to get the size right either, its difficult to predict
what size it should be and dangerous to change the size without a
full image of the entire physical drive if you need to change it later.

> I suppose those who, say, backup to DVD, may not see
> the above as much of an advantage, but it works for me.

There's plenty that backup to another drive now, so
they should have a full backup of the data in most cases.

> I use the "two PC" backup system, occasionally
> blasting files across the home network to the kids PC.

So you dont really need to format just the OS and
apps partition much at all with a decent modern OS. 


0
Rod
1/18/2007 6:17:20 PM
Rod Speed wrote:

>chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>>> Is there another arrangement you would recommend?
>
>>> All in the one partition unless you want to do safety
>>> incremental images of the OS and apps partition before
>>> doing any updates or installs etc and the data does see
>>> a high change rate or the system is used as a PVR etc.
>
>> I find it's very nice to have a seperate partition for all your
>> data, for when it's time to re-install or upgrade your OS.
>> Wipe C: clean, and have all your data sitting pretty in D:
>
>The trouble with that arrangement is that you need to reinstall
>almost all the apps too with modern apps and reconfigure etc
>with a reinstall so you are better off doing a repair install with XP.

Never tried the "repair install" thing.  Does it fix "everything",
including the unfindable trojans and shit that can affect XP boxes?
Apps are easily replaced from CD or Internet (or saved data), although
time-consuming.  The only thing that "really matters" to me is the
survival of my data.

>And it isnt trivial to get the size right either, its difficult to predict
>what size it should be and dangerous to change the size without a
>full image of the entire physical drive if you need to change it later.

Ahh...  drives are so big now that I don't think it's too difficult to
size both partitions to be "plenty large".

>> I suppose those who, say, backup to DVD, may not see
>> the above as much of an advantage, but it works for me.
>
>There's plenty that backup to another drive now, so
>they should have a full backup of the data in most cases.
>
>> I use the "two PC" backup system, occasionally
>> blasting files across the home network to the kids PC.
>
>So you dont really need to format just the OS and
>apps partition much at all with a decent modern OS. 

See above question regarding this potential solution.

0
chrisv
1/18/2007 8:20:44 PM
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote

>>>>> Is there another arrangement you would recommend?

>>>> All in the one partition unless you want to do safety
>>>> incremental images of the OS and apps partition before
>>>> doing any updates or installs etc and the data does see
>>>> a high change rate or the system is used as a PVR etc.

>>> I find it's very nice to have a seperate partition for all your
>>> data, for when it's time to re-install or upgrade your OS.
>>> Wipe C: clean, and have all your data sitting pretty in D:

>> The trouble with that arrangement is that you need to reinstall
>> almost all the apps too with modern apps and reconfigure etc
>> with a reinstall so you are better off doing a repair install with XP.

> Never tried the "repair install" thing.

That's obvious.

> Does it fix "everything", including the unfindable
> trojans and shit that can affect XP boxes?

Your approach doesnt do that either, you have
to wipe the entire physical drive to eliminate any
possibility of that stuff, not just the OS partition.

> Apps are easily replaced from CD or Internet (or saved data),

Not the config settings they arent.

> although time-consuming.  The only thing that
> "really matters" to me is the survival of my data.

Then you need to wipe all the entire physical drives
and not just the OS partition to ensure that the data is
completely safe, and restore everything from backup.

And if you are going to do that, its best to image the entire physical
drive and restore it that way rather than doing a clean reinstall.

>> And it isnt trivial to get the size right either, its difficult to predict
>> what size it should be and dangerous to change the size without a
>> full image of the entire physical drive if you need to change it later.

> Ahh...  drives are so big now that I don't think it's
> too difficult to size both partitions to be "plenty large".

Its harder than you might think given that so
many apps keep so much in the app partition.

>>> I suppose those who, say, backup to DVD, may not see
>>> the above as much of an advantage, but it works for me.

>> There's plenty that backup to another drive now, so
>> they should have a full backup of the data in most cases.

