are the days of separating OS partition and data partition over?

[JimLewandowski]

I've been thinking about this. With the advent of so many backup software products as well as the built-in System Image/Backup in Win7, do we really need to go through all the trouble to have separate partitions for OS and data?

Sure, if you have a 100's of gigabytes of music or video or pictures, then it might make sense to move that off the OS partition otherwise your OS image will take forever (and the associated disk storage).

Look at it this way. If you have a ton of data, dragging 25G of OS stuff along with that data backup/image is no biggie.

 

[DeaconFrost]

I don't see a reason or a point to "not" being past this. Why would you want your data mixed in with your OS...especially now when you can quickly redirect Libraries?

You don't need to go through any trouble to separate them. In fact, in the event of a reimage or reinstall, all you have to do is disconnect your data drive.

Why have that data included in your image, when it makes much more practical sense to have it backed up separate? I take a clean image when I reinstall, and then that's it for imaging. Afterwards, only my data is backed up. I can do a complete clean install from scratch in under 2 hours...it's my data that's important.

You can also look at it in terms of malware. If the C drive is infected, my data is separate. That's less chance of my data becoming infected, and much easy to reinstall/reimage/recover/ etc.

 

[sbrads]

No. The horror of having to image 400Gb rather than 20Gb or so would mean I would be very unlikely to do it at all.

Lightweight as possible C: on a not too large a partition works for me; this also can mean that the system is automatically kept on the fastest part of the drive even if it gets a bit fragmented at times.

 

[JimLewandowski]

No. The horror of having to image 400Gb rather than 20Gb or so would mean I would be very unlikely to do it at all.

Lightweight as possible C: on a not too large a partition works for me; this also can mean that the system is automatically kept on the fastest part of the drive even if it gets a bit fragmented at times.

Correct. That's why I qualified my statement based on how much data one might have.

 

[JimLewandowski]

I don't see a reason or a point to "not" being past this. Why would you want your data mixed in with your OS...especially now when you can quickly redirect Libraries?

You don't need to go through any trouble to separate them. In fact, in the event of a reimage or reinstall, all you have to do is disconnect your data drive.

Why have that data included in your image, when it makes much more practical sense to have it backed up separate? I take a clean image when I reinstall, and then that's it for imaging. Afterwards, only my data is backed up. I can do a complete clean install from scratch in under 2 hours...it's my data that's important.

You can also look at it in terms of malware. If the C drive is infected, my data is separate. That's less chance of my data becoming infected, and much easy to reinstall/reimage/recover/ etc.

WHY does it make more sense to back up OS and data partitions separately when an image will do it in one fell swoop? And I was also assuming some regular images would be occurring after the initial install.

 

[DeaconFrost]

If you feel like backing up all of that data each and every time, sure. If that works for you, so be it....but there's never been a good reason to keep your data mixed in with the OS. Why do you think we see so many threads asking on how to take permission and ownership of files? Because the process isn't thought out and planned properly.

My OS drive contains only things I can quickly install, if need be. Nothing else. If my C drive dies, I can reimage from a while ago, or spend just under 2 hours with a clean install. My data is separated to keep it isolated. I use SyncToy to keep my data on D backed up to my server.

Maybe I am not making it clear, so let me try this. Yes, and image works, but why would I want to take the time to backup apps and games each time that I could just reinstall, if necessary? My data and saved games are what would be important. So I'll back them up. I don't use images as backups, and I don't consider images as backups. I consider it a snapshot that could take the place of a fresh install. As long as my data is safe, I'm fine.

I'm a big believer in simplifying. I can schedule SyncToy to run whenever I want and grab whatever I want. My server runs WHS 2011, and I don't even use the built-in imaging tools. I keep my data safe on the RAID5 array, and then I have a huge external drive that gets connected once every two weeks for a backup of the server. Very important stuff I keep encrypted and stored out in the cloud.

 

[seavixen32]

"WHY does it make more sense to back up OS and data partitions separately when an image will do it in one fell swoop? And I was also assuming some regular images would be occurring after the initial install."

For one very good reason.

If a restore from a system image backup fails for any reason (and yes, it has happened to me) your personal data is not harmed if it is on a separate partition that is not included in the backup.

