Stupid Computer Semi-Literate Questions
Honest, i've surfed for a while so as not to divert attention from more photography-related stuff here, but this is actually photo-related for me. i understand the general concept of partitioning hard drives, but have never had a reason to do so. Now, with newly-elevated paranoia about backup, I have one external drive that will be dedicated exclusively to Time Machine backups (yes, I'm OSX 10.5). I have another 750 GB hard drive that will be dedicated to SuperDuper! backups, once the new Leopard-compatible release comes out. I have tons of excess capacity on the 750, so would like to keep a redundant^3 backup there just for images, one that I will export to manually as the need arises or the mood strikes me.
So I am pretty sure I know how to make two partitions using Disk Utility (presently, I have one partition that comprises the entire drive in order to enable the GUID protocol that is necessary for an Intel-based Mac). If I were to go in and create 2 instead, is it a straightforward process to (a) name/identify each with reference to its purpose and (b) direct subsequent exports to one or the other partition?
Subsidiary question: can you create folders/subfolders for a photo backup on the external drive within the partition that may not mirror a folder structure on the primary hard drive?
Sorry if I have embarrassed myself here -- at a minimum I'm sure I have garbled the "language". Thanks for any help though.
The clicking thing didnt work for me but the enter bit did..tks. Ive been trying to work that out for 6 weeks.
Click on the name once to select the file. Click again to enter text mode. But it has to be slower than your double click is set to (sys prefs>mouse&keyboard)
Honest, i've surfed for a while so as not to divert attention from more photography-related stuff here, but this is actually photo-related for me. i understand the general concept of partitioning hard drives, but have never had a reason to do so. Now, with newly-elevated paranoia about backup, I have one external drive that will be dedicated exclusively to Time Machine backups (yes, I'm OSX 10.5). I have another 750 GB hard drive that will be dedicated to SuperDuper! backups, once the new Leopard-compatible release comes out. I have tons of excess capacity on the 750, so would like to keep a redundant^3 backup there just for images, one that I will export to manually as the need arises or the mood strikes me.
So I am pretty sure I know how to make two partitions using Disk Utility (presently, I have one partition that comprises the entire drive in order to enable the GUID protocol that is necessary for an Intel-based Mac). If I were to go in and create 2 instead, is it a straightforward process to (a) name/identify each with reference to its purpose and (b) direct subsequent exports to one or the other partition?
Subsidiary question: can you create folders/subfolders for a photo backup on the external drive within the partition that may not mirror a folder structure on the primary hard drive?
Sorry if I have embarrassed myself here -- at a minimum I'm sure I have garbled the "language". Thanks for any help though.
I don't understand the advantage of two partitions. If you want two backup copies on the same drive, you could accomplish this easily by placing them in separate parent folders, say, Backup1 and Backup2.
Honest, i've surfed for a while so as not to divert attention from more photography-related stuff here, but this is actually photo-related for me. i understand the general concept of partitioning hard drives, but have never had a reason to do so. Now, with newly-elevated paranoia about backup, I have one external drive that will be dedicated exclusively to Time Machine backups (yes, I'm OSX 10.5). I have another 750 GB hard drive that will be dedicated to SuperDuper! backups, once the new Leopard-compatible release comes out. I have tons of excess capacity on the 750, so would like to keep a redundant^3 backup there just for images, one that I will export to manually as the need arises or the mood strikes me.
So I am pretty sure I know how to make two partitions using Disk Utility (presently, I have one partition that comprises the entire drive in order to enable the GUID protocol that is necessary for an Intel-based Mac). If I were to go in and create 2 instead, is it a straightforward process to (a) name/identify each with reference to its purpose and (b) direct subsequent exports to one or the other partition?
Subsidiary question: can you create folders/subfolders for a photo backup on the external drive within the partition that may not mirror a folder structure on the primary hard drive?
Sorry if I have embarrassed myself here -- at a minimum I'm sure I have garbled the "language". Thanks for any help though.
I'm reaching back here (and I'm sure someone will correct me on the actual technical details) but long long ago, around the Win95 days, FAT16 could only address a hard drive volume (partition) that did not exceed 2GB. But hard drives were avaibable in 4-8 GB in size. So you HAD to partition the drive, otherwise anything above 2GB would not be used - wasted space. Disk space was expensive.
Also we used to have 'compressed volumes', where you could shrink (sort of like Zip or jpeg) files to maximize space. It look at the age of the files and last time it was accessed adn compressed the least used ones until needed. Again a wya to maximize limtied disk space. And those compressed volumes had to be on a separate partition from the live data.
