ANY reason not to turn off System Restore for non-boot drives?
a2m...@yahoo.com
only 10GB or so for easy backup, then by default Windows XP will
reserve about 120GB on my non-system partitions for system restore
points in the System Volume Information folders, which as far as I
have read are never used for anything. That's a lot of space. Is
there any reason to leave System Restore turned on for non-boot
partitions? Thank you.
Gordon
Only if you have SYSTEM files on that drive....System Restore only monitors
SYSTEM files...
Pegasus (MVP)
<a2m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3f471541-db09-4877...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
If your system files / program files are all on the system
partition then you don't need System Restore for the
other partitions.
a2m...@yahoo.com
> If your system files / program files are all on the system
> partition then you don't need System Restore for the
> other partitions.
Program files? What program files? Are you saying that if I install
Paintshop Pro on my G: drive that System Restore will back it up?
Thank you.
Pegasus (MVP)
<a2m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37a58b1c-2a94-4888...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
I suspect it will but I'm not sure. Give it a try:
1. Install some program on drive G:.
2. Create a Restore Point.
3. Uninstall the program.
4. Use System Restore.
Is the program back again?
Ken Blake, MVP
No. You *should* turn it off on all non-system partitions.
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Ken Blake, MVP
<kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:28:27 -0800 (PST), a2m...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > If I have a 1 TB drive, and partition it so that my C: partition is
> > only 10GB or so for easy backup, then by default Windows XP will
> > reserve about 120GB on my non-system partitions for system restore
> > points in the System Volume Information folders, which as far as I
> > have read are never used for anything. That's a lot of space. Is
> > there any reason to leave System Restore turned on for non-boot
> > partitions?
>
>
>
> No. You *should* turn it off on all non-system partitions.
By the way, one more point. 10GB is very small for the C: partition.
Especially with such a large drive, I would make it substantially
bigger--50GB or even more.
Pegasus (MVP)
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:ur2gn313k0e2ptd50...@4ax.com...
In my experience 20 GBytes is generous for a system partition,
even for a server, as long all user data is kept on a separate
partition. My current system partition for WinXP Professional
requires just 8 GBytes. It is fully loaded with the usual apps
including various sound and picture processing programs and
lots of diagnostic stuff (e.g. the TRK), plus the paging file.
a2m...@yahoo.com
> In my experience 20 GBytes is generous for a system partition,
> even for a server, as long all user data is kept on a separate
> partition. My current system partition for WinXP Professional
> requires just 8 GBytes. It is fully loaded with the usual apps
> including various sound and picture processing programs and
> lots of diagnostic stuff (e.g. the TRK), plus the paging file.
I keep My Documents and the paging file on separate partitions, and
like you, I've never needed more than 10GB.
Ken Blake, MVP
Ken Blake, MVP
<I....@fly.com.oz> wrote:
Each to his own. My system partition is 100GB, and 56GB of it is used
(no user data there). That's running Windows Vista Ultimate, but even
for those running XP, one never knows what operating system one may
upgrade to in the future.
In my view, it makes no sense to restrict oneself to a small system
partition when you have a drive anywhere near as big as 1TB.
Pegasus (MVP)
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
56 GBytes is huge. It would be interesting to see the space
profile on your system partition. Here is mine. The first number
represents "bytes", the second "files".
0 0 C:\My Download Files
85 2 C:\Recycled
69,362 48 C:\RECYCLER
377,040 1 C:\Config.Msi
38,482,686 329 C:\MYOB105
175,243,430 1,822 C:\Documents and Settings
232,892,982 98 C:\MSOCache
778,841,422 10 C:\
1,538,539,221 13,564 C:\Program Files
1,663,555,395 2,991 C:\System Volume Information
3,553,344,512 18,644 C:\WINDOWS
7,981,346,135 37,509 (Total)
Ken Blake, MVP
<I....@fly.com.oz> wrote:
>
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:gl8gn35ob0r0ma038...@4ax.com...
Without going into great detail, the great majority of it is in two
folders: \Windows and \Users
Ken
Ken Blake, MVP
Sorry--and also \Program Files. \Program Files alone is over 8GB
R. McCarty
in the Windows folder tree. A standard install will have around 4.0
Gigabytes of data inside WinSxS. Side-by-Side is the methodology to
prevent the DllHell issue that has affected previous Windows versions.