>>> I use the "two PC" backup system, occasionally
>>> blasting files across the home network to the kids PC.

>> So you dont really need to format just the OS and
>> apps partition much at all with a decent modern OS.

> See above question regarding this potential solution.

See above with the problem with that. 


0
Rod
1/18/2007 8:45:48 PM
Rod Speed wrote:

>chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>>>>> Is there another arrangement you would recommend?
>
>>>>> All in the one partition unless you want to do safety
>>>>> incremental images of the OS and apps partition before
>>>>> doing any updates or installs etc and the data does see
>>>>> a high change rate or the system is used as a PVR etc.
>
>>>> I find it's very nice to have a seperate partition for all your
>>>> data, for when it's time to re-install or upgrade your OS.
>>>> Wipe C: clean, and have all your data sitting pretty in D:
>
>>> The trouble with that arrangement is that you need to reinstall
>>> almost all the apps too with modern apps and reconfigure etc
>>> with a reinstall so you are better off doing a repair install with XP.
>
>> Never tried the "repair install" thing.
>
>That's obvious.
>
>> Does it fix "everything", including the unfindable
>> trojans and shit that can affect XP boxes?
>
>Your approach doesnt do that either, you have
>to wipe the entire physical drive to eliminate any
>possibility of that stuff, not just the OS partition.

Eh?  Realistically, a fresh registry should do the trick...  

Certainly, if you run "install_virus.exe" again you'll be infected
again, but no reinstall scheme can save you from that...

>> Apps are easily replaced from CD or Internet (or saved data),
>
>Not the config settings they arent.

Which makes it time consuming...

>> although time-consuming.  The only thing that
>> "really matters" to me is the survival of my data.
>
>Then you need to wipe all the entire physical drives
>and not just the OS partition to ensure that the data is
>completely safe, and restore everything from backup.

I don't follow.  If I have my photo collection, I have it.  It doesn't
matter "where".

>And if you are going to do that, its best to image the entire physical
>drive and restore it that way rather than doing a clean reinstall.

Well, that's great for recovery from crashes, but not effective for
when you want to reinstall to get the clean, trojan- and virus-free
registry.

Well, I suppose you could make a backup when your PC is very fresh and
put that on the shelf...

>>> And it isnt trivial to get the size right either, its difficult to predict
>>> what size it should be and dangerous to change the size without a
>>> full image of the entire physical drive if you need to change it later.
>
>> Ahh...  drives are so big now that I don't think it's
>> too difficult to size both partitions to be "plenty large".
>
>Its harder than you might think given that so
>many apps keep so much in the app partition.

Well, I've done it, and it wasn't harder than what I thought.  Only a
small percentage of PC users really need to be concerned about
overflowing, say, a 200GB Windows partition or a 50GB data partition.
For the few who have unusually-large storage needs, 400 and 500GB
drives are quite affordable.

Indeed, the modern drives are so large that it's quite easy to have a
couple Windows partitions and still have space for a Linux install to
play around with.

0
chrisv
1/19/2007 2:32:52 PM
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote

>>>>>>> Is there another arrangement you would recommend?

>>>>>> All in the one partition unless you want to do safety
>>>>>> incremental images of the OS and apps partition before
>>>>>> doing any updates or installs etc and the data does see
>>>>>> a high change rate or the system is used as a PVR etc.

>>>>> I find it's very nice to have a seperate partition for all your
>>>>> data, for when it's time to re-install or upgrade your OS.
>>>>> Wipe C: clean, and have all your data sitting pretty in D:

>>>> The trouble with that arrangement is that you need to reinstall
>>>> almost all the apps too with modern apps and reconfigure etc
>>>> with a reinstall so you are better off doing a repair install with XP.

>>> Never tried the "repair install" thing.

>> That's obvious.

>>> Does it fix "everything", including the unfindable
>>> trojans and shit that can affect XP boxes?