There were other performance and data management advantages, such as O/S and application files in one partition and data files in another. But remember it was the same physical drive. So you were still using one head to read both partitions, single disk I/O, etc. And if the drive failed, all the data could be hosed on both.
While you can change the size of a partition, it isn't easy. Once hard drives got cheap enough, people put in multiple drives. Then you have RAID, mulitple point of failure, blah, blah, blah. Frankly, except for our SAN LUNs, I haven't partitioned a drive in years. I hate the phrase, but yeah, disk space is cheap.
As a backup/disaster recovery method, the worst thing to do is to partition the same physical device. Even a separate drive (mirrored) in the same machine would be better, then the next best thing to do is a separate external drive(s) that you physically disconnect and remove. There are all sort fo ways to go from there.
"Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to. Oh well."
-Fleetwood Mac
I don't understand the advantage of two partitions. If you want two backup copies on the same drive, you could accomplish this easily by placing them in separate parent folders, say, Backup1 and Backup2.
The reason for two partitions is that he wants to allow Time Machine to do its thing, and he also wants a SuperDuper backup. If you've got the extra space this could make sense if a) you don't trust Time Machine yet as much as cloning software, or b) you want to be able to boot off of your backup (which Time Machine can't do).
Partitioning the drives is exceedingly easy. Just do it and name them whatever you want. They show up as separate drives, but if you eject one, they both go. Then you can easily assign one as your TM backup and the other as your SD backup. It would be silly for you to have a third, manual backup. TM backs up every hour, and you can schedule SD to back up as often as you'd like, as well.
The other thing to consider is that these two partitions are both on the same drive, so if one goes, the other will most likely go, as well. If you are going to have a third backup, which IS a good idea, you want it to be separate from your system (as in, if your house burns down, you've still got a good backup stashed somewhere. You can do online backups with Amazon S3/Transmit, Jungle Disk, Mozy, etc. You can also back up to another disk periodically and store it elsewhere.
Partitioning one large drive to smaller drives used to be necessary for operating systems that could not address really large hard drives, as mentioned above.
Planning on creating separate partitions, one for a boot drive B/U, and one for a data B/U will work, but you do risk losing both partitions if you have a hard drive failure. It might be little safer with two smaller, but physically separate hard drives.
I keep two distinct, separate hard drives for back up of my boot drive. I had not thought of using TIME MACHINE on one, and Super Super for the other. I, currently, use Super Duper for my back ups, and it has saved my butt at least twice for hardware failures. I do not compute without it, needless to say!
For my data drives, I keep two distinct, separate drives, as well as DVDs for important images that I really want to keep. I print a contact sheet for the images on each DVD, and then file them and the DVD in a 3 ring binder in a clear acrylic sheet holder. I sleep better that way.
I had a hard drive failure for my boot drive last year, and, later, had to have my mother board replaced by Apple. Neither of these events required reconstruction of the boot drive programs, I just copied them over from my back up drives. Imagine trying to reconstruct my boot drive from scratch with multiple programs, actions, plug ins, Photoshop, Lightroom, iWORK, etc, etc.
One good reason for partitioning a large drive, would be to create a separate, unique partition for Photoshop to use as a scratch drive for itself alone. 50-100Gb should easily accommodate that I think.
One good reason for partitioning a large drive, would be to create a separate, unique partition for Photoshop to use as a scratch drive for itself alone. 50-100Gb should easily accommodate that I think.
Here, too, you would be better off with a separate physical drive...no seek conflicts with other applications, separate controller. With modern file systems, about the only thing two copies on a single physical drive may protect you against is local media failure in one of the copies. Head crashes, controller or power failures will affect all partitions or copies. And ironically, you stand a better chance of hitting a media failure if you are hammering the drive more often to make your second copy on it. Given the low cost of large drives (external and internal) it seems silly not to go that route.
Today we're introducing a companion product to Time Machine -- it's called Time Capsule. It's really clever, it's a backup appliance. What it has in it is an Airport Extreme base station and a hard drive -- 802.11n wireless and a server grade hard drive in it. One with a 500GB drive, one with a 1TB drive inside it -- $299, and $499. Very aggressive prices because we want people backing up! Ships in Feb.
? Really? 802.11n wifi and built in 500GB or 1TB drive that magically backs up your data.... I think the price is spot on, myself.
How much do you reckon that's worth? I'm really excited about it, myself. We have 3 laptops in our house that could all use brainless backup.
