New Partitions

[AlanHo]

One of my grand-kids has managed to screw up her laptop again and has returned to the cheapest repairer she knows of to get it sorted out - me.

After getting it working OK I want to add another partition to separate her OS and programs from all her data so that I can take and retain an Acronis image of her C: drive to make my task easier the next time she brings it round - as she surely will. I also want to show her how to back up her data onto removable media.

I know how to do this but the impending task has raised a question in my mind. She has thousands of photos and music tracks on the laptop and is constantly adding new ones and deleting some old ones. Hence her data files must be splattered all over the hard drive intermixed with free space. My question is this - and it is probably a dumb one - when you partition a drive does the new partiton comprise (free space) sectors collected from various tracks and segments of the disk - or are they contiguous.

My guess is that if you started off with an unused disc and created partitions on it - each partition would occupy (and thereafter retain) a continuous physical "chunk" on the disc. Hence all the C: drive items would be butted up together and physically separated from all the D: drive items.

If however you add a partion to a used drive - is the data now all jumbled up physically and only notionally separated into its relevant partition by the MBR.

Defragging a heavily used drive is always a good idea - but is there any merit - in terms of getting data physically into the right area of the drive - in defragging the drive before creating a new partition?

[ɹəuəllıʍ ʇɐb]

A partition is always contiguous space. Most partitioning softwares will show your partition(s) occupying tracks xxxxxx - yyyyyy.

[AlanHo]

A partition is always contiguous space. Most partitioning softwares will show your partition(s) occupying tracks xxxxxx - yyyyyy.

So - if you create a new partition - is it correct that the maximum size of the new partition will therefore be the longest contiguous length of free space on the disc and will not include free space from other areas of the disc. If that is the case - defragging the disc before creating the partition would enable a larger partition to be created.

Right or wrong............?

[catgate]

A partition is always contiguous space. Most partitioning softwares will show your partition(s) occupying tracks xxxxxx - yyyyyy.

So - if you create a new partition - is it correct that the maximum size of the new partition will therefore be the longest contiguous length of free space on the disc and will not include free space from other areas of the disc. If that is the case - defragging the disc before creating the partition would enable a larger partition to be created.

Right or wrong............?

When I was on W98 I used to split my HD into separate chunks, using fdisk, in the belief that this would achieve what you are now trying to achieve. The chunks were labelled C, D, E, F, G, H.

C of course was the system disc and the others were storage discs, eack having its own type of content. I still use a similar system but now they are just master directories.

[D4\/!d]

I still use a similar system but now they are just master directories.

Yeah me too.

I used to go for the partition everything option. But not now.

Today that's not the best way forward, IMO.

I agree with catgate - using separate Folders is the way.

In fact I have merged drives that used to be partitioned - I find the greater space works better than before.

That includes the kids laptops, now back to one partition.

In fact there is one guy I know who puts nothing in compartments everything is scattered throughout his drive.

What a mess you think. No.

Today's software does the job of sorting and collating.

I find I have to revisit some of our old habits and update our thinking in line with modern functionality - well, sometimes B)

[AlanHo]

I still use a similar system but now they are just master directories.

Yeah me too.

I used to go for the partition everything option. But not now.

Today that's not the best way forward, IMO.

I agree with catgate - using separate Folders is the way.

In fact I have merged drives that used to be partitioned - I find the greater space works better than before.

That includes the kids laptops, now back to one partition.

In fact there is one guy I know who puts nothing in compartments everything is scattered throughout his drive.

What a mess you think. No.

Today's software does the job of sorting and collating.

I find I have to revisit some of our old habits and update our thinking in line with modern functionality - well, sometimes B)

I don't agree with you because it makes backing up and restoring the computer - or even reinstalling Windows - more difficult.

I prefer to have the OS and programs on the C: drive and all data on the D: drive. This means that if I ever need to restore the OS and programs - I can do this without losing any data. Also - if for any reason you need to do a repair or reinstall Windows - your data is safe.

It's even better on a desktop where you can have a hard drive for your OS and programs and a second one for your data - because when using a program the computer can read and write to both drives simultaneously which speeds up the operation (if only by a little). If everything is on one drive the computer can only access files sequentially because a hard drive has only one read/write head.

I recognise that modern software is able to find files all jumbled up on one drive - but for me the advantage of an easier backup and restore strategy is not to be ignored.

[Seshomaru Samma]

Right or wrong............?

I would say : Wrong.

I don't think you will see a notable change in available space when creating a new partition on a defraged volume in comparison with a non defraged volume.

When you create a new partition the parting software moves all your data to one area of the disc to create space. It resizes the partition based on the free space it contains,no matter how messy it is.

Having said that , it is always advised to defrag Windows partitions before parting a disc to avoid errors when files are moved around.

