> On Jul 7, 9:34 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
>> I'd rather keep it all on the same partition, and just image or restore
>> whole enchilada - which still only takes me about 15 minutes. Why keep
>> data on a separate partition? That means there's two things to backup
>> (and or restore). (The only "data" I keep on separate partitions is
>> and video, since it is so large; not really any personal stuff.)
I should have added that I pretty regularly make image backups (of the whole
enchilada). I can see the point that if you don't, you might have a point
in keeping them on separate partitions.
> Not really. And where are you guys getting off on 20 minutes ... I
> start getting hot under the collar when a C: restore imaging routine
> takes longer than 2 minutes!
I'm restoring about 25 GB in that time. Are you? (I doubt it :-)
> Keeping data on [the singular instance] separate partition(s):
> Nooo...not really. Most CVV, Common Variety Vomit, perpetuating
> itself over the Internet occurs at the C: OS level. Programs most of
> all directly associated with the Internet are integral within the OS
> laying, by means, ipso facto, therein and thereby prima facie to
> permit Internet access;-- Although, to including anything, regardless
> where it's physically located, whether attempting to "Call Home,"
> within better reason, may be FireWalled with Extreme Prejudice.
> What a separate DATA partition does however involve, is manually
> having to keep in sync Binary Data program revisions, updates and
> omissions, in-program changes to settings and functions linked to the
> OS, or anything generally not already logged and incorporated into the
> OS images and any subsequent layering of compounded, redundant
> iterations over further OS images.
Another reason I like the whole enchilada approach (providing you do it