I have a small partition for Windows (100 GB) and a large one for my data (1.2 TB).

My Windows partition is imaged on a regular basis and I use Microsoft's SyncToy to echo any personal data (pictures, music, videos, data files etc) updates to an external hard drive.

 

[JimLewandowski]

If you feel like backing up all of that data each and every time, sure. If that works for you, so be it....but there's never been a good reason to keep your data mixed in with the OS. Why do you think we see so many threads asking on how to take permission and ownership of files? Because the process isn't thought out and planned properly.

My OS drive contains only things I can quickly install, if need be. Nothing else. If my C drive dies, I can reimage from a while ago, or spend just under 2 hours with a clean install. My data is separated to keep it isolated. I use SyncToy to keep my data on D backed up to my server.

Maybe I am not making it clear, so let me try this. Yes, and image works, but why would I want to take the time to backup apps and games each time that I could just reinstall, if necessary? My data and saved games are what would be important. So I'll back them up. I don't use images as backups, and I don't consider images as backups. I consider it a snapshot that could take the place of a fresh install. As long as my data is safe, I'm fine.

I'm a big believer in simplifying. I can schedule SyncToy to run whenever I want and grab whatever I want. My server runs WHS 2011, and I don't even use the built-in imaging tools. I keep my data safe on the RAID5 array, and then I have a huge external drive that gets connected once every two weeks for a backup of the server. Very important stuff I keep encrypted and stored out in the cloud.

I'm taking into account all the configuration after all that software is reinstalled. A major pain.

Also, with storage being so cheap these days AND the device speeds so fast (USB 3.0 as an example), if you don't have a ton of data, I can't think of any reason to not just image the whole single drive with just one partition on it.

Also with Volume Shadow Service (VSS) you can be using your PC while the backup/image occurs.

 

[seavixen32]

Well, all I can say is, you do your thing and I'll do mine.

After all, it's just a matter of personal choice really.

 

[DeaconFrost]

I'm taking into account all the configuration after all that software is reinstalled. A major pain.

It's only a pain if you insist on making it one. Install Windows 7 from a flash drive, and have all of your drivers handy on the same or another flash drive. The OS itself needs very little customizing or tweaking done to it, and the same goes for the software I install. Far far too often, people overtweak for no reason, and then use that as an excuse as to why a clean install is too much of a pain. Planning ahead makes it a very simple and easy process.

Who doesn't have a ton of data these days? You know anyone who still uses a film camera? Games are huge, so why would I want them included in my backup, when it's just as easy to reinstall them. Even Steam games can be burned to disc for backup purposes and put on a shelf or stored once on an external drive/server. At least e-mail is something that no longer needs to be backed up (unless someone is clinging to the past and using POP3). I backup what I need, and that's it, keeping it as simple as possible. And since very few people use one computer and only one computer, my data is backed up in a way that it is accessible from anywhere.

As mentioned, if taking a full image each and everytime works for you, then stick with it. To me, there's no valid reason for wanting to mix my data in with the "My" folders and the rest of the OS's files and my apps' files. I like to keep all of my installed material in one place, and my actual data in another.

 

[JimLewandowski]

Well, all I can say is, you do your thing and I'll do mine.

After all, it's just a matter of personal choice really.

Agreed. But, I think this discussion is worth having. It's very pertinent as things have dramatically changed hardware-wise in the last few years. SSD, USB 3.0, dirt-cheap (I mean cheaper than dirt) hard drive (prior to the Taiwan thing).

You know, have a shutdown .bat that you run you start before going to bed. It images the world and then shuts down.

 

[DeaconFrost]

SSDs are yet another reason to keep things separated. No need to junk up an SSD and give it unnecessary reads and writes.

You are hung up on the speed of transfers, instead of looking at the practicality of the processes. Just because I can back up data faster now than several years ago, doesn't mean I should or need to completely reorganize the way I store my data.

 

[JimLewandowski]

SSDs are yet another reason to keep things separated. No need to junk up an SSD and give it unnecessary reads and writes.

You are hung up on the speed of transfers, instead of looking at the practicality of the processes. Just because I can back up data faster now than several years ago, doesn't mean I should or need to completely reorganize the way I store my data.