>> Your approach doesnt do that either, you have
>> to wipe the entire physical drive to eliminate any
>> possibility of that stuff, not just the OS partition.

> Eh?  Realistically, a fresh registry should do the trick...

Wrong. There are plenty of viruses which wont be affected by that.

> Certainly, if you run "install_virus.exe" again you'll be infected
> again, but no reinstall scheme can save you from that...

Wrong again. Wiping the drive completely and restoring
from the backup that was created before it showed up will.

>>> Apps are easily replaced from CD or Internet (or saved data),

>> Not the config settings they arent.

> Which makes it time consuming...

And quite a bit more than that if you didnt document the changes you made.

>>> although time-consuming.  The only thing that
>>> "really matters" to me is the survival of my data.

>> Then you need to wipe all the entire physical drives
>> and not just the OS partition to ensure that the data is
>> completely safe, and restore everything from backup.

> I don't follow.  If I have my photo collection, I have it.  It doesn't matter "where".

It may well be still virus infected your way.

>> And if you are going to do that, its best to image the entire physical
>> drive and restore it that way rather than doing a clean reinstall.

> Well, that's great for recovery from crashes, but not effective for when
> you want to reinstall to get the clean, trojan- and virus-free registry.

Wrong, you restore from the backup done before the virus/trojan showed up.

> Well, I suppose you could make a backup when
> your PC is very fresh and put that on the shelf...

And do an incremental, periodically, automatically after that too.
Then all you need to do is restore to before virus/trojan showed up.

>>>> And it isnt trivial to get the size right either, its difficult to predict
>>>> what size it should be and dangerous to change the size without a
>>>> full image of the entire physical drive if you need to change it later.

>>> Ahh...  drives are so big now that I don't think it's
>>> too difficult to size both partitions to be "plenty large".

>> Its harder than you might think given that so
>> many apps keep so much in the app partition.

> Well, I've done it, and it wasn't harder than what I thought.

Says nothing useful about how well that would work with other systems.

> Only a small percentage of PC users really need to be
> concerned about overflowing, say, a 200GB Windows partition

Yes, but thats a stupid waste of space on a 250G drive.

> or a 50GB data partition.

Hordes would exceed that.

> For the few who have unusually-large storage needs,

It aint a few anymore. In spades with PVRs. I can use 50G an evening.

> 400 and 500GB drives are quite affordable.

They are indeed, but its silly wasting that big a percentage
of a 250G drive on the OS and apps partition.

> Indeed, the modern drives are so large that it's quite easy to have a couple
> Windows partitions and still have space for a Linux install to play around with.

Sure, but irrelevant to what was being discussed. 


0
Rod
1/19/2007 4:47:56 PM
Rod Speed wrote:

>chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>>>>>>> Is there another arrangement you would recommend?
>
>>>>>>> All in the one partition unless you want to do safety
>>>>>>> incremental images of the OS and apps partition before
>>>>>>> doing any updates or installs etc and the data does see
>>>>>>> a high change rate or the system is used as a PVR etc.
>
>>>>>> I find it's very nice to have a seperate partition for all your
>>>>>> data, for when it's time to re-install or upgrade your OS.
>>>>>> Wipe C: clean, and have all your data sitting pretty in D:
>
>>>>> The trouble with that arrangement is that you need to reinstall
>>>>> almost all the apps too with modern apps and reconfigure etc
>>>>> with a reinstall so you are better off doing a repair install with XP.
>
>>>> Never tried the "repair install" thing.
>
>>> That's obvious.
>
>>>> Does it fix "everything", including the unfindable
>>>> trojans and shit that can affect XP boxes?
>
>>> Your approach doesnt do that either, you have
>>> to wipe the entire physical drive to eliminate any
>>> possibility of that stuff, not just the OS partition.
>
>> Eh?  Realistically, a fresh registry should do the trick...
>
>Wrong. There are plenty of viruses which wont be affected by that.

How would they get running, if they're not started in the registry?

