What good are logical drives???

[fitzm]

"Note that using separate partitions for software and data adds a valuable additional level resiliency. In the event that some badly behaved item of software renders the C: partition unusable for some reason, leaving no option other than a clean reinstallation of Windows, then at least this can be done in a way that completely preserves your user data, the "data" partition being entirely untouched by this process."

If "C" drive becomes corrupted, ie: needs formatting, how can data on logical drive be saved from same corruption? For instance, if you can't even boot OS up (even in safe mode, boot floppies, or recovery console ) what good are the logical drives going to be?

My friend has a RAID array that I can't even access right now to save all his "logically" saved data.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: fitzm


"Note that using separate partitions for software and data adds a valuable additional level resiliency. In the event that some badly behaved item of software renders the C: partition unusable for some reason, leaving no option other than a clean reinstallation of Windows, then at least this can be done in a way that completely preserves your user data, the "data" partition being entirely untouched by this process."

If "C" drive becomes corrupted, ie: needs formatting, how can data on logical drive be saved from same corruption? For instance, if you can't even boot OS up (even in safe mode, boot floppies, or recovery console ) what good are the logical drives going to be?

My friend has a RAID array that I can't even access right now to save all his "logically" saved data.

If the RAID is intact, you should be able to reinstall windows and the data on the the logical drives will still be there.

 

[Nothinman]

If "C" drive becomes corrupted, ie: needs formatting, how can data on logical drive be saved from same corruption? For instance, if you can't even boot OS up (even in safe mode, boot floppies, or recovery console ) what good are the logical drives going to be?

One filesystem isn't dependent on another, if one of them becomes corrupt the others may well be fine. Of course it depends on the cause of the corruption, for instance if you have bad memory then all of your filesystems are at risk.

My friend has a RAID array that I can't even access right now to save all his "logically" saved data.

That's a seperate issue, if you can't even get the RAID array to come up then it doesn't matter how it's partitioned.

 

[Lovehandles]

Originally posted by: fitzm
My friend has a RAID array that I can't even access right now to save all his "logically" saved data.

That may have absolutely nothing to do with logical partitions. Do you get any error messages when you try to access those partitions? Does Windows correctly see the partition whic you're trying to retrieve the data from? One thing to consider is that if your friend is using an NT operating system, you may need to log on as system admin (different from logged in as regular administrator) to get past the volume privileges.

 

[drag]

Ya..

Basicly you can have different things screw up on your system.

For instance you can have individual files corrupt, so you loose data in those files.
You can have a directory go corrupt and loose the data in the files in that paticular directory.
Or you can loose a entire file system full of directories and files on a paticular volume (or partition or whatever)

Now having seperate partitions won't help you with the first 2 things, but if one file system gets corrupted then the other one should be ok.

Now if the cause is from RAM errors or hardware failure or bad PSU or overheating or whatever then it's possible to have both go corrupt at the same time. This is not uncommon. Or like in your case since your probably using one of those odd-ball onboard raid devices when your system is down then your data is unaviable. Then having multiple file systems isn't going to help any (until at least you get your system back running again)

This is why if you have information that seriously you don't want to loose you need to back it up to cdrom/dvd, tape, many multiple computers, or something like that. Backups are the only way to effectively ensure that you preserve data.

 

[corkyg]

Separate partitions often helps users more than computers. It is a minor thing, but HDD maintenance is sometimes easier with partitions, and fragmentation can be reduced.

It takes longer to plow a 100 acre field than a 50 acre field.

 

[Nothinman]

Separate partitions often helps users more than computers. It is a minor thing, but HDD maintenance is sometimes easier with partitions, and fragmentation can be reduced.

But organizing by folder is generally easier, faster and more flexible.

 

[corkyg]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
But organizing by folder is generally easier, faster and more flexible.

Folders are what you put in the partitions or logical drives.

It may be faster and easier for you to scroll through dozens of folders, but many of us prefer to separate types of folders, such as graphics, animations, music, etc. on different partitons so there are not so many things to look at at once.