You're not wrong about the price point, I don't think - so long as you know you're paying for the "ease" factor. I've got a 500GB FW drive that was about $100. Since all my computers at home are on the same network, and all have (free) Syncback SE - I get the same functionality for far less.
But again, for many folks (and I can certainly understand why) the ease of use will be worth the extra bucks. I think this is a great product and support anything that makes people more concious about backing up their data!
You're not wrong about the price point, I don't think - so long as you know you're paying for the "ease" factor. I've got a 500GB FW drive that was about $100. Since all my computers at home are on the same network, and all have (free) Syncback SE - I get the same functionality for far less.
But again, for many folks (and I can certainly understand why) the ease of use will be worth the extra bucks. I think this is a great product and support anything that makes people more concious about backing up their data!
syncback is the same as time machine? I doubt that. They both backup, sure, but TM is unlike any backup I've heard of.
Granted, if you've already got a wifi, then you need to reinvest, and that sucks. But if you were to set up a wireless system from the start, it's really not that much of a premium. $100 for the drive, plus the wifi, put them all in one with the drop dead simplicity and features of TM, and it's well worth it.
syncback is the same as time machine? I doubt that. They both backup, sure, but TM is unlike any backup I've heard of.
Granted, if you've already got a wifi, then you need to reinvest, and that sucks. But if you were to set up a wireless system from the start, it's really not that much of a premium. $100 for the drive, plus the wifi, put them all in one with the drop dead simplicity and features of TM, and it's well worth it.
*Pupator reads and remembers why he doesn't belong in this thread and quickly runs elsewhere*
*EDIT* Just came back to say that the Macbook Air is one of the most beautiful computers I've ever seen. I'm going back to my (perfectly wonderful yet...) HP now.
*Pupator reads and remembers why he doesn't belong in this thread and quickly runs elsewhere*
*EDIT* Just came back to say that the Macbook Air is one of the most beautiful computers I've ever seen. I'm going back to my (perfectly wonderful yet...) HP now.
Comments
It might be a marketing choice.
Honest, i've surfed for a while so as not to divert attention from more photography-related stuff here, but this is actually photo-related for me. i understand the general concept of partitioning hard drives, but have never had a reason to do so. Now, with newly-elevated paranoia about backup, I have one external drive that will be dedicated exclusively to Time Machine backups (yes, I'm OSX 10.5). I have another 750 GB hard drive that will be dedicated to SuperDuper! backups, once the new Leopard-compatible release comes out. I have tons of excess capacity on the 750, so would like to keep a redundant^3 backup there just for images, one that I will export to manually as the need arises or the mood strikes me.
So I am pretty sure I know how to make two partitions using Disk Utility (presently, I have one partition that comprises the entire drive in order to enable the GUID protocol that is necessary for an Intel-based Mac). If I were to go in and create 2 instead, is it a straightforward process to (a) name/identify each with reference to its purpose and (b) direct subsequent exports to one or the other partition?
Subsidiary question: can you create folders/subfolders for a photo backup on the external drive within the partition that may not mirror a folder structure on the primary hard drive?
Sorry if I have embarrassed myself here -- at a minimum I'm sure I have garbled the "language". Thanks for any help though.
__________________
www.browngreensports.com
http://browngreensports.smugmug.com
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Mac? I didn't see a Mac...
On the PC it was easy, right click>rename... how do i do it on the mac ?
.
You can click on the name again (not double click, but slower), or you can hit "enter" before typing the new name.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
You can also hit ⌘-i and change the name in the window that pops up.
Click on the name once to select the file. Click again to enter text mode. But it has to be slower than your double click is set to (sys prefs>mouse&keyboard)
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
But I didn't see photo credits for you.
And believe me, I looked
-Fleetwood Mac
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
-Fleetwood Mac
Yeah, rumor is Woz had burritos again....
Well it could be the sound of Yoko singing ... according to one rumor. :uhoh
-Fleetwood Mac
In an elevator I hope.
http://wall-art.smugmug.com/
I don't understand the advantage of two partitions. If you want two backup copies on the same drive, you could accomplish this easily by placing them in separate parent folders, say, Backup1 and Backup2.
Also we used to have 'compressed volumes', where you could shrink (sort of like Zip or jpeg) files to maximize space. It look at the age of the files and last time it was accessed adn compressed the least used ones until needed. Again a wya to maximize limtied disk space. And those compressed volumes had to be on a separate partition from the live data.
