[<<]Message[>>] [<<]Author [<<]Subject [<<]Thread[>>]
Number : 7894 Date : 2004-05-14 Author : fshift07 Subject : Re: Cloning Partitions... dont need it to be bootable Size(KB) : 12
Kan, Thank You for your in-depth answer. I also want you to know that I asked you to clarify because I know you are much more knowledgeable on hard drive than I am. Your answer was not too wordy, it was very instructive. I did not arbitrarily go against your advice, I has a pre-existing condition of many partitions long before your advice. I asked for your help out of respect for your expertise, not in any way to challenge your advice. Thanks again for your answer. ==================================================================== --- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, Kan Yabumoto wrote: > > fshift07 wrote: > > > > Thanks for your help Kan... couple of questions remain. > > > > First) If I do clone a System Partion to a System partion, > > but not the System of the computer doing the process, > > Is there any conflicts? > > At a given moment, there is only one volume which contains > "The system" (which I believe you call "System partition"). > In XP, the environment variable, "SystemRoot" defines it. > > If you clone the system volume (partition) to a target, > the target will become a self-bootable volume which is > for all practical purposes the new "system volume" when > you boot your system to that volume/partition. But > until you actually do the booting into the target volume, > it is still just a non-system volume at the time > XXCLONE is trying to clone a volume to another. > > If you select the /BACKUP1 (full backup) or /BACKUP2 > (incremental backup) options in XXCLONE, in either case, > the target will be made a virtual replica of the current > system volume. It does not matter what it once was. > It could have been a system disk for another installation > of Win9X or XP. Still, the target volume will be treated > as a "blank". In the case of /BACKUP1 or /BACKUP2 operation, > the XXCLONE will make sure any extra files/directories on > the target volume be removed completely. > > So, while I don't quite understand your question, if you > believe some "system" of some kind (again, I don't know > what you mean by "system partition" for the target volume), > pre-exists at the time of XXCLONE operation, just assume > the worst --- anything the target volume once had in it > will be pretty much wiped out and at the end of the > CLONE operation, the target will be exactly what it should > be. A self-bootable clone of the system disk (again, > it is still a non-system volume until the system is > rebooted into the clone --- at that time, the cloned volume > will become the new "System volume" and the original volume > will be a mere non-system disk (which could still come back > as the system disk when you reboot into it). > > I hope you now understand what the "System volume" and > "System Partition" (which I do not often use --- but, > in most instances (in the spirit of the "basic disk"), > "volume" and "partition" are almost interchangeable. > But, Starting with Win2000 (and all later Windows), > Microsoft invented the "dynamic" disk which may span > a volume (known by a drive letter) into multiple partitions. > > The idea of the dynamic disk is fully consistent with > my argument why it is silly to create artificial walls > between volumes and partitions. Why Unix/Linix user > never ask for mimicking drive letters while every new > release of Linux looks closer and closer to Windows' > desktop? The drive letter is a bad idea and should be > eliminated. Or, there should be a system-wide mechanism > to handle multiple-volume root. If you look at a Windows > system, you will find that "My Computer" is the root of > the local drives with drive letters. I wish the notion > is completely formalized in such a way that we can > routinely address the various drive letters like > > \My Computer\C\windows\... > > When a computer is accessed remotely, the UNC path > pretty much does just that > > \\Server_abc\c\windows\... > > Alas, the second level components are still user-defined > and not uniformly (predictably) assigned. > > I stand by my opinion that multiple-volumes do not add > any improved security against virus attack. One may > argue that a hard-disk failure can be compartmentalize. > But then, having more things to fail, the odd of one > of the many disks go bad will also proportionately > increase and cancel the overall benefit. > > The down side is that as I said, you are complicating > your life. If you disagree that it is still very simple, > why are you bothering me with a bunch of questions all > of which is an added complexities as a direct result of > your voluntary and arbitrary action against my advice. > > The XP allows you to keep the non-system directories > (notably, the so-called "profiles" area) on a non-system > volume. For example, > > C:\windows\ // the XP system directory > D:\Documents and Settings\ // user data and settings > E:\Program Files\ // application programs > > If you know where these settings are saved in the > system registry, you may force these directories to be > pretty much any place. I would not be surprised if there > are more convenient ways to do this rather than using > the RegEdit utility. But, you will find there are > many programs out there that make an assumption that > the \Documents and Settings\ directory is on the same > volume as the system volume is. More commonly, the > \Program Files\ are also assumed to be on the same > volume. If you are a programmer, you will find these > arbitrary freedom extra and unnecessary burden for their > main focus. Again, if there is no such thing as > "drive letter", programmers need not deal with this > nonsense altogether. > > --------------------------------------------------- > As a matter of fact, XXCLONE still does not have > a mechanism in place to designate the > \Document and Settings\ directory which does not > reside in the system volume. Am I guilty of not > supporting this "perfectly legal" setting? > Probably yes. But, we have tons of thins to > resolve before spending a lot of time (and adding > the complexities in the XXCLONE program --- > add an extra ComboBox in the set up page and let > you select