DDS' Partitioning Machinery
i notice that DDS' create-partition machinery adds a new partition to the very end of the volume; as a consequence, it needs to move *each and every sector, of each and every partition that was installed before it*. am i reading this correctly?! this is lowering the river rather than raising the bridge!
why does DDS do it this seemingly-inefficient way, rather than just add the newly-created partition at the *beginning* of the partitions?
i am being baptized-by-fire icw DDS. MUD-CRAB: please save me hours of grief and consternation by telling me which operations will result in those stupendous (?unnecessary?) sector-by-sector transferences. and how can i avoid them -- when are they necessary and when can i use a different strategy to effect my goals. i will want to avoid 2.5 hours just to add or resize a partition. it seems to me -- i have not tried it yet -- that the strategy of "deleting" a partition will return it to the "unallocated" pool and it should then be quick to add or create a partition.
decidedly, i am seeing the *exact opposite*. please see that attacheds
[if this forum prefers that i post *links*, rather than in-line picts, then tell me what on-line photobucket service do you recommend? photobucket and flickr have proven inadequate on other forums. also, i mention that although i have ticked "notify me when new comments are posted", i am not receiving notification]
i can't understand how DDS sees things (but i won't argue because i'm a tyro).
first i DDS-created the 25.3GB partition, on a factory-fresh (but necessarily NTFS-formatted) 1TB hdd, and then the 75GB; DDS then designated the remaining 831GB as ALLOCATED, so i was not able to create or split that 831GB. after this, i don't remember. all i know is that every move i make, DDS moves everything over -- hundreds of GB!! -- sector-by-sector (see ADE_7)!! thus, an operation that should require no more than 30 SECONDS is taking 1-2.5 HOURS -- or likely even much more from now on because now there are so many 100's of GB of partitions that now need to be moved!!
i'm sure that i am doing something wrong.
Neal:
Posting your images here on the forum is better than using external links to pictures, so what you did was fine. From examining your pictures you are going about the partitioning process the hard way. New partitions should always be created in unallocated space. It seems that you are trying to take space from existing partitions, which requires that adjacent partitions be shuffled around.
If this is a brand new drive then here's my recommendation. Start over. If there is any data on this disk that you want to keep, copy it somewhere else. Then start Disk Director. First select the entire disk by clicking on the disk's icon and choosing Clear from the Disk menu as shown below. This will delete all partitions from the disk. Be sure that you have selected the correct disk! Commit by clicking on the checkered flag.
Now your disk should be devoid of partitions and consist of one large block (green in color) of unallocated space. Now to create partitions. Right-click on the Unallocated space on the disk and choose Create Partition as shown:
Fill in the dialog box as shown below, choosing the desired size and Partition Label. When you choose a size, drag the slider on the right-hand side of the illustration so that the partition is to the left and unallocated space is to the right as shown. Commit the operation.
BTW, the disk sizes shown here are small. These operations were done in a Virtual Machine for illustration purposes. Your disk is about 1000 times larger, of course.
Now you have one primary partition and unallocated space following the partition. Next, right-click on the remaining Unallocated space and choose Create Partition:
Again fill in the dialog box, choosing the desired size and label. Commit the operation.
Your disk should now resemble this picture:
Continue adding partitions as required. Remember that there is a limit of four primary partitions. If you need more than four partitions then three can be primary and the rest must be logical.
Finally, since you're using Vista it is recommended that you use Vista Disk Management to format all of your new partitions even though Disk Director has already formatted them as NTFS. There have been reports of unusual file system errors on Vista when using DD's formatting.
Many Thanks, Mark -- you are ameliorating Acronis' paucity of Beginner Help.
I need to add 3 facts to this:
the partitions on the factory-fresh F:\ will be used for 6+ *Nix'es -- no Windows at all;
Vista is the sole occupant of the now active C:\ 1TB; and i will also be partitioning that C:\ to accommodate a few of the 6+ *Nix'es (obviously, MS has already staked claim to the entire 1TB C:\);
i will create 3-4 of the partitions now, and create additional parts at a later date.
next, why would DDS not allow me to create or split the "allocated" 831GB (i assume that it was designated "allocated" because it was NTFS formatted?) my original strategy was to "delete" the 831GB "allocated" and thereby render it "unallocated", and then "create" and "split" would be possible -- would this strategy have been successful?
is NTFS formatting necessary if there will never be a Windows on it; this seems to have the undesirable effect of having the entire disk rendered as "allocated", and all the undesirable ramifications therefrom? what I'm asking is how will i be able to format the F:\ after i follow your instruction and "clear"'ed it?
you said that i should allow Windows to format it NTFS, rather than, or in addition to, the DDS NTFS format. But DDS documentation expressly advises against this.
you said that i am doing the partitioning the hard way" in what way was it the wrong way: it certainly seemed intuitive.
...why would DDS not allow me to create or split the "allocated" 831GB (i assume that it was designated "allocated" because it was NTFS formatted?) my original strategy was to "delete" the 831GB "allocated" and thereby render it "unallocated", and then "create" and "split" would be possible -- would this strategy have been successful?
Yes, that would have worked. However, avoid the "split" feature of DD like the plague. "Split" will take an existing partition with data on it and try to make it smaller by moving data to the beginning of the partition, resizing the partition smaller, and then creating a partition in the new unallocated space. There is a potential for data loss if anything goes wrong, so you're better off doing this yourself, step-by-step.
An easier way to do this with an existing partition containing data is to first resize the partition smaller, leaving unallocated space at the end of the partition. Then you can create new partitions in the unallocated space.
is NTFS formatting necessary if there will never be a Windows on it; this seems to have the undesirable effect of having the entire disk rendered as "allocated", and all the undesirable ramifications therefrom? what I'm asking is how will i be able to format the F:\ after i follow your instruction and "clear"'ed it?
You will avoid having the entire disk allocated to one partition if you create a new partition that is the desired size, leaving room for others. You can then choose the desired format when you create the partition. If Linux, choose EXT3.
you said that i should allow Windows to format it NTFS, rather than, or in addition to, the DDS NTFS format. But DDS documentation expressly advises against this.
If you are going to use an NTFS partition with Vista or Windows 7, then after DD formats the partition, reformat it with Vista or Win 7. The DD formatting algorithm works OK with Windows XP but there is something not right about it and it definitely causes problems with Vista.
you said that i am doing the partitioning the hard way" in what way was it the wrong way: it certainly seemed intuitive.
It's the hard way in that you are requiring DD to move a lot of data around. I'm only suggesting that for a new disk it's much faster and easier to start with a blank disk and create new partitions. Each operation will only take seconds to complete since you're only setting up the partition table and the structure of each partition instead of moving existing data from place to place.
.
It's the hard way in that you are requiring DD to move a lot of data around. I'm only suggesting that for a new disk it's much faster and easier to start with a blank disk and create new partitions. Each operation will only take seconds to complete since you're only setting up the partition table and the structure of each partition instead of moving existing data from place to place.
but that is what I'm sure i did in the first place -- and with each successive partition that i created, DDS moved, sector-by-sector, all the preceding (empty) partitions -- for HOURS!!
so, for practical reasons (to obviate consternation and gas), heuristically, when does DDS strategy use this sector-by-sector massive movement machinery? under what circumstances is this sector-by-sector (hour-after-hour!) mechanism *necessary*?
what is the difference between an OS being installed in a primary, and the same OS being installed in a logical? i understand that *all* *Nix'es are fully functional in a logical; correct?
if dds's split is so prone to disastrous results then when should it be used? i will tell you that its ready availability is beguiling: *I*certainly would have used it! what if, instead of the manual mechanism that you describe, i used DDS'"copy" feature?
this was a needless question so i deleted it.
what is the meaning of 0xBB and OxBF (i know that 0x := hexadecimal: 0xBB = 187 and 0xBF = 192; so, what is "187" and "192")?
and what is the significance of "hidden"?
see attached.
