M
Mingo
Just bought a new external HD.
What would be the best partition amount?
500gb x 2?
250gb x 4 ? or keep it 1 TB?
TIA.
What would be the best partition amount?
500gb x 2?
250gb x 4 ? or keep it 1 TB?
TIA.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
M
Mingo
THX Sheesh for the reply!
By the way, does making many partition reduce the life span of the HD?
"Rob Talley" <[email protected]>
???????:[email protected]...
| On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 12:01:43 +0800, "Mingo"
|
| >Just bought a new external HD.
| >What would be the best partition amount?
|
| Whatever you want or think you need. It can always be changed later.
|
| Sheesh.
By the way, does making many partition reduce the life span of the HD?
"Rob Talley" <[email protected]>
???????:[email protected]...
| On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 12:01:43 +0800, "Mingo"
|
| >Just bought a new external HD.
| >What would be the best partition amount?
|
| Whatever you want or think you need. It can always be changed later.
|
| Sheesh.
K
Ken Blake, MVP
Just bought a new external HD.
What would be the best partition amount?
500gb x 2?
250gb x 4 ? or keep it 1 TB?
There's no general answer to this question that's right for everybody.
The answer depends on *your* plans for what you are going to use it
for, and you haven't told us anything about that.
That said, for most people, a single partition is usually best, but
what's best in your case, I don't know.
B
Bruce Chambers
Mingo said:Just bought a new external HD.
What would be the best partition amount?
How could we possibly know? What are *you* going to be using the drive
for? Why do you think it needs more than one partition, anyway?
--
Bruce Chambers
Help us help you:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin
Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell
The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot
T
Twayne
Just bought a new external HD.
As others have indicated, there isn't really any rule of thumb for it
since it mostly depends on what you want to use it for. I can give you
a few of my opinions, but that's all they are is my own opinions and
nothing more.
With judicious use of folder naming, so you don't have too long a list
of folders, you only need one partition. The biggest danger of a drive
that large is poor housekeeping and in a few months not being able to
find anything in that huge, long list of folders. e.g. WHERE did I put
those letters to widget.com for my rebates? Where did I put the pics of
my gram? I wonder if I ever saved blah-blah, and so on. Using Search
on that large a drive can be a pretty lengthy process, so you need to
develop a meaningful set of folder names.
On the other hand, multiple partitions can be handy for keeping
certain kinds of data completely separated. Since it's an external
drive, I'd assume you want to keep your backups on it. In that case I
might either:
-- Create a Folder called BACKUPS or whatever name is good for me.
-- Or I might create a partition just for backups, say it turns out to
be drive F:\, and I'd set all my backup software to write to that drive.
Nice; no folders to remember, no paths; just F:\.
Now maybe I want to be sure all my digital photographs are all in one
place. So, I can either:
-- Create a Folder called PICTURES, or
-- Create a partition, name it the G:\ drive, and have all the grouping
for my pictures under that one main folder.
If you do it all with Folders, does the list of folders get too long to
be conveniently manageable? Personally I shoot for one screen's length
as the maximum size for my top level folders. If it turns out I have a
lot more than that, making it harder to manage/see what's there, then I
might consider making a separate partition, each of which has as its
root folder, everything visible on one screen without scrolling. So, I
might end up with:
-- BACKUPS Nothing but backups; Drives, Address Book, email
addresses, Favorites, etc. etc. etc.., including other stuff on THIS
drive so I cana put a full backup on DVDs.
-- IMAGES, and within that I have Pictures, with Mom & Dad, Brother,
Sis, vacation, internet, etc. as folders under the IMAGES folder (or in
the parititon's drive letter).
-- FINANCIALS, anything to do with money. This one is encruypted, and
I DID make sure I exported my security codes when I encrypted that
folder (or Partition).
-- DOWNLOADS, for anything/everything I've ever downloaded from the
internet; applications, utilities, spyware, etc., all in one handy place
in a folder (or partition's folders).
-- And so one.