Example - I have a partition solely dedicated to digial imagery/photos. It is then divided into folders by date, place, subject, etc.

Haing all those folders in one drive would not make it faster or easier for a lot of us where extensive vertical scrolling would be required.

 

[cleverhandle]

Originally posted by: corkyg
It may be faster and easier for you to scroll through dozens of folders, but many of us prefer to separate types of folders, such as graphics, animations, music, etc. on different partitons so there are not so many things to look at at once.

All you're doing is replacing one kind of container (a folder) with another (a logical drive). From an organizational standpoint, your solution is no different than having one big top-level folder with a subfolder for each file type. And in the process, you're making your system layout more complicated and less flexible (because resizing logical drives is, at best, difficult). So I don't really see this as any kind of valid argument.

If there's anything to be said for logical drives, it's only in the areas of backup and restore (wiping your OS partition without touching your data and similar things). Even then, the better solution is having a good backup system and knowing how to use it.

 

[Nothinman]

Folders are what you put in the partitions or logical drives.

Duh. And logical drives are partitions too.

It may be faster and easier for you to scroll through dozens of folders, but many of us prefer to separate types of folders, such as graphics, animations, music, etc. on different partitons so there are not so many things to look at at once.

So use more levels of folders, they're essentially free, nothing's stopping you from creating arbitrary top level folders to keep the amount of subfolders down.

Haing all those folders in one drive would not make it faster or easier for a lot of us where extensive vertical scrolling would be required.

Sure it would, any decent file manager supports you typing 'mus' and selecting your music folder for you. If you don't know that then it's your own fault for not knowing how to use your system effectively.

 

[corkyg]

We all have our own ways of working, and the most efficient way is what works best for us. There are too many other mitigating circumstances that make these "one size fits all" solutions impractical.

I have used partitions effectively for over 25 years, now and it is not something I think about - it is a reflex action. There are other arguments for them - one being, it speeds up routine drive maintenance.

I keep all my data files in a SATA RAID 1 array - and use only folders and sub-folders for that. My main OS drive has one small partition - and that is strictly for temp Internet files and the page file. This reduces daily fragmentation that happens because of those files.

 

[Nothinman]

I have used partitions effectively for over 25 years, now and it is not something I think about - it is a reflex action. There are other arguments for them - one being, it speeds up routine drive maintenance.

I used to do that too until I realized that it was a hindrance more than a help, as soon as one of those partitions gets full it's a huge PITA to move space around and the only other option is to have put data that should be on one partition on another and that gets confusing. Symlinks can help, but that's a pretty ****** bandaid for the problelm.

 

[drag]

.. Symlinks aren't realy a option for Windows anyways, is it?

And screw partitions as far as management goes. Waste of time and resizing partitions is the computer equivelent of playing russian roulete.

Logical Volume Management is were it's at for when you have to deal with grouping and managing large amounts of data. Seperate file system for root. Seperate for local application installs, for home directory, and for mass storage. Just allocate as much disk space as you need at the time and if you need more later then so what? Just take the volume offline and resize it. No sweat.

Of course at one point I had the equivelent of about 6 or 7 operating systems running off of the same logical volume group (right now I am down to two). (Xen and "iscsi enterprise target" rock)

Screw all this partiition stuff. It's sooo 1987.

 

[Nothinman]

.. Symlinks aren't realy a option for Windows anyways, is it?

It's possible, but I've never messed with them.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

.. Symlinks aren't realy a option for Windows anyways, is it?

It's possible, but I've never messed with them.

Ok I did a quick look up for them and found this:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=341355

The guy seems to know what he is talking about.
They are called 'junctions'. They only work with directories. You can go from one volume to another, but not a shared volume. The API for using them is undocumented. Userland support for them is buggy.

I don't think many other people are going to be using them either.

edit:
Looks like more posix-style-ish symbolic links will be a feature for 'Longhorn Server'.