Disk Drive Letters

[CSULB71]

I bought a used PC for my daughter. It is loaded with WinXP Pro, and has one 80GB HDD (single partition) and one CD-ROM drive, connected to separate IDE channels. Windows identified these as Drive 'C' for the HDD and Drive 'D' for the CD-ROM.

Using Acronis, I resized the primary/active partition (Drive 'C') to ~15GB and created a second partition as a logical partition with the remaining ~65GB free space, which I was able to label "Storage". During this process, however, I was not presented with the option to assign a drive letter to the second partition, and didn't think anything about it until later. Now Windows identifies the second partition as Drive 'E' and the CD-ROM is still Drive 'D'.

How do I add/change the drive letter for the second partition so Windows will always ID it as Drive 'D', and the CD-ROM will then become Drive 'E'? I remember when I used Win98SE I could do that in Device Manager, but WinXP doesn't have that option (that I can find). Thanks.

[RBK]

My Computer => RMC(Right Mouse Click) Manage => Disk Management RMC drive you wish to change => Change Drive Letter and Paths

[minidv2dvd]

it's in control panel/administrative tools/computer management/disc management - right click on the drive and select change drive letter.

[CSULB71]

Excellent!! I forgot about the "Manage" menu selection. But, since Windows had already assigned letter D to the CD-ROM drive, it wouldn't let me choose letter D for the second partition. So I had change the CD-ROM drive letter to 'F' first, then I could make the second partition drive 'D'', then I changed the CD-ROM to drive 'E'. Done!
Thanks.

[Nelson37]

Why did you decide to make the drive less reliable by modifying the partition table? There is no performance benefit to this.

[Midzuki]

Why did you decide to make the drive less reliable by modifying the partition table? There is no performance benefit to this.

I second that. I'd rather add another HDD + a DVD writer.

[CSULB71]

Well, since you asked:
1. The PC will be used by my daughter's 11 and 8 year old girls.
2. They found a way to hose up their old PC, running Win 98SE, so many times, that it's a good thing I was able to keep a current backup disk image (Acronis True Image) of drive 'C' on the 'D' drive so I could easily and quickly restore the PC. Same approach with this new PC.
3. I want the primary partition that holds the OS and programs (no data) to be relatively small so Acronis can create/restore the images in just a couple of minutes.
4. I want the second partition to hold all the kid's data files, plus the Acronis disk image(s).
5. I am not looking for any performance benefit, except to maintain my composure when I get the call from my daughter to "come over and see what's wrong with the PC".

[creakndale]

CSULB71,
Kudos for partitioning the hard drive this way. I couldn't agree more. IMO, it would be a good idea to also back up those Acronis images to some external media (another hard drive or DVD(s) if they'll fit). Then, when the girls drop the laptop and/or the hard drive crashes you might be able to restore an image. And if the laptop is stolen or misplaced you might be able to restore images to a similar model laptop. This helps to "prepare for the worst" and mimimize the aggravation.

creakndale

[redwudz]

It would still be a good idea to add another HDD just for storage. If the kids download a lot of stuff, they'll fill up that partition fairly quickly and the system will slow quite a bit.

W98 was easy to 'hose'. I remember having to re-install it about four times a year to keep it running efficiently. XP or newer seems to be a lot more robust.

Wait till they wipe out the Acronis back up. Hopefully you have it also backed up on DVD.

[ron spencer]

drive is not less reliable by modifying the partition table LOL..come on

[ocgw]

CSULB71,
Kudos for partitioning the hard drive this way. I couldn't agree more. IMO, it would be a good idea to also back up those Acronis images to some external media (another hard drive or DVD(s) if they'll fit). Then, when the girls drop the laptop and/or the hard drive crashes you might be able to restore an image. And if the laptop is stolen or misplaced you might be able to restore images to a similar model laptop. This helps to "prepare for the worst" and mimimize the aggravation.

creakndale

I agree also, I have 8 HDD's in my main HTPC, w/ partitons using up almost every letter in the alphabet, and had to switch the drive letters around like crazy for them to be identical to both my OS's in my "dual boot" system, it is the way I have always done it and it has always worked for me

Partition Magic is a nice program to use to do this also

ocgw

peace

[CSULB71]

To those who suggested it: good point about backing up the Acronis disk image on a DVD-RW -- I'll do that periodically.
Thanks.

redwudz: The system (on drive 'C') shouldn't slow down because of lots of data stored on the drive 'D' partition, should it? That's the whole idea of keeping them separate, I thought.