TIF are the only thing I can think off offhand that are "unnecessary" reads/writes for an SSD.

Remember, if you're going to back up your data once per week, as an example, and it's 500G or even 1TB, dragging along the OS partition (or equivalent if we're on 1 partition for everything) is no biggie. A few extra minutes.

I'm not hung up on speed. I have thought about this and can't see a reason to not combine the two for having 1 and only 1 thing to worry about: backing up your "system". I'm also not suggesting anyone reorganize data. But, on a new install, it makes less and less sense to keep things partitioned (based on the caveats in my OP).

 

[DeaconFrost]

Let me clarify at this point that I'm playing the Devil's Advocate. I'm not saying you are wrong...I'm saying that what you feel is best for you may not be what's best for others....so these proclamation type threads always backfire. As long as you are backing up what is important to you, stick with it. I don't preach my methods because they work for me, but may not fit with what anyone else is doing or wanting to do.

 

[JimLewandowski]

Let me clarify at this point that I'm playing the Devil's Advocate. I'm not saying you are wrong...I'm saying that what you feel is best for you may not be what's best for others....so these proclamation type threads always backfire. As long as you are backing up what is important to you, stick with it. I don't preach my methods because they work for me, but may not fit with what anyone else is doing or wanting to do.

*sigh* It's not a proclamation. I posed a QUESTION in my OP. I'm also not preaching anything other than asking questions.

 

[Qdos]

Although I do not *see* the phrase *drive imaging* in the opening post, yes, even now you can store your data in the Windows default profile folders and specifically back them up to another medium in case of data loss... and if you did then you could instruct a drive imaging program to ignore those folders and their content when making images of the OS...

However it would require a boot drive of a sufficient capacity; and unless money is no object then few people are going to have 500Gb-1Tb-2Tb type SSD's!!! If you're not using an SSD then it stands to reasons the more R/W I/O operations there are on the boot drive regards personal data, the slower the OS will respond...

For these reasons I suspect it's a "no brainer" in truth...

 

[seavixen32]

Don't forget, a lot of people don't have SSDs, USB3 ports and such like.

I'm sure the question you ask has some merit, but I just don't happen to think the days of separating the operating system and personal data are over.

 

[JimLewandowski]

Although I do not *see* the phrase *drive imaging* in the opening post, yes, even now you can store your data in the Windows default profile folders and specifically back them up to another medium in case of data loss... and if you did then you could instruct a drive imaging program to ignore those folders and their content when making images of the OS...

However it would require a boot drive of a sufficient capacity; and unless money is no object then few people are going to have 500Gb-1Tb-2Tb type SSD's!!! If you're not using an SSD then it stands to reasons the more R/W I/O operations there are on the boot drive regards personal data, the slower the OS will respond...

For these reasons I suspect it's a "no brainer" in truth...

How much read/write activity related to one's data would have to be going on to slow down the OS? Even if you're listening to music the whole time, that stuff is destaged from the platter into controller cache via read-ahead. How many I/Os are your systems generally doing as you do your daily work?

Again, with huge (massive) data sizes, I can see the point of having multiple physical drives (but still not multiple physical partitions).

 

[DeaconFrost]

Again, with huge (massive) data sizes, I can see the point of having multiple physical drives (but still not multiple physical partitions).

I'm not sure what this has to do with partitions, but I'll go back to a comment I made before. Who *doesn't* have a large amount of data anymore? Even on my corporate laptop, I have a second partition created to be D...as in my user data. I do this for the very same reasons I mentioned before. In both of my tower computers, I have at least two physical drives. One for the OS/Apps, and one for my user data. In the tower in my sig, I have three. One for OS/apps, one for data, and one as a scratch area for my DVD ripping, as I'm converting many of my DVDs into movie files and storing them on my server.

 

[1Bowtie]

Just for thought, if i put all my stuff which is spread over 5 different drives, i would have to backup 500+ gigs. How long do you think it would take to back up that much data, we're talking hours. So for me the OS 33 gigs is maybe 20 minutes at most, seems like a nobrainer to me, i can be back up and running in 20 minutes if need be. Just my 2 cents