Somewhere, somehow, there is a method that will work for you. Grab a
sheet of paper and visualize the Folders you'll want to create. Is it
worth it to separate them by drive letters? Or can it all be done with
folders? Remember, whatever you do should be such that it's somethign
you can REMEMBER 6 months down the road, and that will make sense to
you.
Some perceived advantages of partitions:
-- Faster searches since there is less to search
-- faster defrags since it can be done on a drive by drive basis & not
all drives may need fragmenting very often.
-- Drives hold less; less to peruse at your leisure when just "checking
what you've got".
-- Have to remember to give drive letters meaningful names after
creating them, in addition to the drive letter.
Some perceived advantages of folders only:
-- More than 2 partitions requires 3rd party software.
-- Can make any changes to them without either losing any data, and no
3rd party app to keep updated & handy.
-- No worry about creating/deleting/modifying partitions as required.
-- Easier to create/delete/modify structures.
-- One defrag does everything, although it takes a little longer.
-- Folder names are easier to remember than drive letter contents.
I'm sure you can add to that list if you wished. See Wikipedia for some
better info & ideas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backup
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:File_system_management
There are lots more info sites available with a few searches.
HTH
Twayne
What would be the best partition amount?
500gb x 2?
250gb x 4 ? or keep it 1 TB?
TIA.
As others have indicated, there isn't really any rule of thumb for it
since it mostly depends on what you want to use it for. I can give you
a few of my opinions, but that's all they are is my own opinions and
nothing more.
With judicious use of folder naming, so you don't have too long a list
of folders, you only need one partition. The biggest danger of a drive
that large is poor housekeeping and in a few months not being able to
find anything in that huge, long list of folders. e.g. WHERE did I put
those letters to widget.com for my rebates? Where did I put the pics of
my gram? I wonder if I ever saved blah-blah, and so on. Using Search
on that large a drive can be a pretty lengthy process, so you need to
develop a meaningful set of folder names.
On the other hand, multiple partitions can be handy for keeping
certain kinds of data completely separated. Since it's an external
drive, I'd assume you want to keep your backups on it. In that case I
might either:
-- Create a Folder called BACKUPS or whatever name is good for me.
-- Or I might create a partition just for backups, say it turns out to
be drive F:\, and I'd set all my backup software to write to that drive.
Nice; no folders to remember, no paths; just F:\.
Now maybe I want to be sure all my digital photographs are all in one
place. So, I can either:
-- Create a Folder called PICTURES, or
-- Create a partition, name it the G:\ drive, and have all the grouping
for my pictures under that one main folder.
If you do it all with Folders, does the list of folders get too long to
be conveniently manageable? Personally I shoot for one screen's length
as the maximum size for my top level folders. If it turns out I have a
lot more than that, making it harder to manage/see what's there, then I
might consider making a separate partition, each of which has as its
root folder, everything visible on one screen without scrolling. So, I
might end up with:
-- BACKUPS Nothing but backups; Drives, Address Book, email
addresses, Favorites, etc. etc. etc.., including other stuff on THIS
drive so I cana put a full backup on DVDs.
-- IMAGES, and within that I have Pictures, with Mom & Dad, Brother,
Sis, vacation, internet, etc. as folders under the IMAGES folder (or in
the parititon's drive letter).
-- FINANCIALS, anything to do with money. This one is encruypted, and
I DID make sure I exported my security codes when I encrypted that
folder (or Partition).
-- DOWNLOADS, for anything/everything I've ever downloaded from the
internet; applications, utilities, spyware, etc., all in one handy place
in a folder (or partition's folders).
-- And so one.
Somewhere, somehow, there is a method that will work for you. Grab a
sheet of paper and visualize the Folders you'll want to create. Is it
worth it to separate them by drive letters? Or can it all be done with
folders? Remember, whatever you do should be such that it's somethign
you can REMEMBER 6 months down the road, and that will make sense to
you.