Related note, touched-on above:  Would not a "repair install" be the
*worst* thing to do, if one's goal was to eradicate trojans and
viruses?  

My preferred method, a clean format of C: followed by a re-install of
Windows and applications, seems to be as good a way as any to ensure a
clean system, although obviously not as convenient as having all your
ducks in a row with incremental DVD backups.  I do not see the point
in wiping the D: drive, as all it has are a bunch of files that, if
not there, are going to be restored from backup anyways...

0
chrisv
1/19/2007 5:25:32 PM
Rod Speed wrote:

>>>> Ahh...  drives are so big now that I don't think it's
>>>> too difficult to size both partitions to be "plenty large".
>
>>> Its harder than you might think given that so
>>> many apps keep so much in the app partition.
>
>> Well, I've done it, and it wasn't harder than what I thought.
>
>Says nothing useful about how well that would work with other systems.
>
>> Only a small percentage of PC users really need to be
>> concerned about overflowing, say, a 200GB Windows partition
>
>Yes, but thats a stupid waste of space on a 250G drive.

With HD space so cheap, most PC users have the luxury of not caring if
they waste some.

>> or a 50GB data partition.
>
>Hordes would exceed that.

I don't think so, for "important" data.  Use the big C: partition for
massively storage-hungry applications like PVRs.

>> For the few who have unusually-large storage needs,
>
>It aint a few anymore. In spades with PVRs. I can use 50G an evening.

I'm talking about "important" data, though.  PVR data is generally
disposable.  As you would say, you don't slit your wrists if you lose
it.

For most people, 50G is a LOT of data, and it costs only about $10 of
HD space.

>> 400 and 500GB drives are quite affordable.
>
>They are indeed, but its silly wasting that big a percentage
>of a 250G drive on the OS and apps partition.

That's a big "whatever", though.  If one wants 50G for a D: drive, and
needs 250G for C:, one just spends $10 more and gets a 300G drive.

0
chrisv
1/19/2007 5:42:52 PM
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote

>>>>>>>>> Is there another arrangement you would recommend?

>>>>>>>> All in the one partition unless you want to do safety
>>>>>>>> incremental images of the OS and apps partition before
>>>>>>>> doing any updates or installs etc and the data does see
>>>>>>>> a high change rate or the system is used as a PVR etc.

>>>>>>> I find it's very nice to have a seperate partition for all your
>>>>>>> data, for when it's time to re-install or upgrade your OS.
>>>>>>> Wipe C: clean, and have all your data sitting pretty in D:

>>>>>> The trouble with that arrangement is that you need to reinstall
>>>>>> almost all the apps too with modern apps and reconfigure etc
>>>>>> with a reinstall so you are better off doing a repair install with XP.

>>>>> Never tried the "repair install" thing.

>>>> That's obvious.

>>>>> Does it fix "everything", including the unfindable
>>>>> trojans and shit that can affect XP boxes?

>>>> Your approach doesnt do that either, you have
>>>> to wipe the entire physical drive to eliminate any
>>>> possibility of that stuff, not just the OS partition.

>>> Eh?  Realistically, a fresh registry should do the trick...

>> Wrong. There are plenty of viruses which wont be affected by that.

> How would they get running, if they're not started in the registry?

There are ways they can do that.

> Related note, touched-on above:  Would not a "repair install" be the
> *worst* thing to do, if one's goal was to eradicate trojans and viruses?

Certainly a restore from backup is better.
Trojans and viruses are just one reason for an install.
Anyone with a clue ensures that their system cant get infected.

> My preferred method, a clean format of C: followed
> by a re-install of Windows and applications, seems to
> be as good a way as any to ensure a clean system,

Nope, FAR too slow and cumbersome. In spades
with systems that get configured extensively.

> although obviously not as convenient as having all
> your ducks in a row with incremental DVD backups.

DVDs are the last thing you should be using for system backups.
They are best for just the stuff you will slash your wrists if you
lose them, with one copy offsite. You are much better off doing
system backups to hard drives, on another machine on the lan
or an external drive.

