What backup & relocation strategy for User profiles and Program Data

Kari said:

That being said, external storage prices being so low as they today are, I see nothing wrong in including your so called data drive in your system image if it includes any system files or folders.

It is of course up to you to decide what and how you will set up your Windows PC. For me, this system works.

Thanks Kari,

question 1. given your configuration (sysprep etc.), when restoring the image of the partition containing "data+users+programData", isn't there any ownership issues to fix? Or is it working flawlessly? just restoring the OS image and the data image and that's it ? nothing to rearrange?

question 2. i have a laptop with a single HDD. If I chose your configuration (sysprep etc), what would be the procedure in the future if i decide to buy an SSD for OS and keep the HDD for the dat. Will I be able to transfer or will I need to reinstall windows?

whs said:

I would go with only 2 partitions

1. OS and programs
2. Data

There is nothing to be gained splitting out those OS files into a 3d partition. It just complicates your life.

For the data, you can always use a sync program to backup. That is faster than imaging (although I personally prefer imaging my data partition).

Thank you,

I would indeed prefer just syncing partition 2, because it's big. That's an advantage of that configuration and a disadvantage of Kari's. From my personal point of view. For the moment I'm checking the pros and cons of both the configurations you all suggest.

Could you please give me your opinion on this:

If I go for the above configuration (1+2), how can I be sure that, after some time, years?, the partition 1 will never get full and make the system slow down?
I've heard that it's always good to leave a rather big empty space on the OS partition, in order to let the OS "breathe". In other words, that it shouldn't be full.
It's difficult for me for the moment to forsee how the size of the programs and AppData etc on the C partition will grow over time. So I'm afraid that at some point it will be full, with me not knowing what to do. That would be an advantage for the config of Kari. Where the AppData folder being on partition 2, which would be very big and no space problem would occur.

This is one point. Another one, is, if I ever move to a SSD+HDD configuration (for the moment I have only one HDD), in that case relocating the Users folders and AppData folders seem a thing many people do when they have an SSD since it's small and expensive. In the config of Kari, I guess it would be easy to move the C parition on the SSD and the data+users partition would stay on the HDD as it is.
While with the above config, if I ever buy an SSD, I would have to relocate the Users, etc. Meaning change the configuration.

Your thoughts on these?

Kari said:

. However, I recommend a clean install when upgrading to an SSD and going from there.

Thank you Kari, what would be the reason for that?

adri123 said:

Kari said:

. However, I recommend a clean install when upgrading to an SSD and going from there.

Thank you Kari, what would be the reason for that?

Less chance for misconfiguration and alignment. Keep in mind this is only for the first installation on an SSD. After that, an image of that first installation after programs and updates are installed can save a lot of time for a later fresh reinstall.

adri123 said:

whs said:

I would go with only 2 partitions

1. OS and programs
2. Data

There is nothing to be gained splitting out those OS files into a 3d partition. It just complicates your life.

For the data, you can always use a sync program to backup. That is faster than imaging (although I personally prefer imaging my data partition).

Thank you,

I would indeed prefer just syncing partition 2, because it's big. That's an advantage of that configuration and a disadvantage of Kari's. From my personal point of view. For the moment I'm checking the pros and cons of both the configurations you all suggest.

Could you please give me your opinion on this:

If I go for the above configuration (1+2), how can I be sure that, after some time, years?, the partition 1 will never get full and make the system slow down?
I've heard that it's always good to leave a rather big empty space on the OS partition, in order to let the OS "breathe". In other words, that it shouldn't be full.
It's difficult for me for the moment to forsee how the size of the programs and AppData etc on the C partition will grow over time. So I'm afraid that at some point it will be full, with me not knowing what to do. That would be an advantage for the config of Kari. Where the AppData folder being on partition 2, which would be very big and no space problem would occur.

This is one point. Another one, is, if I ever move to a SSD+HDD configuration (for the moment I have only one HDD), in that case relocating the Users folders and AppData folders seem a thing many people do when they have an SSD since it's small and expensive. In the config of Kari, I guess it would be easy to move the C parition on the SSD and the data+users partition would stay on the HDD as it is.
While with the above config, if I ever buy an SSD, I would have to relocate the Users, etc. Meaning change the configuration.

Your thoughts on these?

Apparently, whs has unsubscribed from this thread,

I've been using my present OS configuration for nine months now and it has gained only 2-3GB in size, mostly from added programs (most notably, my music notation program and its associated programs). Unless you have program that makes excessive writes in the AppData folder (cleaning out temp files periodically—I clean out mine weekly with Glary Utilities—should help to minimize that problem), a growing OS and Program partition is not going to be a huge concern and leaving the AppData folder with the OS is not going to be a concern. A HDD needs around 10-15% free space to avoid fragmentation problems. SSDs need 20-25% free space to avoid excessive rewrites (in addition to any provisioning: space reserved for replacing worn out cells). While one could fit their OS and programs on a 60-64GB SSD, I recommend a 120-128GB SSD to people to ensure they will always have plenty of overhead (free space). Even with my large OS and programs, I'm still using only half of my 128GB SSD.

Ok, Thank you all for your super helpful advices and sharing of personal experience.

I will mark this thread as solved as its aim was to receive information and I got plenty of it.
I havn't decided yet what option I'll go for but anyway, i first have to send the laptop for some hardware repair. Also i'll use Macrium a bit. And then i'll make a choice.

Thanks all.

Adrien