80% maximum capacity on a hard drive?

[James]

Some years back, in a networking class. I was told that the maximum
percentage that a hard drive or a volume could be filled is 80 percent,
because otherwise you would end up getting excessive wear on the hard drive.
Does that limit still apply? Or did that only apply to the drive containing
the system volume? What about a storage hard drive soley used for storing
data?

Thanks.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some years back, in a networking class. I was told that the maximum percentage that a
hard drive or a volume could be filled is 80 percent, because otherwise you would end up
getting excessive wear on the hard drive.

That was always complete pig ignorant drivel.

Does that limit still apply?

It never did and so obviously doesnt now either.

Or did that only apply to the drive containing the system volume?

Nope, it never did and so obviously doesnt now either.

What about a storage hard drive soley used for storing data?

Nope, it never did and so obviously doesnt now either.

 

[Bob Willard]

Some years back, in a networking class. I was told that the maximum
percentage that a hard drive or a volume could be filled is 80 percent,
because otherwise you would end up getting excessive wear on the hard drive.
Does that limit still apply? Or did that only apply to the drive containing
the system volume? What about a storage hard drive soley used for storing
data?

Thanks.

Total BS and always was. I have filled every sector on FAT16 and FAT32
HDs under W9x and under XP, and NTFS HDs under XP, with no surprises.
Clearly, defrag won't run; but all files remained readable and nothing
crashed unexpectedly.

 

[McSpreader]

...80 percent... ...excessive wear

Never heard that one. Whatever was the reasoning for it?

 

[James]

Never heard that one. Whatever was the reasoning for it?

This was thrown at me by a teacher of an NT class as one of a zillion
factoids that we had to learn. At the time nobody in the class questioned
that.

 

[craigm]

This was thrown at me by a teacher of an NT class as one of a zillion
factoids that we had to learn. At the time nobody in the class questioned
that.

It was probably based upon the effect of a fragmented drive.

 

[Rod Speed]

It was probably based upon the effect of a fragmented drive.

Pity it was always pure pig ignorant bullshit even if it was.

 

[McSpreader]

This was thrown at me by a teacher of an NT class as one of a
zillion factoids that we had to learn. At the time nobody in the
class questioned that.

IMO the factoid is OK-ish, the reasonoid is BS.

It makes good sense to allow headroom in the space utilisation of
a drive to cope with transient peaks of demand. This is
particularly true of the system drive of a heavily used system e.g.
a server. The reasoning is that it's wise to avoid exhausting all
free space, which could be expected as a minimum to impact system
performance - more likely to crash apps, services, the o/s, and
risk data integrity. Housekeeping activities, e.g. backups and
defragging, usually require a fair amount of free space in which to
work efficiently.

 

[Mike Redrobe]

Some years back, in a networking class. I was told that the maximum
percentage that a hard drive or a volume could be filled is 80
percent, because otherwise you would end up getting excessive wear on
the hard drive.

Utter drivel.

Or did that only apply to the drive containing the system volume?

The only grain of truth is that you need a certain amount of free space on
a drive to defragment it.

Possibly that myth started by telling poeple to always keep some space
free on their C: drive since windows won't start up or will crash if it has
too small a swap file, or no space for temporary files when printing etc.

As far as excessive wear is concerned, all you have to worry about is
heat and physical shock.

I remember once being told heavy usage would wear a track out
on the hard disk ! I think these people think of hdds like a vinyl record

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

IMO the factoid is OK-ish, the reasonoid is BS.

It makes good sense to allow headroom in the space utilisation of
a drive to cope with transient peaks of demand. This is particularly
true of the system drive of a heavily used system e.g. a server.

The reasoning is that it's wise to avoid exhausting all free space,
which could be expected as a minimum to impact system performance
- more likely to crash apps, services, the o/s, and risk data integrity.
Housekeeping activities, e.g. backups and defragging, usually require
a fair amount of free space in which to work efficiently.

And this has what exactly to do with "a heavily used system e.g. a server"?

And why would 2 GB free space be enough for a 10GB drive but not for a
100GB drive?

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Utter drivel.


The only grain of truth is that you need a certain amount of free space on
a drive to defragment it.

But it's not 20%.

Possibly that myth started by telling poeple to always keep some space
free on their C: drive since windows won't start up or will crash if it has
too small a swap file, or no space for temporary files when printing etc.

As far as excessive wear is concerned, all you have to worry about is

and physical shock.

I remember once being told heavy usage would wear a track out
on the hard disk !