[ocgw]

The idea is if your OS gets "hosed" by a virus or something all your data is safe on a seperate partition, I just put "My Documents" on another partition

ocgw

peace

[redwudz]

What I was thinking is if you have a lot of data on one partition, and lots of access from and to it, you are still using the exact same data channel and controller that the other partition needs to use. I shouldn't have said that will slow down the system quite a bit, but it will have some affect.

I tend to use more drives instead of using partitions. Most of my PCs have three HDDs. I try to keep the boot drive small and with that, I don't really need a partition. Some use them to separate the OS from their files in case of a fatal OS crash. But I've had more hard drive failures than fatal OS crashes. And I back up my important data, so not so worried about losing it. I also try to keep about 20% or a bit more free space on my hard drives.

I just don't see much advantage to partitions and I rarely use them, but that's just my opinion. Others may differ.

[ocgw]

What I was thinking is if you have a lot of data on one partition, and lots of access from and to it, you are still using the exact same data channel and controller that the other partition needs to use. I shouldn't have said that will slow down the system quite a bit, but it will have some affect.

I tend to use more drives instead of using partitions. Most of my PCs have three HDDs. I try to keep the boot drive small and with that, I don't really need a partition. Some use them to separate the OS from their files in case of a fatal OS crash. But I've had more hard drive failures than fatal OS crashes. And I back up my important data, so not so worried about losing it. I also try to keep about 20% or a bit more free space on my hard drives.

I just don't see much advantage to partitions and I rarely use them, but that's just my opinion. Others may differ.

hmmmmmm............

In my situation it is not a multiple partition or multiple HDD choice, I use both, I use many HDD's (8 on the main PC), and most of them are broken up into many partitions because for one, the smallest of my 10 HDD's in my 9.9TB home network is 500GB (just daddy's part of the network lol), I have (4) 1500GB HDD's

You gotta' break them 1500GB HDD's up into @ least 2, or 3 partitions because more often than a complete drive failure, I may get a corruption of the file table and a loss of data requiring a reformat of the partition, which is a heck of a lot better than reformatting a whole drive and losing 1.5TB of data

I personally have only lost 1 HDD, it was the only HDD that I didn't have active cooling on it, I have never made that mistake again, and I have never lost a drive since, but I have had corrupted data from a "bad sector" which has never been a permanent problem, a reformat of that partiton has always fixed the problem for me

I used to do just like you, I have small 15,000rpm SAS drives I used to use in RAID for my OS, but have since migrated to all high density drives since they have such high sustained average transfer rates now for maximum storage capacity, I have now made a small partition (50GB) @ the leading edge 1 of my HDD's for a clean, unfragmented, high speed partition for a working space for when I am "backing up" a blu ray disc or some editing operation

It is also good to have your "swap space" on it's own partiton, (or HDD) if you still use one, I haven't used one for years

ocgw

peace

[yoda313]

W98 was easy to 'hose'. I remember having to re-install it about four times a year to keep it running efficiently. XP or newer seems to be a lot more robust.

Totally agree on that. When I had an old win98 hp desktop I think I reformatted that at least twice a year if not more. I got windows 2000 and never had a problem with that. Got XP with the emachine and never looked back. 2000 was great and stable but had little to no gaming support so it had to go.

[CSULB71]

Everybody has different uses for their computer and their needs are solved in different ways that make sense to them. In that regard, there is probably no "wrong" way to set up a system. In my case, the computer will be used by pre-teen girls -- my solution was to give them something I could maintain, easily repair virus/trojan/spyware damage if necessary, and that kept the expense to a minimum in order give them a computer with WinXP as the OS. So, for my goal... mission accomplished.

[Nelson37]

My policy on partition tables was set many years ago at my old company. We experienced several failures related to re-sizing existing partitions, my "guru" there investigated this thoroughly and the policy was laid down. Such a re-sized partition was NEVER to be put into field use, this was only to be used as an emergency procedure. The solution was to create a backup, re-partition from scratch, format, then restore the backup.

