To partition a second HDD, I read that it can be done in either of two ways.
A Primary partition plus an extended partition with logical partitions. Or
with no Primary partition and just an extended partition with logical
partitions.

Is there any reason why one way is preferable to the other ?

Re: Any preferred way to partition a second HDD? by Ghostrider

Ghostrider
Fri May 16 12:30:02 PDT 2008


Dee wrote:

> To partition a second HDD, I read that it can be done in either of two ways.
> A Primary partition plus an extended partition with logical partitions. Or
> with no Primary partition and just an extended partition with logical
> partitions.
>
> Is there any reason why one way is preferable to the other ?
>
>

The classical, or old-fashioned, approach has been to make the second
(and subsequent) hard drive an extended partition with logical partitions.
In the old days, the bios controlled drive lettering. A second hard drive
would have its primary partition assigned as Drive D, shoving all of the
other drive letters down one. But with just logical partitions, the drive
lettering would assume the next one in line after the first hard drive.
It is less important today by prepping the second hard drive via Disk
Management, which affords the user more control in setting up the new
hard drive and its drive letters.


Re: Any preferred way to partition a second HDD? by JS

JS
Fri May 16 12:39:49 PDT 2008

A primary partition is required if you plan to install a second OS (Windows
XP or Vista).
Other than the above no reason to create a primary.

If you choose to create a primary partition on the second drive then
by default will take the next drive letter (used or not) after the last
primary partition's drive letter on your first drive.
So if your PC currently only has a C: drive and is followed by a DVD drive
that uses the letter D:, then the DVD will end up as E: and the second
drive's
primary partition will now be the D: drive.

JS


"Dee" <fred@fred.com> wrote in message
news:ieqdnb8P5bqESrDVRVnyjAA@pipex.net...
> To partition a second HDD, I read that it can be done in either of two
> ways. A Primary partition plus an extended partition with logical
> partitions. Or with no Primary partition and just an extended partition
> with logical partitions.
>
> Is there any reason why one way is preferable to the other ?
>
>



Re: Any preferred way to partition a second HDD? by Ken

Ken
Fri May 16 12:55:33 PDT 2008

On Fri, 16 May 2008 19:49:09 +0100, "Dee" <fred@fred.com> wrote:

> To partition a second HDD, I read that it can be done in either of two ways.
> A Primary partition plus an extended partition with logical partitions. Or
> with no Primary partition and just an extended partition with logical
> partitions.
>
> Is there any reason why one way is preferable to the other ?


It doesn't matter much, but if you're planning to have two or more
partitions on your second drive plus whatever number you already have
on your first drive, you may be falling into the trap of
overpartitioning that many people fall into. So may I ask what you
plan to use each of these several partitions for?

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Re: Any preferred way to partition a second HDD? by Dee

Dee
Fri May 16 14:42:59 PDT 2008


"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:qgpr2498hrj42p40ijka6nrsrt6rj7urq8@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 19:49:09 +0100, "Dee" <fred@fred.com> wrote:
>
>> To partition a second HDD, I read that it can be done in either of two
>> ways.
>> A Primary partition plus an extended partition with logical partitions.
>> Or
>> with no Primary partition and just an extended partition with logical
>> partitions.
>>
>> Is there any reason why one way is preferable to the other ?
>
>
> It doesn't matter much, but if you're planning to have two or more
> partitions on your second drive plus whatever number you already have
> on your first drive, you may be falling into the trap of
> overpartitioning that many people fall into. So may I ask what you
> plan to use each of these several partitions for?
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup


Thank you for your information.

On the second HDD, I plan one partition for a backup of C: (which has just
OS plus applications), and one partition for a backup of a drive containing
data.

Dee.



Re: Any preferred way to partition a second HDD? by Dee

Dee
Fri May 16 14:44:52 PDT 2008


"Ghostrider" <-00-@fitron.142> wrote in message
news:ekPu6s4tIHA.5580@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> Dee wrote:
>
>> To partition a second HDD, I read that it can be done in either of two
>> ways. A Primary partition plus an extended partition with logical
>> partitions. Or with no Primary partition and just an extended partition
>> with logical partitions.
>>
>> Is there any reason why one way is preferable to the other ?
>>
>>
>
> The classical, or old-fashioned, approach has been to make the second
> (and subsequent) hard drive an extended partition with logical partitions.
> In the old days, the bios controlled drive lettering. A second hard drive
> would have its primary partition assigned as Drive D, shoving all of the
> other drive letters down one. But with just logical partitions, the drive
> lettering would assume the next one in line after the first hard drive.
> It is less important today by prepping the second hard drive via Disk
> Management, which affords the user more control in setting up the new
> hard drive and its drive letters.
>

Thanks for the information.

