[<<]Message[>>] [<<]Author[>>] Subject[>>] [<<]Thread[>>]
Number : 7873 Date : 2004-05-12 Author : Kan Yabumoto Subject : Single- vs. Multiple- volume configurations Size(KB) : 6
Dan wrote: > > Just a quick comment that there may be different styles with > regards to whether or not an individual would want to use > partitions or not to use partitions. It seems childish > however to refer to one approach vs. the other as being > "silly" when each approach has obvious advantages and > disadvantages (although it may not be apparent from Kan's > comments). Thanks to noticing my youthful spirit > As noted, Kan acknowledges that he is "preaching" one > perspective partly due to the particular approach that > is used by xxcopy and xxclone but he is not presenting > you with a balanced set of considerations. (Note: the following paragraph is aimed at everyone, not just for Dan.) XXCOPY/XXCLONE combo is not a one-fits-all solution. The combination can be exploited to fit a very wide range of cases. If you know what you are doing, you can ignore my advice. If you know little, follow my advice (which is deliberately made simple and safe). Then, there are a wide range in between. You can even cherry-pick some of my suggestions. If you are not sure, just play safe. > The nature of Kan's comments should not be aimed at > demeaning people that disagree with his perspective > on these sorts of issues. I just made a new thread for this topic which started last week and the following two posts give you the context: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xxcopy/message/7821 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xxcopy/message/7846 In case anyone missed my "disclaimer", let me repeat what I wrote in my long message. ---------------------------------------------------- I'm not saying multiple-partitions are always bad. I'm sure there are cases where you want to have separate partitions for various reasons. ---------------------------------------------------- Apparently, the word, "silly" must have provoked a lot of emotion in the readers mind. I did not intend to "demean" anyone's favorite setup. But, certainly I had a playful intent to get people's attention on this subject. This topic is a worthwhile subject for a serious discussion. Let me try it again. First of all, if there are some kind of "requirements". I do not argue this point at all. My comment was, of course, for the cases where you have to make a decision between the two --- obviously, you can go either way and weighing the pros and cons (if your environment do not allow you to choose, my advice does not apply. But, if your earlier arbitrary decisions and other "correctable" conditions are the sole reason for having no choice in the first place, I suggest you re-examine your overall situation once more). Secondly, those who are equipped with sufficient knowledge in what really amounts to creating extra partitions can easily tell whether or not my over-generalized and over- simplified suggestion applies to their computing environment. I stand by my advice that if you are at liberty in choosing either one, you can seldom go wrong by choosing the simpler method of one-partition solution. The benefits of the simpler configuration is often underestimated in my view. Was I one-sided? I listed lots of advantages for the single-partition solution. I did not list any advantage at all for the other solution. But, if there were "advantages" (e.g., some may say partitions prevent viruses or prevents accidents), I already refuted the "perceived" advantages and made it "weak" advantage that did not find its place. That is, I gave a two lists of advantages of both sides. It so happened that one of the lists had zero-contents It sounds funny, but, I'm dead serious. I spend a lot of time in search of a strong case for creating extra partitions, I just can't find anything significant. On the surface, my post might have given an impression that I'm suggesting a one-fits-all solution. The design of XXCOPY and XXCLONE speaks for that I really preach. As to the disk-cloning problem, I have already stated many times that the best solution is to use XXCOPY as much as you can and use the minimum-option (/BACKUP0) in XXCLONE for the most flexible solution. In either general purpose file-management situation, or disk- cloning problem, my advice to advanced users has always been to use multiple-line batch file. The other extreme is to simplify everything so that one XXCLONE invocation would do the job. And, then, many experience users will find some "sweetspot" of the two extreme approaches for an optimum solution for his particular case. In short, my point in the "provocation" was to challenge many users who currently have multiple partitions in their XP setup to re-evaluation the pros and cons. I believe some of them will agree with me that at the end of the day, setting up the artificial walls between partitions has few tangible benefits while the penalties of continue doing so often outweigh the other. Let me articulate my question for this discussion. Say, you have the Windows XP. You have two 80GB hard disks; one is for the "working" volume(s) and the other, strictly for the backup of the working volume(s). In what common scenarios, does a multiple-volume setup really provide decisive advantages? I also want to hear from those who are a corporate system/network administrator who needs to set up their clients (end-users within the company) PC. Are there many cases that force you to make one physical disk into multiple-partitions? I think multiple-partition setup seems mostly unnecessary burden that most people want to avoid. To be honest, I never asked this question to our customers in the past... I just had my "naive" assumptions... Or, put it another way, If some medium-sized company hires me as an IT manager and let me decide what's best for the company, I will combine most users' multiple-volume setup into one monolithic configuration (I would, of course, let the experienced users to manage their own system). If someone wants segregation, I will create a set of directories "\D-drive\", "\E-drive\" (in the C:\ volume :-) That is, subdirectories should be the primary and preferred mechanism to group logical entities inside your system. Kan Yabumoto
This message if part of XXCOPY's message Archive. The archive contains all the messages posted at Yahoo!Groups: XXCOPY.