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:ehbgn3557lajevk7c...@4ax.com...
a2m...@yahoo.com
<kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
> In my view, it makes no sense to restrict oneself to a small system
> partition when you have a drive anywhere near as big as 1TB.
Well, I don't look at it as restricting myself, I look at it as making
it much faster to do backups and restores. I do have 25 GB reserved
for the C drive in case I ever need it, with currently 10GB allocated
to C, and 15 unused. The Acronis software makes it a snap to
reallocate the used/unused if I run out of room, but in the last five
years I haven't needed more than 10GB.
Ken Blake, MVP
<PcEngWor...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Vista has a significantly larger footprint because of the folder \WinSxS
> in the Windows folder tree.
Which is why I pointed out that restricting the size of the system
partition to a low number is not wise. The operating system you run
today is not necessarily the one you will be running tomorrow.
Ken Blake, MVP
> On Dec 30, 3:04 pm, "Ken Blake, MVP"
> <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
> > In my view, it makes no sense to restrict oneself to a small system
> > partition when you have a drive anywhere near as big as 1TB.
>
>
> Well, I don't look at it as restricting myself, I look at it as making
> it much faster to do backups and restores.
??? Why do you think a backup or restore will be faster if the system
partition is smaller? Are you imaging the entire drive or just backing
up data?
Either way, the partition size shouldn't matter.
> I do have 25 GB reserved
> for the C drive in case I ever need it, with currently 10GB allocated
> to C, and 15 unused. The Acronis software makes it a snap to
> reallocate the used/unused if I run out of room, but in the last five
> years I haven't needed more than 10GB.
--
a2m...@yahoo.com
<kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
> ??? Why do you think a backup or restore will be faster if the system
> partition is smaller? Are you imaging the entire drive or just backing
> up data?
I am imaging the system partition. I must be missing your point,
because it seems obvious to me that a smaller partition would take
less time to back up.
Lil' Dave
news:5q2gn356073hsqdot...@4ax.com...
Just curious. Is your definition of an XP system partition any different
that MS's? Same question for an XP boot partition?
Dave
Pegasus (MVP)
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
Pegasus (MVP)
Pegasus (MVP)
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
If Users consumes a large chunk then you're obviously keeping
user data on drive C:. And seeing that we're in a WinXP newsgroup,
I was not talking about Vista, as you are.
Pegasus (MVP)
It's not the size of the partition that matters, it's the amount
of data you keep there.
Shenan Stanley
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/browse_frm/thread/68635f35660d1147/09c8b015622e6770?lnk=st&q=author%3Aa2mgoog%40yahoo.com#09c8b015622e6770
Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
<snipped>
> In my view, it makes no sense to restrict oneself to a small system
> partition when you have a drive anywhere near as big as 1TB.
a2mgoog wrote:
> Well, I don't look at it as restricting myself, I look at it as
> making it much faster to do backups and restores. I do have 25 GB
> reserved for the C drive in case I ever need it, with currently
> 10GB allocated to C, and 15 unused. The Acronis software makes it
> a snap to reallocate the used/unused if I run out of room, but in
> the last five years I haven't needed more than 10GB.
Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> ??? Why do you think a backup or restore will be faster if the
> system partition is smaller? Are you imaging the entire drive or
> just backing up data?
a2mgoog wrote:
> I am imaging the system partition. I must be missing your point,
> because it seems obvious to me that a smaller partition would take
> less time to back up.
No.
Less data in a given space would take less time to backup.
If you have a system partition of 100GB but only use 6GB - it would take as
long as if you had a system partition of 10GB and still only used 6GB.
To answer one of your questions in this conversation... "Are you saying that
if I install Paintshop Pro on my G: drive that System Restore will back it
up?" <- No. http://bertk.mvps.org/html/tips.html#6
Learn a LOT about system restore:
http://bertk.mvps.org/index.html
(menu system along the top - drop down menus.)
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Zilbandy
>> ??? Why do you think a backup or restore will be faster if the system
>> partition is smaller? Are you imaging the entire drive or just backing
>> up data?
>
>I am imaging the system partition. I must be missing your point,
>because it seems obvious to me that a smaller partition would take
>less time to back up.
I use Acronis True Image 10 Home to 'image' my system and the image
size varies with the amount of data on the drive being backed up. The
total available size of the partition doesn't matter. On my system, my
c: drive is 30GB, about 17GB is actual data (system, programs, and
user data) An image requires about 12GB on my USB removable drive.
--
Zilbandy
Ken Blake, MVP
Yes, but one of the main points I was making was that, regardless of
what operating system you run now, you may upgrade to a different one
in the future. For that reason, I think it makes sense to have a
larger system partition than you need right now.
Of course, some people have relatively small drives, and may not have
the luxury of making the system partition bigger than necessary. But
the OP is someone with a 1TB drive, and almost certainly could make
the system partition very large without any kind of problem. The other
point I was making was that it makes no sense to artificially restrict
the size of the system partition so much when there's no need to,
because whatever size he needs today may grow to more in the future
(especially if the future brings an operating system upgrade).
Ken Blake, MVP
Sorry, but that's not correct. It's the amount of data that determines
the backup time, not the size of the partition. See also the responses
from Pegasus, Shenan Stanley, and Zilbandy.
Ken Blake, MVP
You are of course correct. I made the error that I have myself pointed
out several times to others here. It should be the "boot" partition.
Rather than use either term, what I usually prefer to write is
something like "the partition \Windows is on," so as not to run the
risk of confusing anybody. But I forgot this time.
a2m...@yahoo.com
<kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
>Sorry, but that's not correct. It's the amount of data that determines
>the backup time, not the size of the partition. See also the responses
>from Pegasus, Shenan Stanley, and Zilbandy.
Well, with all respect, I think you are all making the same error of
assuming that I am using the same backup software as you. I am using
Seagate Disk Wizard, which came with my drive. It is made by Acronis,
but does not have as many features as the full Acronis backup
product. In particular, when imaging a partition, the only choice is
a sector by sector backup of the partition, regardless of how much
data it contains.
I prefer it over XP's built-in backup because it can run from a CD
even when XP won't boot.
Ken Blake, MVP
> On Dec 31, 8:02 am, "Ken Blake, MVP"
> <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
>
> >Sorry, but that's not correct. It's the amount of data that determines
> >the backup time, not the size of the partition. See also the responses
> >from Pegasus, Shenan Stanley, and Zilbandy.
>
> Well, with all respect, I think you are all making the same error of
> assuming that I am using the same backup software as you.
I am assuming nothing, but I'll say that if you use backup software
that doesn't work the way I described above, it's very poor backup
software.
> I am using
> Seagate Disk Wizard, which came with my drive. It is made by Acronis,
> but does not have as many features as the full Acronis backup
> product. In particular, when imaging a partition, the only choice is
> a sector by sector backup of the partition, regardless of how much
> data it contains.
>
> I prefer it over XP's built-in backup because it can run from a CD
> even when XP won't boot.
--
Shenan Stanley
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/browse_frm/thread/68635f35660d1147/09c8b015622e6770?lnk=st&q=author%3Aa2mgoog%40yahoo.com#09c8b015622e6770
Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
<snipped>
> In my view, it makes no sense to restrict oneself to a small system
> partition when you have a drive anywhere near as big as 1TB.
a2mgoog wrote:
> Well, I don't look at it as restricting myself, I look at it as
> making it much faster to do backups and restores. I do have 25 GB
> reserved for the C drive in case I ever need it, with currently
> 10GB allocated to C, and 15 unused. The Acronis software makes it
> a snap to reallocate the used/unused if I run out of room, but in
> the last five years I haven't needed more than 10GB.
Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> ??? Why do you think a backup or restore will be faster if the
> system partition is smaller? Are you imaging the entire drive or
> just backing up data?
a2mgoog wrote:
> I am imaging the system partition. I must be missing your point,
> because it seems obvious to me that a smaller partition would take
> less time to back up.
Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> Sorry, but that's not correct. It's the amount of data that
> determines the backup time, not the size of the partition. See also
> the responses from Pegasus, Shenan Stanley, and Zilbandy.
a2mgoog wrote:
> Well, with all respect, I think you are all making the same error of
> assuming that I am using the same backup software as you. I am
> using Seagate Disk Wizard, which came with my drive. It is made by
> Acronis, but does not have as many features as the full Acronis
> backup product. In particular, when imaging a partition, the only
> choice is a sector by sector backup of the partition, regardless of
> how much data it contains.
>
> I prefer it over XP's built-in backup because it can run from a CD
> even when XP won't boot.
With all respect - you should really read up on how the product you are
utilizing works (and/or upgrade the version you are using from here:
http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/support/downloads/discwizard .)
The manual clearly states it does exactly as 'all' of us have suggested to
you. ;-)
http://www.seagate.com/support/discwizard/dw_ug.en.pdf
Page 12...
Chapter 3. General information
3.1 Disc/partition images
A backup archive (also called in this guide "image backups") is a file or a
group of files that
contains a copy of all information stored on selected discs/partitions.
Backing up discs and partitions is performed in a special way: Seagate
DiscWizard stores a
sector-by-sector snapshot of the disc, which includes the operating system,
registry, drivers,
software applications and data files, as well as system areas hidden from
the user. This
procedure is called "creating a disc image," and the resulting backup
archive is often called a
disc/partition image.
Seagate DiscWizard stores only the portions of your hard disc that contain
data (for
supported file systems). Further, it does not back up swap file information
(pagefile.sys
under Windows NT/2000/XP) and hiberfil.sys (a file that keeps RAM contents
when the
computer goes into hibernation). This reduces image size and speeds up image
creation and
restoration of the data.
Good Luck!
a2m...@yahoo.com
MVP might learn something by reading the long version below.
On Dec 31 2007, 6:56 pm, "Shenan Stanley" <newshel...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> With all respect - you should really read up on how the product you are
> utilizing works (and/or upgrade the version you are using from here:
>http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/support/downloads/discwizard.)
Well, I did all that a couple of weeks ago, but to no avail. See
below.
Do you really think that's clear? It seemed confusing to me when I
first read it. I would think that you either copy the data (and
hidden and system files are just data with some attribute bits
flipped), or you do a sector by sector backup, but the above seems to
say Disc Wizard does both.
I thought I might clear it up by reading the manual for the full
Acronis backup, which is available on their website. Here's what it
said:
***
"When you back up files and folders, only the data, along with the
folder tree, is compressed and stored. Backing up disks and
partitions is performed in a different way: Acronis True Image Home
stores a sector-by-sector snapshot of the disk, which includes the
operating system, registry, drivers, software applications and data
files, as well as system areas hidden from the user. This procedure is
called "creating a disk image," and the resulting backup archive is
often called a disk/partition image.
"By default, Acronis True Image Home stores only those hard disk parts
that contain data (for supported file systems). Further, it does
not back up swap file information (pagefile.sys under Windows NT/
2000/XP/Vista) and hiberfil.sys (a file that keeps RAM contents when
the computer goes into hibernation). This reduces image size and
speeds up image creation and restoration. However, you might use the
Create an image using the sector-by-sector approach option that lets
you include all of the sectors of a hard disk in an image."
***
IMO this is much clearer than the Disc Wizard manual. It seems to
explicitly say that with the full Acronis product, when imaging a
partition you have a choice between a normal backup that ignores
unused space, or a sector backup that does not. With Disc Wizard, you
have no option, as comparing the two passages shows. It seemed pretty
clear to me that the Disc Wizard manual was created by simply cutting
sentences out of the Acronis manual (this is obvious when you actually
see the manuals, because the graphics and layout are identical), and a
bit of clumsy editing resulted in a misleading paragraph.
I tested my theory by imaging my C drive and looking at the files the
image contained. Sure enough, there was pagefile.sys, when the manual
VERY clearly said that it was not included. The manual was simply
wrong.
All this occurred just last week, with the latest version of Disc
Wizard, so that's why I was sure that the image backup included unused
sectors. However, I didn't want to argue with you when you quoted the
manual unless I was absolutely sure, so last night I did another
experiment. I created an 800MB logical drive, filled it with data,
and imaged it. Then I deleted all the files on it, which due to some
files being too large to put in the Recycle Bin, resulted in about 90%
free space, and I imaged that. Then I emptied the Recycle Bin, and
took a third image. The results confirmed that only the data is
being backed up, and that Acronis considers the Recycle Bin to be
data. The image of the full drive was 216MB (excellent compression
because I used text files as my data), the image of the 90% empty
drive was 22MB, and the image of the empty drive was 360KB.
As a final, super-duper confirmation, I looked at my "empty" disc with
a sector editor, and could read the text files that had been deleted.
I then used a wipe program to overwrite everything with zeroes. I
then restored the backup of the empty image, and looked at the sectors
again. They were still full of zeroes.
So, bottom line: the manual is wrong, but not about unused space being
skipped during an image backup. Thanks to all of you for your
persistence in getting through to me.