> I do not see the point in wiping the D: drive, as all it has are a bunch of
> files that, if not there, are going to be restored from backup anyways...

Some viruses and trojans are more than JUST files and it depends on how
the backup is done whether it overwrites everything on a drive on restore. 


0
Rod
1/19/2007 8:05:19 PM
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>>>> Ahh...  drives are so big now that I don't think it's
>>>>> too difficult to size both partitions to be "plenty large".

>>>> Its harder than you might think given that so
>>>> many apps keep so much in the app partition.

>>> Well, I've done it, and it wasn't harder than what I thought.

>> Says nothing useful about how well that would work with other systems.

>>> Only a small percentage of PC users really need to be
>>> concerned about overflowing, say, a 200GB Windows partition

>> Yes, but thats a stupid waste of space on a 250G drive.

> With HD space so cheap, most PC users have
> the luxury of not caring if they waste some.

That would be wasting a hell of a lot of the drive space.

>>> or a 50GB data partition.

>> Hordes would exceed that.

> I don't think so, for "important" data.

Depends entirely on how you define important. Many consider that
what they havent yet watched with a PVR is desirable not to lose.

> Use the big C: partition for massively
> storage-hungry applications like PVRs.

Makes a lot more sense to have just one partition
instead apart from when running multiple OSs.

>>> For the few who have unusually-large storage needs,

>> It aint a few anymore. In spades with PVRs. I can use 50G an evening.

> I'm talking about "important" data, though.  PVR data is generally disposable.

Wrong.

> As you would say, you don't slit your wrists if you lose it.

A decent backup scheme backs up more than just that data.

> For most people, 50G is a LOT of data,

Wrong with PVRs most obviously.

> and it costs only about $10 of HD space.

Bullshit.

>>> 400 and 500GB drives are quite affordable.

>> They are indeed, but its silly wasting that big a percentage
>> of a 250G drive on the OS and apps partition.

> That's a big "whatever", though.  If one wants 50G for a D: drive, and
> needs 250G for C:, one just spends $10 more and gets a 300G drive.

Makes a hell of a lot more sense not having a 250G OS and apps partition. 


0
Rod
1/19/2007 8:09:20 PM
Rod Speed wrote:

>>>>>> Does it fix "everything", including the unfindable
>>>>>> trojans and shit that can affect XP boxes?
>
>>>>> Your approach doesnt do that either, you have
>>>>> to wipe the entire physical drive to eliminate any
>>>>> possibility of that stuff, not just the OS partition.
>
>>>> Eh?  Realistically, a fresh registry should do the trick...
>
>>> Wrong. There are plenty of viruses which wont be affected by that.
>
>> How would they get running, if they're not started in the registry?
>
>There are ways they can do that.

Like what, realistically?

0
chrisv
1/24/2007 5:08:19 PM
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>>>>>> Does it fix "everything", including the unfindable
>>>>>>> trojans and shit that can affect XP boxes?

>>>>>> Your approach doesnt do that either, you have
>>>>>> to wipe the entire physical drive to eliminate any
>>>>>> possibility of that stuff, not just the OS partition.

>>>>> Eh?  Realistically, a fresh registry should do the trick...

>>>> Wrong. There are plenty of viruses which wont be affected by that.

>>> How would they get running, if they're not started in the registry?

>> There are ways they can do that.

> Like what, realistically?

One obvious example is a boot sector virus. That isnt the only way. 


0
Rod
1/24/2007 6:55:00 PM
Previously chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

[...]
> I'm talking about "important" data, though.  PVR data is generally
> disposable.  As you would say, you don't slit your wrists if you lose
> it.

> For most people, 50G is a LOT of data, and it costs only about $10 of
> HD space.

Yes, these disk sizes are a bit frightening sometimes. My complete
Linux installation (including data) is still <1 0GB (20GB if you count
the RAID1). 

Hiwever the $10 figure is a bit problematic. It only applies to 
unimportant data. If the data is important, you may need a second
drive for RAID1 and some more for backup (usually 3 rotating
independent media are considerd enough). So using HDDs, reliable
space will be more expensive and require some recurring maintenance 
(making of backups).

Arno
0
Arno
1/25/2007 8:57:03 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

drive to drive
if you plan to be your own manual raid, drive to drive copy, then is there any advantage to pairing drive manufacturer & model? webwalker@68z28.com wrote: > if you plan to be your own manual raid, drive to drive copy, then is > there any advantage to pairing drive manufacturer & model? No. However there is the usual disadvantage, namely a higher probability of simultaneous failure. Arno -- Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: arno@wagner.name GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F ---- Cuddly UI...

Drive A Not Drive A??
Hi I just got an old IDE zip 100 drive. On the back, it's label for the jumpers is split into 2 boxes, labelled "Not Drive A" and "Drive A". Each box shows three different jumper settings for how to set the drive to slave/master/cable. So in other words, there's six jumper settings on the back. Three for "Drive A" - master/slave/cable and three for "Not Drive A" - master/slave/cable which are different. What does "Drive A" or "Not Drive A" mean? I don't know which jumper settings diagram is right... In arti...

OS X on Drive #1, iTunes on Drive #2, mp3s everywhere :-)
I just got this G3 B&W and I need some advice :-) I have two drives. I have OS X on Drive #1 (6Gs). That's my start up drive. I have iTunes (and a *lot* of mp3s) on my storage Drive #2 (80Gs) with no OS X system folder. I want to be able to get iTunes up and running but the OS X hard drive is pretty darned full just with the OS itself and for the life of me I can't figure out how to get iTunes to play on start up Drive #1 without having to create a library that drags the mp3s from Drive #2 to Drive #1. I've already moved iTunes to Drive #2 so the application isn't e...

FA: Two 70mb Quantum 5 1/4 half height drives in a Corvus Case (Was: Two 80mb Quantum 5 1/4 half height drives in a Corvus Case)
I did a typo.. They are not 80 Mb drives.. They are 70MB.. Sorry... :/ http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2777209101 -Lockar ...

Losing Drives - Finding Drives
I'm using a Dell 8400 w/Windows XP Pro (Service Pack 2 - with all current updates) Problem: My comp can't find my drive(s) A few days back I bought some memory for my comp. The clerk in the store read the original packing slip from 3-4 years back on which it stated which type of memory my comp had. When I put in the memory he sold me, the comp went weird and came up with the blue screen of death. (I was grounded to the comp's metal chassis. so I doubt if the chips had gotten zapped. ) After I took the memory out, I saw that my comp was no longer finding my 2 outboar...

Using 3-1/2 inch HD drives in place of 8 inch drives
I have started a thread on cctech on the classiccmp.org list-server. This applies to model 2 and dirivatives. There are three major OS's that this applies to: TRSDOS, CP/M, XENIX. I have the source to the CP/M-68K implientation which is of no help. What sources are available? Does anyone have either the source (even a disassembly) of TRSDOS for the model 2? How about for CP/M? There was a discussion in the past on this group about some of the source to Xenix. Is there anything available that could help in setting up the drivers? Thanks, Randy &...

Cloning OS drive to smaller drive
Is there any program that will clone your C drive and copy it over to a SMALLER DRIVE? I've messed with Drive Image and apparently I could do it only if it was a larger drive that I was moving the info to. I've fiddled with Ghost Corporate and I must be stupid because it seems like you need a degree majoring in the product. I've never messed with a more user unfriendly product. Xxcopy doesn't move the boot info on WinXP. DrivecloneXP and DriveImagerXP copies the same size partition I believe. Any suggestions? "ahh" <ahh@ahh.com> wrote in m...