I think these people think of hdds like a vinyl record

The comparison isn't that far off.

Both readers produce heat in the media.
If nothing is done about it, continuous use of a track can overheat that
track. Harddisk drives will continously move the heads to avoid that a
head stays over the same track too long. Depending on how smart the OS
software or disk firmware is it is conceivable that application software
can keep the heads at the same track for far too long and overheat it.

 

[Arno Wagner]

Some years back, in a networking class. I was told that the maximum
percentage that a hard drive or a volume could be filled is 80 percent,
because otherwise you would end up getting excessive wear on the hard drive.
Does that limit still apply? Or did that only apply to the drive containing
the system volume? What about a storage hard drive soley used for storing
data?

Depends on your access pattern and filesystem. However today HDD head
movements are not a primary wear concern. Depending on filesystem,
access pattern and file sizes you may experience slow access
(defragmenting helps) and increased drive heat production. If the
drive is cooled as per its specifications, this is not a problem.

From personal experience, large numbers of small files may be
problematic, regardless of filesystem and drive fill degree
on FAT filesystems. I have had no issues with ext2/ext3 even
when filled 100%. I have no idea how NTFS does.

Arno

 

[Odie]

Both readers produce heat in the media.
If nothing is done about it, continuous use of a track can overheat that
track. Harddisk drives will continously move the heads to avoid that a
head stays over the same track too long. Depending on how smart the OS
software or disk firmware is it is conceivable that application software
can keep the heads at the same track for far too long and overheat it.

Folkert,

I would *love* to quote your diatribe on my new website-to-be.

May I? I will, of course, provide microscopic photographic evidence
detailing this phenomenon of air-borne heads overheating the platters to
the extent that damage may occur. Infra-red photography and possibly
micro-photon photography will naturally pick up all these nuances your
remit details. And, naturally, I will quote you as the source of such
genius. (May I quote the company of which you are an employee? I'm
sure it will enhance their reputation as a leader in their field.)


Odie (Sorry - *Duncan*)

 

[Arno Wagner]

Fascinating! I guess we will have to move to liquid-cooled heads
to avoid this. Also I am quite worried that HDDs misaligned to
galactic rotation will also suffer from track overheating as a
consequence. That effect may be as large as the one you describe!

Arno

Folkert,

 

[Odie]

Fascinating! I guess we will have to move to liquid-cooled heads
to avoid this. Also I am quite worried that HDDs misaligned to
galactic rotation will also suffer from track overheating as a
consequence. That effect may be as large as the one you describe!

Arno, don't be silly. It will have to be liquid-cooled platters.

I would have thought you'd have known better!!!!

Perhaps Folkrent would like to see platters and heads totally submerged
in some exotic cooling liquid.

Don't suppose it's entirely impossible, though...


Odie

 

[Bob Willard]

Arno, don't be silly. It will have to be liquid-cooled platters.

I would have thought you'd have known better!!!!

Perhaps Folkrent would like to see platters and heads totally submerged
in some exotic cooling liquid.

Don't suppose it's entirely impossible, though...


Odie

Uh, it's been done. In the late 60's and into the 70's we used HDs which
were sealed, with the heads and disks in helium; pretty good at removing
the heat, but rather hard to stop the leaks.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Uh, it's been done. In the late 60's and into the 70's we used HDs which
were sealed, with the heads and disks in helium; pretty good at removing
the heat, but rather hard to stop the leaks.

Bob, would you please not piss on smelly's and babblehead's party.
It takes all the fun out of it. Thank you.

 

[Odie]

Bob, would you please not piss on smelly's and babblehead's party.
It takes all the fun out of it. Thank you.

Coming from a man who's the life and soul of any party!

Hi, Folkert. Nice break?


Duncan

 

[chrisv]

Coming from a man who's the life and soul of any party!

I don't know... Maybe after a couple beers he stops scrutinizing
everyone else for imperfections... 8)

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

I don't know... Maybe after a couple beers he stops scrutinizing
everyone else for imperfections... 8)

Funny you say that when it was Bob who actually made them look poor.
(I'll guess that Bob just joined babblehead's crowded killfile now too)

I left them both in their obvious delusions that they think they spotted
a wrong in what I wrote.

Obviously babblehead is so utterly stupid that when smellie the troll
" I think I'm a harddrive recovery specialist, therefor I am"
just 'thinks' I was talking utter BS he then could safely join the party.

Isn't it always nice to see people who obviously can't
control themselves make a fool out of themselves.