Some perceived advantages of partitions:
-- Faster searches since there is less to search
-- faster defrags since it can be done on a drive by drive basis & not
all drives may need fragmenting very often.
-- Drives hold less; less to peruse at your leisure when just "checking
what you've got".
-- Have to remember to give drive letters meaningful names after
creating them, in addition to the drive letter.
Some perceived advantages of folders only:
-- More than 2 partitions requires 3rd party software.
-- Can make any changes to them without either losing any data, and no
3rd party app to keep updated & handy.
-- No worry about creating/deleting/modifying partitions as required.
-- Easier to create/delete/modify structures.
-- One defrag does everything, although it takes a little longer.
-- Folder names are easier to remember than drive letter contents.
I'm sure you can add to that list if you wished. See Wikipedia for some
better info & ideas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backup
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:File_system_management
There are lots more info sites available with a few searches.
HTH
Twayne
U
Unknown
Yes it will but, totally insignificantly.
Rob Talley said:You're probably the first - ONLY - person to have ever thought of
asking that question. How could it?
M
Mingo
Hello Twayne,
Thank you very much for the info.
Mingo
"Twayne" <[email protected]> ¼¶¼g©ó¶l¥ó·s»D:[email protected]...
|> Just bought a new external HD.
| > What would be the best partition amount?
| >
| > 500gb x 2?
| > 250gb x 4 ? or keep it 1 TB?
| >
| > TIA.
|
| As others have indicated, there isn't really any rule of thumb for it
| since it mostly depends on what you want to use it for. I can give you
| a few of my opinions, but that's all they are is my own opinions and
| nothing more.
|
| With judicious use of folder naming, so you don't have too long a list
| of folders, you only need one partition. The biggest danger of a drive
| that large is poor housekeeping and in a few months not being able to
| find anything in that huge, long list of folders. e.g. WHERE did I put
| those letters to widget.com for my rebates? Where did I put the pics of
| my gram? I wonder if I ever saved blah-blah, and so on. Using Search
| on that large a drive can be a pretty lengthy process, so you need to
| develop a meaningful set of folder names.
| On the other hand, multiple partitions can be handy for keeping
| certain kinds of data completely separated. Since it's an external
| drive, I'd assume you want to keep your backups on it. In that case I
| might either:
| -- Create a Folder called BACKUPS or whatever name is good for me.
| -- Or I might create a partition just for backups, say it turns out to
| be drive F:\, and I'd set all my backup software to write to that drive.
| Nice; no folders to remember, no paths; just F:\.
|
| Now maybe I want to be sure all my digital photographs are all in one
| place. So, I can either:
| -- Create a Folder called PICTURES, or
| -- Create a partition, name it the G:\ drive, and have all the grouping
| for my pictures under that one main folder.
|
| If you do it all with Folders, does the list of folders get too long to
| be conveniently manageable? Personally I shoot for one screen's length
| as the maximum size for my top level folders. If it turns out I have a
| lot more than that, making it harder to manage/see what's there, then I
| might consider making a separate partition, each of which has as its
| root folder, everything visible on one screen without scrolling. So, I
| might end up with:
| -- BACKUPS Nothing but backups; Drives, Address Book, email
| addresses, Favorites, etc. etc. etc.., including other stuff on THIS
| drive so I cana put a full backup on DVDs.
| -- IMAGES, and within that I have Pictures, with Mom & Dad, Brother,
| Sis, vacation, internet, etc. as folders under the IMAGES folder (or in
| the parititon's drive letter).
| -- FINANCIALS, anything to do with money. This one is encruypted, and
| I DID make sure I exported my security codes when I encrypted that
| folder (or Partition).
| -- DOWNLOADS, for anything/everything I've ever downloaded from the
| internet; applications, utilities, spyware, etc., all in one handy place
| in a folder (or partition's folders).
| -- And so one.
