Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (
More info?)
In article <O9jqhsjsFHA.2748@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>,
DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net says...
> From: "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan>
>
> | In article <#yaPwajsFHA.4036@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>,
> | DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net says...
> >> #2 -- So ? Why is the disk partitioned in the first place. All you need is one large
> >> "C:" in WinXP.
> |
> | Bad move - there are security reasons and/or maintenance reasons to
> | consider. In all my years I've never just done one large partition for
> | the OS drive when it was possible to have one for OS and one for DATA.
> |
>
> That's a bad move as well ;-) If the Hard disk fails, which is inevitable with cheap
> drives, then all partitions go. I use a sparate drive. One completely just for data (and
> TEMP files and caches) and another for the OS. The chances of both drives going at the same
> time are extremely high. Of course the data drive is backuped up reguarly to a DAT tape and
> the system is backed up to DVD periodically.
But we were not talking about more than one drive. And while we're at
it, using a non-redundant drive to host the real data on is a bad move
too. Most users only have access to simple methods of online storage -
like purchasing a simple SATA/IDE RAID controller card and a second
drive - with minimal effort it can be installed and up and running in
under 30 minutes.
If you have two drives, not RAID, and use one for the OS and one for
data, you have the same risk of a fault rendering either drive as a
loss.
What you gain, talking about partitioning, is that you can setup secure
areas that would be more difficult on a single partition, you can also
wipe and reinstall the OS partition without impacting the data
partition.
If you want redundancy, you need RAID.
> BTW: All my hard disks are SCSI (wide and narrow). By using separate hard disks one can
> take full advantage of multitasking disk read and writes. This is always easy with SCSI but
> if all hard disks are master drives on their one IDE channel it can be performed using IDE
> drives. There would be no advantage gain if there were two IDE hard disks and they are in a
> master/slave relationship.
We all know that IDE/EIDE is not as performance minded in a multi-
user/multi-task system, but there are significant advances that come
very close to rivaling SCSI controllers.
The Promise SX6000 handles onboard CACHE, also has it's own controller
to off-load CPU time, and handles 6 IDE drives in a hot-swappable mode.
I've got more than a Dozen of these running on servers with 250GB EIDE
drives attached in a single RAID-5 setup.
There are also some onboard IDE or SATA RAID controllers packaged with
Motherboards that don't include their own CACHE memory and take CPU
time, but, they are much more reliable than a soft-raid solution.
So, we're talking two different things here:
Paritioning: 1 drive with 2 areas (OS and DATA) works well since you
have more options when fixing things and also great for security
Redundancy: RAID - Two or more drives that act as one, so that if one
fails there is no data loss.
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram