M
Mk
I have a 200GB hard disk. I intend to make a single partition. Is it
recommended or any suggestion and what is the advantages ?
recommended or any suggestion and what is the advantages ?
J
Jerry
NTFS or FAT32? If FAT32 you may suffer because of large cluster size.
J
Jonny
Will not enumerate unless intended use/uses of said hard drive are stated.
P
Plato
Mk said:
If it's going to be your C: drive, then you may want to consider,
perhaps, dividing it in half if you are going to be saving/storing lots
of large files, eg mp3s, videos, etc.
This way you can put your file archive on D: which will save lots of
time defragging C:, which will have XP and program files on it.
M
Man-wai Chang
This setup also enabled you to reinstall Window$ to drive C: anytime...
G
Gerry Cornell
MK
Is this disk replacing another or going into a new computer? If replacing a
good
but too small disk do not overlook the advantages which come from having a
second drive if that disk has a good read / write speed,
With a 200 gb disk the size of the disk makes many system default settings
inappropriate. System Restore, Temporary Internet Files, and the Recycle
Bin will
be greatly oversized unless customised.
--
Hope this helps.
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is this disk replacing another or going into a new computer? If replacing a
good
but too small disk do not overlook the advantages which come from having a
second drive if that disk has a good read / write speed,
With a 200 gb disk the size of the disk makes many system default settings
inappropriate. System Restore, Temporary Internet Files, and the Recycle
Bin will
be greatly oversized unless customised.
--
Hope this helps.
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
B
Bob Eyster
I am running 2 internal HD's and 1 external HD. 1 internal is 160gig and the
other is 75gig. Both formatted to a single partition. The external HD is
250gig formatted to a single partition also.
I see no advantage to partitioning your HD other than for file management.
If a HD has more than one partition and the HD crashes ALL is lost.
Bob Eyster
other is 75gig. Both formatted to a single partition. The external HD is
250gig formatted to a single partition also.
I see no advantage to partitioning your HD other than for file management.
If a HD has more than one partition and the HD crashes ALL is lost.
Bob Eyster
G
Gerry Cornell
Bob
Doesn't placing files that rapidly fragment with files that do not fragment
( or only fragment a little ) make defragmentation a much bigger chore?
--
Hope this helps.
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Doesn't placing files that rapidly fragment with files that do not fragment
( or only fragment a little ) make defragmentation a much bigger chore?
--
Hope this helps.
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J
Jonny
You mean like the swapfile that defaults to the XP boot partition for
instance, and fragments all over the place?
instance, and fragments all over the place?
D
David
Ifollowed Fred Langa's advice http://www.langalist.com He reckons a 10Gig C: with only the operating system on it is the
way to go. Takes a bit to persuade Windows that you don't want a load of junk on C: but makes imagining, back-ups and
defrags much easier and faster.
David
A
ANONYMOUS
I would have 20GB for the bootable partition to contain OS and other
application packages such as Office 2003 etc.
The rest can be for personal data. The reason for small boot drive is
for speed of startup/shutdown operations. Also, defragmentation is
faster and easier.
There is no advantage in dfragmenting the data drive.
Do you guys really need 200gb of HD space? You can have all the
shareware programs issued since 1980 in all that HD space
!!
Regards,
application packages such as Office 2003 etc.
The rest can be for personal data. The reason for small boot drive is
for speed of startup/shutdown operations. Also, defragmentation is
faster and easier.
There is no advantage in dfragmenting the data drive.
Do you guys really need 200gb of HD space? You can have all the
shareware programs issued since 1980 in all that HD space
!!Regards,
G
Glen
I have a 500 GB RAID 0 and I have a 20 GB C: drive which I only install XP
on all my programs go into a 50 GB D: partition. The rest of the drive is
backup and storage. I do think it comes down to personal preference these
days. If you do go for a windows on C drive only and programs on D make sure
you allow at least 15 GB for C as my C drive has 11GB data and remember I
only install windows to it.
Glen
on all my programs go into a 50 GB D: partition. The rest of the drive is
backup and storage. I do think it comes down to personal preference these
days. If you do go for a windows on C drive only and programs on D make sure
you allow at least 15 GB for C as my C drive has 11GB data and remember I
only install windows to it.
Glen
C
Charlie Tame
I agree, 10G is way too small unless you want to be a real purist. If you
are not a compulsive "Meddler" just leave it as a single one. If you might
ever consider installing a dual operating system like XP Home / XP Pro or XP
/ W2003 then split it in half... or into 3, say 50 50 100 so you have 50 for
each OS and 100 for general data.
Drive speed issues seem much more to do with being more than 75% full than
anything else.
You have enough space to install 2 copies of the OS in case you ever break
one...
But it is personal preference... remember it is very hard to increase a
system partition once installed, you can mess with data partitions later if
you like.
Charlie
are not a compulsive "Meddler" just leave it as a single one. If you might
ever consider installing a dual operating system like XP Home / XP Pro or XP
/ W2003 then split it in half... or into 3, say 50 50 100 so you have 50 for
each OS and 100 for general data.
Drive speed issues seem much more to do with being more than 75% full than
anything else.
You have enough space to install 2 copies of the OS in case you ever break
one...
But it is personal preference... remember it is very hard to increase a
system partition once installed, you can mess with data partitions later if
you like.
Charlie
G
Glen
I have 500 GB HD space and between backups and storage I've had as little as
50GB free. 50GB free might seem like a lot but not when you look at the size
of data on the drive.
Glen
50GB free. 50GB free might seem like a lot but not when you look at the size
of data on the drive.
Glen
A
ANONYMOUS
Glen,
Explain to me this. If you have used 50 GBs of HD space for OS,
Programs and your data then clearly you only need another 50GBs for
backups maximum.
Are you saying that you have other programs and games on the system? If
so then you will be better off using an external backup options (say
CDRWs) as I strongly feel that internal is a bit risky. Backups are
always supposed to be external otherwise the entire system gets
corrupted if you are attacked by malwares. Perhaps this is just me so
don't take it personally and this not an attack on you or anybody in any
way. I am just curious what people are installing on their systems.
Best regards,
Explain to me this. If you have used 50 GBs of HD space for OS,
Programs and your data then clearly you only need another 50GBs for
backups maximum.
Are you saying that you have other programs and games on the system? If
so then you will be better off using an external backup options (say
CDRWs) as I strongly feel that internal is a bit risky. Backups are
always supposed to be external otherwise the entire system gets
corrupted if you are attacked by malwares. Perhaps this is just me so
don't take it personally and this not an attack on you or anybody in any
way. I am just curious what people are installing on their systems.
Best regards,
G
Gerry Cornell
Jonny
That's a good example but my Outlook Express current folders also tend to
rapidly fragment.
--
Regards.
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's a good example but my Outlook Express current folders also tend to
rapidly fragment.
--
Regards.
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
M
Mak
I'm sorry Gerry, the discussion "partition, so it's easier / faster to
defrag" seems a bit illogical to me.
Let me ask a question: why do you defrag? To speed up? Then why you make
separate partitions in the first place? Do you know that doing so will
increase seek time and seek time is the most important for HD performance?
Let's take Raptor as an example, the drive is fast not because it has 10k
RPM, but because its average seek time is 4.5 ms (as far as I remember).
HD heads will need to cross partition border every time you read / write
something to your other partition(s) and return back to your OS partition
after (and they will, sequential reads are very uncommon) - makes such setup
very slow. It's irrelevant whether both partitions fragmented or not - it's
slow 'by design'. It's especially silly with setups where you see 2 Raptors
in RAID0 to make it even faster and then... separate partitions for
everything, OS, applications, data, even paging file (how stupid) - the
speed advantage of Raptors in RAID is nullified, if not slower than single
partition on one much slower drive. Someone spend good money on speed and
ended up with much slower setup just because of partitioning.
Second question: how do you know it is the time to defrag? How do you judge
the time when defrag is needed and how do you measure where performance of
your workload (note: not synthetic tests, but real performance) has
increased or not? And not "it feels faster", but real numbers.
To me, I have not seen any _good_reasons_ to make separate partitions, well,
maybe for the exception of special case when you have a bunch of very large
files that you seldom access with sequential read, so big and so seldom that
it makes sense to put them apart to make seek time of the rest of your
logical drive faster. Even then, it's better to put them on a separate
physical drive or burn on DVD.
Also, how may posts are there asking how to combine partitions, or resize
them?
defrag" seems a bit illogical to me.
Let me ask a question: why do you defrag? To speed up? Then why you make
separate partitions in the first place? Do you know that doing so will
increase seek time and seek time is the most important for HD performance?
Let's take Raptor as an example, the drive is fast not because it has 10k
RPM, but because its average seek time is 4.5 ms (as far as I remember).
HD heads will need to cross partition border every time you read / write
something to your other partition(s) and return back to your OS partition
after (and they will, sequential reads are very uncommon) - makes such setup
very slow. It's irrelevant whether both partitions fragmented or not - it's
slow 'by design'. It's especially silly with setups where you see 2 Raptors
in RAID0 to make it even faster and then... separate partitions for
everything, OS, applications, data, even paging file (how stupid) - the
speed advantage of Raptors in RAID is nullified, if not slower than single
partition on one much slower drive. Someone spend good money on speed and
ended up with much slower setup just because of partitioning.
Second question: how do you know it is the time to defrag? How do you judge
the time when defrag is needed and how do you measure where performance of
your workload (note: not synthetic tests, but real performance) has
increased or not? And not "it feels faster", but real numbers.
To me, I have not seen any _good_reasons_ to make separate partitions, well,
maybe for the exception of special case when you have a bunch of very large
files that you seldom access with sequential read, so big and so seldom that
it makes sense to put them apart to make seek time of the rest of your
logical drive faster. Even then, it's better to put them on a separate
physical drive or burn on DVD.
Also, how may posts are there asking how to combine partitions, or resize
them?
C
Charlie Tame
I tend to agree, I see no real advantage in partitioning, especially when
the OS partition is going to end up almost full. I don't really like the way
Windows defaults persuade you to "File" things, for stuff like GFX and MP3s
etc a data partition is fine IMO but I think some of the advice around is
just personal and anecdotal and not for the average user.
Charlie
the OS partition is going to end up almost full. I don't really like the way
Windows defaults persuade you to "File" things, for stuff like GFX and MP3s
etc a data partition is fine IMO but I think some of the advice around is
just personal and anecdotal and not for the average user.
Charlie
J
Jonny
That's typical, but nothing to sweat for a week or two, perhaps a month
depending on fragmentation of OE, and how it affects the rest or the system.
depending on fragmentation of OE, and how it affects the rest or the system.
G
Gerry Cornell
Mak
There have always been opposing viewpoints on this issue and rarely does
one side concede ground to the other.
It's not illogical. If partitioned along the lines of placing rapidly
fragmenting files
in separate partitions to those that do not you obviate the need to
defragment
large sectors of the hard drive, save at particular times for particular
reasons.
The larger the drive the longer any disk utilitity takes given other
circumstances
are comparable.
Your argument is a two edged sword. Files that are not contiguous increase
the time taken to read / write. Your approach will tend to increase the
number
of files that are not contiguous, especially where there is limited free
disk space.
RAID is a particular type of technology, which I and many others do not use,
so
your statements based on that technology are simply not relevant. They may
be
relevant when you are directing your comments to another using the same
technology.
Experience based on observation. I am an accountant and my experience over
40 years is that you can usually provide numbers to support any side of an
argument. You just add or omit factors. which strengthen your argument or
weaken
your opponents. This may be a conscious or unknowing action by the compiler
of the numbers.
The other week in the UK Parliament a government minister stated, quoting
government statistics, that there were 90 odd Polish plumbers currently
working
in the UK. A national newspaper, not believing the statement, identified
within a
day many more than 90 working in London alone. It emerged that the
government
statistics only related to employed persons and took absolutely no account
of self
employed Polish plumbers, who greatly outnumber their employed counterparts.
The way in which the computer is used and the user's resources and
capabilties
will determine the content of the routine maintenance of the computer. I am
not
into gaming but many others are. The way gamers maintain their computer will
be
different to my approach because their priorities are different to mine
..There is no
point in expounding on the benefits gained from compacting dbx files to
someone
who rarely uses Outlook Express.
Well that's what you get if you partition using the tool provided with
Windows,
which lacks the facility to easily adjust partition sizes. If you had to dig
a trench
100 metres long, a metre wide and a metre deep would you prefer to do it
using
a pick and shovel or a mechanical excavator?
--
Hope this helps.
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There have always been opposing viewpoints on this issue and rarely does
one side concede ground to the other.
Mak said:
It's not illogical. If partitioned along the lines of placing rapidly
fragmenting files
in separate partitions to those that do not you obviate the need to
defragment
large sectors of the hard drive, save at particular times for particular
reasons.
The larger the drive the longer any disk utilitity takes given other
circumstances
are comparable.
Your argument is a two edged sword. Files that are not contiguous increase
the time taken to read / write. Your approach will tend to increase the
number
of files that are not contiguous, especially where there is limited free
disk space.
RAID is a particular type of technology, which I and many others do not use,
so
your statements based on that technology are simply not relevant. They may
be
relevant when you are directing your comments to another using the same
technology.
Experience based on observation. I am an accountant and my experience over
40 years is that you can usually provide numbers to support any side of an
argument. You just add or omit factors. which strengthen your argument or
weaken
your opponents. This may be a conscious or unknowing action by the compiler
of the numbers.
The other week in the UK Parliament a government minister stated, quoting
government statistics, that there were 90 odd Polish plumbers currently
working
in the UK. A national newspaper, not believing the statement, identified
within a
day many more than 90 working in London alone. It emerged that the
government
statistics only related to employed persons and took absolutely no account
of self
employed Polish plumbers, who greatly outnumber their employed counterparts.
The way in which the computer is used and the user's resources and
capabilties
will determine the content of the routine maintenance of the computer. I am
not
into gaming but many others are. The way gamers maintain their computer will
be
different to my approach because their priorities are different to mine
..There is no
point in expounding on the benefits gained from compacting dbx files to
someone
who rarely uses Outlook Express.
Well that's what you get if you partition using the tool provided with
Windows,
which lacks the facility to easily adjust partition sizes. If you had to dig
a trench
100 metres long, a metre wide and a metre deep would you prefer to do it
using
a pick and shovel or a mechanical excavator?
--
Hope this helps.
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~