Dee.



Re: Any preferred way to partition a second HDD? by Dee

Dee
Fri May 16 14:48:05 PDT 2008

Thank you for your reply.

Dee.


"JS" <@> wrote in message news:ODCbfy4tIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>A primary partition is required if you plan to install a second OS (Windows
>XP or Vista).
> Other than the above no reason to create a primary.
>
> If you choose to create a primary partition on the second drive then
> by default will take the next drive letter (used or not) after the last
> primary partition's drive letter on your first drive.
> So if your PC currently only has a C: drive and is followed by a DVD drive
> that uses the letter D:, then the DVD will end up as E: and the second
> drive's
> primary partition will now be the D: drive.
>
> JS
>
>
> "Dee" <fred@fred.com> wrote in message
> news:ieqdnb8P5bqESrDVRVnyjAA@pipex.net...
>> To partition a second HDD, I read that it can be done in either of two
>> ways. A Primary partition plus an extended partition with logical
>> partitions. Or with no Primary partition and just an extended partition
>> with logical partitions.
>>
>> Is there any reason why one way is preferable to the other ?
>>
>>
>
>



Re: Any preferred way to partition a second HDD? by Ken

Ken
Fri May 16 15:05:34 PDT 2008

On Fri, 16 May 2008 22:43:06 +0100, "Dee" <fred@fred.com> wrote:

>
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:qgpr2498hrj42p40ijka6nrsrt6rj7urq8@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 16 May 2008 19:49:09 +0100, "Dee" <fred@fred.com> wrote:
> >
> >> To partition a second HDD, I read that it can be done in either of two
> >> ways.
> >> A Primary partition plus an extended partition with logical partitions.
> >> Or
> >> with no Primary partition and just an extended partition with logical
> >> partitions.
> >>
> >> Is there any reason why one way is preferable to the other ?
> >
> >
> > It doesn't matter much, but if you're planning to have two or more
> > partitions on your second drive plus whatever number you already have
> > on your first drive, you may be falling into the trap of
> > overpartitioning that many people fall into. So may I ask what you
> > plan to use each of these several partitions for?
> >
> > --
> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>
>
> Thank you for your information.


You're welcome. Glad to help.


> On the second HDD, I plan one partition for a backup of C: (which has just
> OS plus applications), and one partition for a backup of a drive containing
> data.


OK, but let me point out that what you are planning is among the
weakest forms of backup there is. If your data is important to you and
you're serious about backing it up, I urge you to reconsider your
plan. I don't recommend backup to a second non-removable hard drive
because it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original
and backup to many of the most common dangers: severe power glitches,
nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks, even theft of the computer.

In my view, secure backup needs to be on removable media, and not kept
in the computer. For really secure backup (needed, for example, if the
life of your business depends on your data) you should have multiple
generations of backup, and at least one of those generations should be
stored off-site.

My computer isn't used for business, but my personal backup scheme
uses two identical removable hard drives, I alternate between the two,
and use Acronis True Image to make a complete copy of the primary
drive.

I also use a pair of 1GB thumb drives for making more frequent backups
of my most critical data (like financial information). For that I just
drag and drop.

I recommend that instead of installing your second drive internally,
you mount it in an external USB enclosure (about $20-25 US, and under
five minutes work, even if you're all thumbs), and keep it connected
*only* when you are backing up or restoring.

You can read my thoughts on backup here:
http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=314


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Re: Any preferred way to partition a second HDD? by JS

JS
Fri May 16 16:07:09 PDT 2008

You're welcome.

JS

"Dee" <fred@fred.com> wrote in message
news:XNidnRJ_96yInLPVnZ2dnUVZ8szinZ2d@pipex.net...
> Thank you for your reply.
>
> Dee.
>
>
> "JS" <@> wrote in message news:ODCbfy4tIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>A primary partition is required if you plan to install a second OS
>>(Windows XP or Vista).
>> Other than the above no reason to create a primary.
>>
>> If you choose to create a primary partition on the second drive then
>> by default will take the next drive letter (used or not) after the last
>> primary partition's drive letter on your first drive.
>> So if your PC currently only has a C: drive and is followed by a DVD
>> drive
>> that uses the letter D:, then the DVD will end up as E: and the second
>> drive's
>> primary partition will now be the D: drive.
>>
>> JS
>>
>>
>> "Dee" <fred@fred.com> wrote in message
>> news:ieqdnb8P5bqESrDVRVnyjAA@pipex.net...
>>> To partition a second HDD, I read that it can be done in either of two
>>> ways. A Primary partition plus an extended partition with logical
>>> partitions. Or with no Primary partition and just an extended partition
>>> with logical partitions.
>>>
>>> Is there any reason why one way is preferable to the other ?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>