Multiple Partitions in general were to be avoided in preference to multiple drives, but re-sizing an existing partition for continued use was absolutely verbotten. Because they were significantly more likely to fail. Doesn't mean they all fail, but if it did within the warranty period, our ass was on the line. So we stopped doing it.

The guy who set this policy just did not make mistakes. I don't mean like hardly ever, they just did not happen. The man was a machine. I still follow his policies, because they work.

[ocgw]

My policy on partition tables was set many years ago at my old company. We experienced several failures related to re-sizing existing partitions, my "guru" there investigated this thoroughly and the policy was laid down. Such a re-sized partition was NEVER to be put into field use, this was only to be used as an emergency procedure. The solution was to create a backup, re-partition from scratch, format, then restore the backup.

Multiple Partitions in general were to be avoided in preference to multiple drives, but re-sizing an existing partition for continued use was absolutely verbotten. Because they were significantly more likely to fail. Doesn't mean they all fail, but if it did within the warranty period, our ass was on the line. So we stopped doing it.

The guy who set this policy just did not make mistakes. I don't mean like hardly ever, they just did not happen. The man was a machine. I still follow his policies, because they work.

Nelson37 I am sure glad you posted something that I can get behind 100%, I never resize existing partitions, not even w/ Norton Partition Magic, I delete the existing partition, and create a new partition, & do a full format (not quick format)

Norton Partition Magic claims it can resize a partiton w/ out losing data on the original partiton, I found out the hard way that was bs

Sound like your guru really new his chit lol

ocgw

peace

[Nelson37]

You're comin' along, oc, you're comin' along, just stay with me for a few more steps and I will guide you to the promised land.

Partition Magic was one program specifically banned. The reason was not potential data loss upon conversion, though that did happen. The main reason was a catastrophic failure of the partition table, ocurring days or weeks after conversion had ocurred. The Partition Table failed because it was corrupted by the conversion, the size of the partition table and/or its complexity was a factor in this. This problem is not exclusive to Partition Magic.

Now I saw you mentioned you have only had one hard drive fail. Not counting the bathrooms, I have three or four times that many dead drives in every room of my apartment. Fairly constant over twenty years or so. Partition table failures are rare. So much so that any co-relating ocurrence is immediately obvious. Such failures are significantly more common on drives with multiple partitions. Actually that is the wrong way to say it. Drives which had already failed, due to partition table errors, were more likely to have multiple partitions than the general field average. I repeat, this is rare and the numbers are small.

Compounding on this is that when partition table failures do occur, they usually result in major data loss or at the least a major backup and restore hassle. For the minimal benefit offered, the risk is just too high.

[lordsmurf]

I suggest Easeus Partition Manager.

While I also suggest against on-the-fly re-partition, I could think of no other way to remove that ridiculous 15GB HP "Restore Image" partition from my 60GB laptop drive -- 25% of the HDD was unusable! That's bullshit!

[ocgw]

You're comin' along, oc, you're comin' along, just stay with me for a few more steps and I will guide you to the promised land.

Partition Magic was one program specifically banned. The reason was not potential data loss upon conversion, though that did happen. The main reason was a catastrophic failure of the partition table, ocurring days or weeks after conversion had ocurred. The Partition Table failed because it was corrupted by the conversion, the size of the partition table and/or its complexity was a factor in this. This problem is not exclusive to Partition Magic.

Now I saw you mentioned you have only had one hard drive fail. Not counting the bathrooms, I have three or four times that many dead drives in every room of my apartment. Fairly constant over twenty years or so. Partition table failures are rare. So much so that any co-relating ocurrence is immediately obvious. Such failures are significantly more common on drives with multiple partitions. Actually that is the wrong way to say it. Drives which had already failed, due to partition table errors, were more likely to have multiple partitions than the general field average. I repeat, this is rare and the numbers are small.

Compounding on this is that when partition table failures do occur, they usually result in major data loss or at the least a major backup and restore hassle. For the minimal benefit offered, the risk is just too high.

Thx partna', I should mention also that besides being "religeous about my case cooling, I also upgrade regurularly and "move" my old gear before it is unmarketable, I move about 1, or 2 PC's a month

ocgw

peace