Optimum partitions

[Len Dolby]

Not quite a novice, but still a lot to learn. Plus, I'm nervous !
Just seen a post which user says his "boot" partition for XP OS is "D". (
uses C: for data ).
This indicates that what I've been pondering is possible. I only use XP OS.

Want to optimise my 40Gb HDD, via partitions. There's 25 GB free space, and
it's unlikely I'll need more.
My thoughts (given I can't afford a second HDD)
Partition like this -
C: for swap-file. Size reported is 1.4 Gb. (I have 768 Mb RAM).
D: for page-file
E: for XP, Office, NAV and MS downloaded updates
F: for other apps and associated downloads
G for downloads - other
H for personal datafiles
J for backup - (done one, total C:drive backup file - everything - is
1.3Gb)
K for copy OS system disk and drivers (in case of trouble) - 0.6 Gb

My logic - C: partition size ~1.4 Gb, D: size please advise (am assuming my
understanding is
correct, that Swap file needs to be first on HDD, then page file, to
optimise speed)
E: essentially for MS applications, could you recommend a size? (XP.
XPoffice, Autoroute)
F: - I'll have to work this out !
G: about 1 Gb
J: about 3 Gb, K: 0.6 Gb, so H: will be what's left.

Benefits - speed up the PC (now unacceptably slow boot-up, and I can't see
why), and minimise maintenance (primarily, defrag)

Sorry this is so long! Would appreciate help as follows -
1/ Is my partition plan correct in structure and feasability ?
2/ How to get the Swap-file to C: and page file to D: (or would it be better
to consolidate both on C
3/ And - is it possible WITHOUT a full re-install of XP ? (transfer the
entire directory over from C: to E )
I have an OEM "recovery" OS disk and serial no, plus disks of all the
equipment drivers, most now out of date.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

In

My thoughts (given I can't afford a second HDD)
Partition like this -

C: for swap-file. Size reported is 1.4 Gb. (I have 768 Mb

RAM).


1.4GB is almost certainly *way* more than you need. Moreover,
it's not a good idea to put the swap file on a separate
partition. Doing so puts it farther from the other
frequently-used data on the drive, increases head movement to and
from it, and thereby hurts performance. The swap file, in my
view, should be on the same partition as the operating system.

D: for page-file

??? The page file and the swap file are the same. You don't have
both. The page file is essentially just the Windows XP name for
what was called the swap file in Windows 9X.

E: for XP, Office, NAV and MS downloaded updates
F: for other apps and associated downloads

Why do you want to separate the applications on F: from those on
E:? There's no real advantage to doing this. Every time you
create two partitions where one would have done as well, you
expose yourself to the risk that sooner or later you will run out
of room on one while still having lots of space left on the
other.

G for downloads - other

Again, what's the point of separating this from, say, H:, where
you have personal data files.

H for personal datafiles

For most people, this is the one kind of partition where there's
a decent argument for separating it from the operating system--to
facilitate reinstalling the operating system should it be
necessary to do so.

J for backup - (done one, total C:drive backup file - everything - is
1.3Gb)

If I were you, I'd rethink this backup strategy. I don't
recommend backup to a second partition because it leaves you
susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original and backup to
many of the most common dangers: head crashes, severe power
glitches, nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks, even theft of
the computer.

In my view, secure backup needs to be on removable media, and not
kept in the computer. For *really* secure backup (needed, for
example, if the life of your business depends on your data) you
should have multiple generations of backup, and at least one of
those generations should be stored off-site.

K for copy OS system disk and drivers (in case of trouble) -

0.6 Gb


Again, why? Use a CD for this. It's both cheaper and more secure.

Benefits - speed up the PC (now unacceptably slow boot-up, and I
can't see why),

There's no reason to think that any partitioning scheme will
speed up the computer, or even speed up booting. There are
arguments for having multiple partitions, but better performance
isn't normally among them.

and minimise maintenance (primarily, defrag)

I doubt that too. You'll get the same amount of fragmentation;
you'll just be spreading it out among multiple partitions.

In my view, a partitioning scheme like what you propose is way
overkill.

 

[DUH]

More partitions on the same physical drive won't speed anything up.
Remember those heads are connected to 1 servo mechanism that has to seek to
each partition on the same drive. If anything it's may slow things down as
seek times are the slowest portion of a disk read or write. Your making it
a lot more complicated than it needs to be and putting a partition backup on
the same drive is of no use if you lose the only drive you have.