[D4\/!d]

I don't agree with you because it makes backing up and restoring the computer - or even reinstalling Windows - more difficult.

Thinking about it, I suppose I do separate my data coz I have two drives and use my Desktop like you.

However when it comes to the (grown up) kid's laptops I leave the lot in one partition and backup the lot - OS & Data - using Acronis. The type of data they have is transient such as the latest pop tunes, and a few photos.

There is just a small amount of Data - nothing like the volume of stuff I have collected such as Spreadsheets and Docs going back over the past 10 years or so.

[MANEMAN]

Just a thought. :)

I dont want to try to teach my Granny how to suck eggs, but I have seen some bad slip-ups when partitioning a disk that has data already on it. You can end up with corrupted files and a loss of data.

Alan. - Do a disk image, before you try to partition it off. - Give yourself a safety net. ;)

Ideally personal data (Music, photos, documents,etc.) should be kept on a seperate disk. We all know that this is not always possible, so some of us go for a seperate partition.

I have just had someone drop a computer off to me and the 80GB SATA Disk is buggered. (C:\ Is Not Accessible - Error Performing Inpage Operation)

This is not just inaccessible, - it is inaccessible to anything that I have thrown at it!!! Linux, ERD Commander, CHKDSK, Easeus Recovery Pro, Bad Sector recovery, throwing it in the freezer, and a whole lot more that other people are going to recommend, and that I have already tried. :(

I know this to be a computer that is used by a teenage girl, and that it was becoming irksome. My thoughts are that she lost her cool with it and started to close it down by pulling the plug from the power socket. This sort of behaviour, power outages and related voltage spikes play havoc with binary data.

I have in similar circumstances in the past been able to retrieve personal data when it has been on a seperate partition. - Dont ask me how this worked out, - I'm not a scientist. :P

To those of you who advocate keeping the operating system and data on the same partition (or in folders on the same partition) good luck to you, may you never have a Hard Disk failure, or a bad sector, and here's hoping that your file/folder backup system serves you well in times of need.

Restoring a "Disk Image" with just the operating system involved takes but minutes. (20-30 at the outside) Add personal data to that and you are watching gloss paint dry. ( And no real need if you have something like 2nd Copy in place to backup your data.

We are talking now amongst ourselves as people who have "A Little Knowledge" of computers.

The average Joe who buys a computer has his first failure, - bungs in the recovery disk, expecting things to be "Recovered". To his amazement all of his photos have gone, along with everything else. Wouldn't have taken very much more effort on the manufacturers part to have made an extra partition for "Data" and saved his loss.

John.

[MANEMAN]

For anyone who sensibly takes a "Belt & Braces" approach with their data and would like to learn how to re-associate file paths to another area of their computer I include these links:

/>http://software.bootblock.co.uk/?id=profilerelocator

/>http://windowsxp.mvps.org/folderredirector.htm

/>http://windowsxp.mvps.org/tweakui.htm

These are just a few. - Google for even more, - and specific operating systems.

For those who are happy with their present set up ( Just Belt B) ) Good on ya !

We are all happy with it, - until it goes wrong ! ! :(

John.

(The particular young lady is not going to be happy when she learns all of her course work is lost, along with her photos etc.)

Keep it all backed up. External Drives, Humyo, The incredible **DROPBOX** Most of it is free or incredibly cheap.

Any of us keeping all of our data on the same disk as our operating system, - really should know better. :0

John.

[ɹəuəllıʍ ʇɐb]

Quite a discussion you started here, Alan, and so many opinions... :)

A partition is always contiguous space. Most partitioning softwares will show your partition(s) occupying tracks xxxxxx - yyyyyy.

So - if you create a new partition - is it correct that the maximum size of the new partition will therefore be the longest contiguous length of free space on the disc and will not include free space from other areas of the disc. If that is the case - defragging the disc before creating the partition would enable a larger partition to be created.

Right or wrong............?

1. Yes, the maximum size of the new partition will be the longest continuous chunk of free space on the disk.
   
2. No, defragging will not change that, as you do not defrag the disk, but always contents inside partitions. But you may defrag partitions, and then resize them to gain a larger contiguous chunk of free space.
   

[ɹəuəllıʍ ʇɐb]

For those who think partitioning has become obsolete, there are still a few reasons to keep separate partitions

1. on a multi-boot system, I always keep the page file in a separate partition; I don't need a different page file for every Windows version - they all can use the same.
   
2. keeping system and data files is still a good concept: backup, recovery, Windows troubleshooting, repair, reinstall, ... - all much easier.
   
3. sharing data between mutliple Windows (or other operating systems) is also much easier.
   
4. special files: I keep my Outlook PST file on a separate partition; just that file - nothing else. I have that PST file since 1997 with all my email in it, it is several GB large, and it never fragments, and my Outlook performs flawlessly.
   

[Irene]

Quite a discussion you started here, Alan, and so many opinions... :)

A partition is always contiguous space. Most partitioning softwares will show your partition(s) occupying tracks xxxxxx - yyyyyy.

So - if you create a new partition - is it correct that the maximum size of the new partition will therefore be the longest contiguous length of free space on the disc and will not include free space from other areas of the disc. If that is the case - defragging the disc before creating the partition would enable a larger partition to be created.

Right or wrong............?

Yes, the maximum size of the new partition will be the longest continuous chunk of free space on the disk.

1. No, defragging will not change that, as you do not defrag the disk, but always contents inside partitions. But you may defrag partitions, and then resize them to gain a larger contiguous chunk of free space.

Yes, very interesting...

I am particularly interested because my desktop pc has only the 'C' drive, whereas my previous one had drive 'D' where I stored my data files. Partitioning is completely alien to me, but I would like to separate the OS from the data files again.

Would you knowledgeable people think that I could achieve it, even though I have no experience whatsoever in that area?

[AlanHo]

For those who think partitioning has become obsolete, there are still a few reasons to keep separate partitions

1. on a multi-boot system, I always keep the page file in a separate partition; I don't need a different page file for every Windows version - they all can use the same.
   
2. keeping system and data files is still a good concept: backup, recovery, Windows troubleshooting, repair, reinstall, ... - all much easier.
   
3. sharing data between mutliple Windows (or other operating systems) is also much easier.
   
4. special files: I keep my Outlook PST file on a separate partition; just that file - nothing else. I have that PST file since 1997 with all my email in it, it is several GB large, and it never fragments, and my Outlook performs flawlessly.
   

I keep my Outlook pst file in a folder on my D: drive - which is backed up automatically to an external hard drive by "Second Copy" every time my computer is shut down.

I noticed after a couple of years that the pst file was so big that it slowed down the loading of Outlook and the time it took second Copy to back it up. I therefore created an archive folder, sub-divided into a folder for each year, into which I transfer all Emails from the previous year but one (ie: in January 2010 I transferred all the messages for 2008 - leaving the 2009 messages in the personal pst file).

I only back up the Archive folder once per year after transferring the old files - it is excluded from the regular Second Copy D: drive back up which has speeded up the back up operation considerably.

If I want to refer to an old message - it is easy to manually open the Archive file only when I need it.

[MANEMAN]

Would you knowledgeable people think that I could achieve it, even though I have no experience whatsoever in that area?

Hi Irene. Yes you could achieve it, but generally it is not really a good idea to start partitioning a disk that already has data on it.

99/100 times you can get away with it, but then comes that one fateful time when data becomes corrupted, and files are lost forever.

If I remember correctly you have Windows 7 64bit. It would perhaps be safer to fit a second drive to your desktop, or even use an external drive for data.

From that stage you can then change the associated file paths so that data flows in the direction that you wish.

The following links will give some insight into altering associated file paths, although all are not suitable for your particular operating system. (Just given as examples of how to go about things.)

A bit of "Googling" will soon show you how to alter file paths.

/>http://software.bootblock.co.uk/?id=profilerelocator

/>http://windowsxp.mvps.org/folderredirector.htm

/>http://windowsxp.mvps.org/tweakui.htm

John.

[Irene]

Thanks John, I'll take a look when I have time to study them - not after a day at work on a very warm day. :D

[rong]

If you want to spend money get power quest partition magic as it does it all for you and I have never had a problem with it, if you want it cheaper (very cheap) then go to a computer fair ;) ;)

[ɹəuəllıʍ ʇɐb]

If you want to spend money get power quest partition magic ...

I still have the last version of Power Quest Partition Magic 8.0, but sadly that software belongs now to Symantec, and they have just left it to rot. In fact it seems that they do no longer offer it on their product catalog, see http://www.symantec.com/norton/theme.jsp?themeid=partition_magic.

[MANEMAN]

Okay then. :)

(Click Link:)

**Partition Wizard** is free, and it is suitable for use by Irene, and compatible with her operating system.

I never like to promote partitioning a drive with data on it. That way, people cant come back and say "You told me to do this and I have lost everything" !!

If you tell them it can be done and 99/100 times all is ok, - and they then go on to do it and lose data, - you can say "I told you so" and then justifiably make a charge for putting things right.

Unlike Windows XP, Vista, and Windows 7 operating systems are "greedy" for disk space, so it is best not to squeeze the partition they sit on too far down, or you may find some features you wish to use in the future will be unavailable. :(

Making a "Disk Image" before you partition C:/ with data on it is a Very good idea. :P :) :) :)

John.