Re: Any preferred way to partition a second HDD? by Dee

Dee
Sat May 17 03:38:51 PDT 2008


"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:0v0s24lhfnme8vjo4a7d74h3h1an8d7bc6@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 22:43:06 +0100, "Dee" <fred@fred.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
>> news:qgpr2498hrj42p40ijka6nrsrt6rj7urq8@4ax.com...
>> > On Fri, 16 May 2008 19:49:09 +0100, "Dee" <fred@fred.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> To partition a second HDD, I read that it can be done in either of two
>> >> ways.
>> >> A Primary partition plus an extended partition with logical
>> >> partitions.
>> >> Or
>> >> with no Primary partition and just an extended partition with logical
>> >> partitions.
>> >>
>> >> Is there any reason why one way is preferable to the other ?
>> >
>> >
>> > It doesn't matter much, but if you're planning to have two or more
>> > partitions on your second drive plus whatever number you already have
>> > on your first drive, you may be falling into the trap of
>> > overpartitioning that many people fall into. So may I ask what you
>> > plan to use each of these several partitions for?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
>> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>>
>>
>> Thank you for your information.
>
>
> You're welcome. Glad to help.
>
>
>> On the second HDD, I plan one partition for a backup of C: (which has
>> just
>> OS plus applications), and one partition for a backup of a drive
>> containing
>> data.
>
>
> OK, but let me point out that what you are planning is among the
> weakest forms of backup there is. If your data is important to you and
> you're serious about backing it up, I urge you to reconsider your
> plan. I don't recommend backup to a second non-removable hard drive
> because it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original
> and backup to many of the most common dangers: severe power glitches,
> nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks, even theft of the computer.
>
> In my view, secure backup needs to be on removable media, and not kept
> in the computer. For really secure backup (needed, for example, if the
> life of your business depends on your data) you should have multiple
> generations of backup, and at least one of those generations should be
> stored off-site.
>
> My computer isn't used for business, but my personal backup scheme
> uses two identical removable hard drives, I alternate between the two,
> and use Acronis True Image to make a complete copy of the primary
> drive.
>
> I also use a pair of 1GB thumb drives for making more frequent backups
> of my most critical data (like financial information). For that I just
> drag and drop.
>
> I recommend that instead of installing your second drive internally,
> you mount it in an external USB enclosure (about $20-25 US, and under
> five minutes work, even if you're all thumbs), and keep it connected
> *only* when you are backing up or restoring.
>
> You can read my thoughts on backup here:
> http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=314
>
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Thank you for your thoughts, and the article you gave a reference to. I
shall look into the methods you describe.
May well end up with an external HDD. Some years ago I tried backing up to
an external HDD, but Ghost (as it was then) often had difficulty finding the
external HDD. I understand things have improved since then.

Do you get any problems with varying drive-letters? I have heard people say
their external HDD shows up with different drive letters each time it is
used. Does this cause any problems with TrueImage, particularly when you
need to restore? Does it find the correct image to restore all right?

Dee



Re: Any preferred way to partition a second HDD? by Dee

Dee
Sun May 18 03:41:44 PDT 2008


"Vastmasd" <email@invalid.ok> wrote in message
news:69a643F31kj00U1@mid.individual.net...
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 11:39:00 +0100,while reading
> "microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers", I'm almost definitely certain I
> heard ""Dee" <fred@fred.com>" say:
>
>>Do you get any problems with varying drive-letters? I have heard people
>>say
>>their external HDD shows up with different drive letters each time it is
>>used.
>
> You need to be aware that when you start an external HDD it will utilise
> the next free drive letters on that computer. If your computer has only
> a C: drive then your HDD will show up as E: with your D: allocated to
> your CD Drive.
>
>>Does this cause any problems with TrueImage, particularly when you
>>need to restore? Does it find the correct image to restore all right?
>
> I can't advise having never used it.
> --
>
> Erik Vastmasd

Point taken. Thanks.

Dee.