Re: Replacing 8-inch drives with 3-1/2 inch drives (was Wtd: Sirius
> Message-ID: <E1CsXyt-0001kO-N8@stasis.kostecke.net> "Randy McLaughlin" <randy@nospam.com> wrote: > There are lots of technical differences in the different types of drives. > Herb Johnson has been good enough to collect and post some info: > > http://retrotechnology.com/herbs_stuff/s100.html > > The modifications to the BIOS/format program are not to great, mainly > increase the tracks to 80 use both sides and change the SPT (sectors per > track). I've never done it with a 1771 so I am not sure of how many 128 > byte FM sectors the...

Installation Error. OS/2 can't operate the hard drive or diskette drive
Hi, I want to install OS/2 Warp 4.56 on a laptop Toshiba Tecra S5 or Panasonic CF-52. Both of these computers have the following controllers: Intel 82801 HEM/HBM SATA AHCI Intel ICH8M Ultra ATA Stora Controller I built an installation diskette (Number 1) with the following drivers: Danis506 v1.8.1 (in replacement of IBM1S506) Danis144 (in replacement of OS2DASD) The config.sys is: set copyfromfloppy=1 set saveconnect=1 buffers=32 pauseonerror=yes iopl=yes memman=swap,delayswap protshell=sysinst1.exe set os2_shell=cmd.exe diskcache=D2,LW protectonly=yes libpath=.;\;\o...

Optical drive cleaning & 1.2 GB MO disk usable in NeXT Optical drive?
Hello all, I have a NeXT cube that I have just recently acquired, and with it I got a 5 1/4" 1.2 GB optical MO disk they had laying around, still sealed in the plastic, since the company that I got the cube from couldn't give me the original 256 MB disk that came with the unit, since it still had some sensitive info saved on it. Is it possible to use this 1.2 gig MO disk with the next's drive? It's double sided, as opposed to the NeXT's single sided 256MB disk. Also, it has 512 bypes per sector as well. Also, the drive itself does need a cleaning, since it...

* Can you BOOT OS 9.2 from an USB Flash Pen Drive? And run the whole Mac from a USB Pen Drive?
* Can you BOOT OS 9.2 from an USB Flash Pen Drive? And run the whole Mac from a USB Pen Drive? ................................................................. Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=- On 1/27/05 8:04 AM, in article none-5EFB4A.01044127012005@news.TITANnews.com, "Lokie" <none@none.noe> wrote: > > > * Can you BOOT OS 9.2 from an USB Flash Pen Drive? And run the whole Ma...

* Can you BOOT OS 9.2 from an USB Flash Pen Drive? And run the whole Mac from a USB Pen Drive?
* Can you BOOT OS 9.2 from an USB Flash Pen Drive? And run the whole Mac from a USB Pen Drive? ................................................................. Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=- Lokie wrote: > * Can you BOOT OS 9.2 from an USB Flash Pen Drive? And run the whole Mac > from a USB Pen Drive? > > > I have put a minimal version of OS 9.1 on a Smart Media card and put the card in a PCMCIA card read...

* Can you BOOT OS 9.2 from an USB Flash Pen Drive? And run the whole Mac from a USB Pen Drive?
* Can you BOOT OS 9.2 from an USB Flash Pen Drive? And run the whole Mac from a USB Pen Drive? ................................................................. Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=- ...

2 SCSI drive acting as one drive.
Hello friends, I would first like to say that my scsi knowledge is limited, and that i am trying to learn by hands on... My question is, how do i make 2 scsi 34gig hardrives to act as one drive? I know it has something to RAID...but i;m not sure. Can anyone give me a step by step process on how to make this happen. Intel XEON with/Dual Processor 3.06ghz 1 gig of ram hitachi scsi HD Any help would be appreciated. Thanks Jim Not to do with RAID as such but what you need is found on most RAID controllers, it's called JBOD ( I always though it was JOBD, Just One Big Drive, but apparent...

Web resources about - Two drives: OS on Drive 1, Progs on Drive 2, My Docs on which? - comp.pc.hardware.storage

Resources last updated: 1/27/2016 1:20:57 PM