which volume you want the > \Document and settings\ directory should saved? > Supporting such a rare case will burden 99% of > "regular" users who do not know what \Documents > and settings\ are really for. We will have to > explain this to everyone and have them understand > this simply because Windows allows it... > ----------------------------------------------------- > > If you say my answer here is wordy, it's not my fault. > You want multiple-partitions. All of a sudden, you > need a lot of questions answered. If this is not > adding unneeded complexity to the whole process, > what is it? > > I said, keep it simple. I do not need further > explanation. The advice itself is recursively simple. > > Another reason why partitioning a volume into smaller > pieces is a bad idea: > > 1. If you have two partitions, you need two separate > reserve spaces. It will be very unlikely that > the two volume's storage demand will be accurately > predicted in advance. So, you will end up with > more wasted space. The more walls you build in > your system, the more wasted space. > > 2. One partition can be handled with a direct invocation > of XXCLONE without even creating a batch file. > > If you have two partitions, currently there is no > way to do it in one XXCLONE invocation. Now, even > though we could support such a scheme within XXCLONE, > why should we? > > 3. If you have one volume that contains everything, > there is no such thing as "system volume" and > "non-system" volume. There is no extra distraction > in making a proper backup. > > 4. I wish the system's various directories are > more clearly segregated. But, if you look into > the C:\Windows\ directory, you will find all sorts > of directories and files that are not always > pure OS-related. There is no clear bounds inside > the system. That is the reality and make it > pointless to try to design your backup/archive > and restore strategy based on the false premise. > > 5. The system registry is a pretty monstrous entity. > It is a collection of files which are scattered > into directories. If you keep \Documents and Settings\ > directory on non-system volume, it will be all over > the place and things could go wrong. That is, > if the \Documents and Settings\ directory is on > a different volume from the system volume, then, > if either of the two volumes does not work properly, > the system may not even boot. > > 6. There is no basis that virus which can do harm to > one volume would not do any harm to the contents of > additional volumes. If it were true, we would't have > much virus problem. All we have to do would be to > keep all the user and application program volume > separate from the system volume. > > 7. Again, your notion of combining all components into > one larger volume will somehow increase a vulnerability > has no basis. If that were the case, creating > tens of partitions would increase the system > reliability. I just don't buy that argument. > > I' not saying multiple-partitions are always bad. > I'm sure there are cases where you want to have > a separate partitions for various reasons. But, > I'm saying it does not improve the system reliability > by doing so. Rather, the added complexity is a > price to pay for whatever the intended purpose. > If there is no special purpose (e.g., the entire > volume in a separate drive can be on a USB-interfaced > external disk which can be disconnected and carried > away). > > > > I am temporarily adding two drives from one computer > > onto another for the purpose of Copying a dying > > system drive onto a new drive. XXClone comes up with > > a message > > "The source volume you chose is not the current Windows > > directory is kept. Do you want to Continue?" > > > > If I continue, will XXClone ignore the current Windows > > and only copy the other system volume I specified? > > Again, the fact you need to ask this question is > a proof that you are making your system more complex > than necessary. We provided the solution for the case. > It should work as intended. But, probably due to our > poor communication skill, the warning message was not > sufficient to explain the (slightly more) complicated > situation well. > > > Second) In your reply you mentioned that you believe > > having more than 2 partitions would be silly. > > I like to keep data and the paging file off my System > > drive to allow for imaging to a single DVD. > > I'm wondering why so many people try to save the > "system volume". The "system" can be brought back > within an hour or so by re-installing everything from > the Install CD. As long as you have the original CD > from Microsoft, you need not worry about making your > "personal backup" of the system directory. It is the > cheapest (and reproducible) part that you should not > waste your time backing up. It is the user-generated > data that are truly important. For this, there are > many way to backup. It is often much simpler because > there is no extra hassle of the "bootability" issues. > Just copy all the user-generated files into DVD or > what have you. We encourage frequent archiving and > backup using XXCOPY with a wide range of options to > support many backup strategies. > > So, what XXCLONE offers is the missing link there. > A quick and reliable backup of the entire system > for a self-bootable volume which can be brought to > life within a few minutes without even a restore > operation. > > My advice to common users is > > 1. one system disk C:\ with everything in one volume. > > 2. one backup disk D:\ with sufficient space to duplicate > everything. > > 3. Run daily "XXCLONE C: D: /BACKUP1 /START" > > 4. Make additional sets of user file backup on CD-RW/DVD-RW > as archive. Probably, it is a good idea to keep some > of them off-site. > > 5. Automate much of the above. It is safe to assume that > human beings are too lazy to do it regularly. > > 6. Keep it simple!!! > > > I'm guilty of not doing all of the above as I preach > I haven't lost much important data for quite a few years > During the last 7-8 years, I did not lose any significant > amount of data. But, I have come close to a disaster > a number of occasions. > > Kan Yabumoto
This message if part of XXCOPY's message Archive. The archive contains all the messages posted at Yahoo!Groups: XXCOPY.