There were other performance and data management advantages, such as O/S and application files in one partition and data files in another. But remember it was the same physical drive. So you were still using one head to read both partitions, single disk I/O, etc. And if the drive failed, all the data could be hosed on both.
While you can change the size of a partition, it isn't easy. Once hard drives got cheap enough, people put in multiple drives. Then you have RAID, mulitple point of failure, blah, blah, blah. Frankly, except for our SAN LUNs, I haven't partitioned a drive in years. I hate the phrase, but yeah, disk space is cheap.
As a backup/disaster recovery method, the worst thing to do is to partition the same physical device. Even a separate drive (mirrored) in the same machine would be better, then the next best thing to do is a separate external drive(s) that you physically disconnect and remove. There are all sort fo ways to go from there.
-Fleetwood Mac
Partitioning the drives is exceedingly easy. Just do it and name them whatever you want. They show up as separate drives, but if you eject one, they both go. Then you can easily assign one as your TM backup and the other as your SD backup. It would be silly for you to have a third, manual backup. TM backs up every hour, and you can schedule SD to back up as often as you'd like, as well.
The other thing to consider is that these two partitions are both on the same drive, so if one goes, the other will most likely go, as well. If you are going to have a third backup, which IS a good idea, you want it to be separate from your system (as in, if your house burns down, you've still got a good backup stashed somewhere. You can do online backups with Amazon S3/Transmit, Jungle Disk, Mozy, etc. You can also back up to another disk periodically and store it elsewhere.
Oh, and I'm moving this to the Mac Advice thread.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Planning on creating separate partitions, one for a boot drive B/U, and one for a data B/U will work, but you do risk losing both partitions if you have a hard drive failure. It might be little safer with two smaller, but physically separate hard drives.
I keep two distinct, separate hard drives for back up of my boot drive. I had not thought of using TIME MACHINE on one, and Super Super for the other. I, currently, use Super Duper for my back ups, and it has saved my butt at least twice for hardware failures. I do not compute without it, needless to say!
For my data drives, I keep two distinct, separate drives, as well as DVDs for important images that I really want to keep. I print a contact sheet for the images on each DVD, and then file them and the DVD in a 3 ring binder in a clear acrylic sheet holder. I sleep better that way.
I had a hard drive failure for my boot drive last year, and, later, had to have my mother board replaced by Apple. Neither of these events required reconstruction of the boot drive programs, I just copied them over from my back up drives. Imagine trying to reconstruct my boot drive from scratch with multiple programs, actions, plug ins, Photoshop, Lightroom, iWORK, etc, etc.
One good reason for partitioning a large drive, would be to create a separate, unique partition for Photoshop to use as a scratch drive for itself alone. 50-100Gb should easily accommodate that I think.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Here, too, you would be better off with a separate physical drive...no seek conflicts with other applications, separate controller. With modern file systems, about the only thing two copies on a single physical drive may protect you against is local media failure in one of the copies. Head crashes, controller or power failures will affect all partitions or copies. And ironically, you stand a better chance of hitting a media failure if you are hammering the drive more often to make your second copy on it. Given the low cost of large drives (external and internal) it seems silly not to go that route.
Details:
? Really? 802.11n wifi and built in 500GB or 1TB drive that magically backs up your data.... I think the price is spot on, myself.
How much do you reckon that's worth? I'm really excited about it, myself. We have 3 laptops in our house that could all use brainless backup.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
You're not wrong about the price point, I don't think - so long as you know you're paying for the "ease" factor. I've got a 500GB FW drive that was about $100. Since all my computers at home are on the same network, and all have (free) Syncback SE - I get the same functionality for far less.
But again, for many folks (and I can certainly understand why) the ease of use will be worth the extra bucks. I think this is a great product and support anything that makes people more concious about backing up their data!
syncback is the same as time machine? I doubt that. They both backup, sure, but TM is unlike any backup I've heard of.
Granted, if you've already got a wifi, then you need to reinvest, and that sucks. But if you were to set up a wireless system from the start, it's really not that much of a premium. $100 for the drive, plus the wifi, put them all in one with the drop dead simplicity and features of TM, and it's well worth it.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
*Pupator reads and remembers why he doesn't belong in this thread and quickly runs elsewhere*
*EDIT* Just came back to say that the Macbook Air is one of the most beautiful computers I've ever seen. I'm going back to my (perfectly wonderful yet...) HP now.
Hey, don't leave.
All are welcome in the reality distortion field!
Yes, the MBA is one beauteous piece of gear.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops