Does it make sense to split a 1TB drive into two partitions, the second partition being a backup of the first?

Question

I just got a new 1TB hard drive and rather than filling it up straight away, I'd like to come up with an effective backup strategy. Does it make sense to partition the drive into two 500GB chunks with one chunk being a shadow copy of the other, or in the case of a drive failure would this be a complete waste of time if I was hoping one parition could still be used for retrieval?

Answer 1

It makes great sense, however, I would do it a little differently.



C: 80GB partition ONLY for Windows & programs (this will keep it lean, clean, fast & mean). Having it at least 40% empty greatly increases performance.



D: 120GB partition for ALL documents, movies, music, etc (move the documents folder to this drive immediately after Windows installation).

This will keep all personal documents separate from primary drive should you ever need to format C & re-install Windows.



E: 300GB partition for added storage (example: large video files)



F: 500GB partition for backup or future use.





Doing it this way will significantly lower file access times as well as minimize fragmentation on the primary (Windows) partition.



As for backup ... it's always wise to rely on more than one media.

An external HD (as well as using the F drive) would be best.



regards,

Philip T

Answer 2

It won't strengthen overall performance - there continues to be a single spindle. In Linux that's, or become, common to create distinctive partitions for /boot, /residing house, /var etc. and a swap partition. some old boot loaders had hassle with great disks, so having a boot partition first assured the kernel could be in a low-numbered sector and so bootable. swap partitions are, i think of, nonetheless somewhat quicker for swap than ones created interior the filesystem. One benefit of having separate partitions for /residing house, etc. is that if a information disk fills up it won't influence the equipment (reason mail to fail, for occasion, on a multi-person equipment). additionally, the working equipment could nicely be deleted and reinstalled devoid of affecting customers' documents. this will additionally persist with on different O/S mutually with residing house windows. in case you have 2 disks, then there is a few overall performance benefit as the two could nicely be fetching documents on an identical time. in case you have various disks, you ought to use RAID for speed enhancement, striping the filesystem for the time of distinctive disks.

Answer 3

In my experience, when a hard drive fails, it does so completely. So saving half a HD for a backup won't do to much. I would suggest a RAID setup:



http://www.pcworld.com/article/132877/how_to_set_up_raid_on_your_pc.html



You'll should get two drives of the same size and make to implement the RAID. Having two separate HDs is the best defense against one of the drives failing.



Good luck!

Answer 4

Yes, make sense and will protect your files against a number of crashes, but not against all.

If the HD have a mechanic problem you will loose all partitions. In case of fire or stole, also.



For your critical files you need a OFF SITE backup.



My suggestion for you is try the service Mozy, for online off site backup, for free:

https://mozy.com/?code=94HW8M



I am using for near 3 years and is very good.

Answer 5

you can split it into two partitions which is great for storage and such , but if the entire drive goes then of course , you have issues . why not save your self a ton of headaches and just buy another hard drive and use two , this PC i am on has 6 hard drives on a raid controller .