| Somewhere, somehow, there is a method that will work for you. Grab a
| sheet of paper and visualize the Folders you'll want to create. Is it
| worth it to separate them by drive letters? Or can it all be done with
| folders? Remember, whatever you do should be such that it's somethign
| you can REMEMBER 6 months down the road, and that will make sense to
| you.
|
| Some perceived advantages of partitions:
| -- Faster searches since there is less to search
| -- faster defrags since it can be done on a drive by drive basis & not
| all drives may need fragmenting very often.
| -- Drives hold less; less to peruse at your leisure when just "checking
| what you've got".
| -- Have to remember to give drive letters meaningful names after
| creating them, in addition to the drive letter.
|
|
| Some perceived advantages of folders only:
| -- More than 2 partitions requires 3rd party software.
| -- Can make any changes to them without either losing any data, and no
| 3rd party app to keep updated & handy.
| -- No worry about creating/deleting/modifying partitions as required.
| -- Easier to create/delete/modify structures.
| -- One defrag does everything, although it takes a little longer.
| -- Folder names are easier to remember than drive letter contents.
|
| I'm sure you can add to that list if you wished. See Wikipedia for some
| better info & ideas:
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backup
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folders
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:File_system_management
|
| There are lots more info sites available with a few searches.
|
| HTH
|
| Twayne
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you very much for the info.
Mingo
"Twayne" <[email protected]> ¼¶¼g©ó¶l¥ó·s»D:[email protected]...
|> Just bought a new external HD.
| > What would be the best partition amount?
| >
| > 500gb x 2?
| > 250gb x 4 ? or keep it 1 TB?
| >
| > TIA.
|
| As others have indicated, there isn't really any rule of thumb for it
| since it mostly depends on what you want to use it for. I can give you
| a few of my opinions, but that's all they are is my own opinions and
| nothing more.
|
| With judicious use of folder naming, so you don't have too long a list
| of folders, you only need one partition. The biggest danger of a drive
| that large is poor housekeeping and in a few months not being able to
| find anything in that huge, long list of folders. e.g. WHERE did I put
| those letters to widget.com for my rebates? Where did I put the pics of
| my gram? I wonder if I ever saved blah-blah, and so on. Using Search
| on that large a drive can be a pretty lengthy process, so you need to
| develop a meaningful set of folder names.
| On the other hand, multiple partitions can be handy for keeping
| certain kinds of data completely separated. Since it's an external
| drive, I'd assume you want to keep your backups on it. In that case I
| might either:
| -- Create a Folder called BACKUPS or whatever name is good for me.
| -- Or I might create a partition just for backups, say it turns out to
| be drive F:\, and I'd set all my backup software to write to that drive.
| Nice; no folders to remember, no paths; just F:\.
|
| Now maybe I want to be sure all my digital photographs are all in one
| place. So, I can either:
| -- Create a Folder called PICTURES, or
| -- Create a partition, name it the G:\ drive, and have all the grouping
| for my pictures under that one main folder.
|
| If you do it all with Folders, does the list of folders get too long to
| be conveniently manageable? Personally I shoot for one screen's length
| as the maximum size for my top level folders. If it turns out I have a
| lot more than that, making it harder to manage/see what's there, then I
| might consider making a separate partition, each of which has as its
| root folder, everything visible on one screen without scrolling. So, I
| might end up with:
| -- BACKUPS Nothing but backups; Drives, Address Book, email
| addresses, Favorites, etc. etc. etc.., including other stuff on THIS
| drive so I cana put a full backup on DVDs.
| -- IMAGES, and within that I have Pictures, with Mom & Dad, Brother,
| Sis, vacation, internet, etc. as folders under the IMAGES folder (or in
| the parititon's drive letter).
| -- FINANCIALS, anything to do with money. This one is encruypted, and
| I DID make sure I exported my security codes when I encrypted that
| folder (or Partition).
| -- DOWNLOADS, for anything/everything I've ever downloaded from the
| internet; applications, utilities, spyware, etc., all in one handy place
| in a folder (or partition's folders).
| -- And so one.
| Somewhere, somehow, there is a method that will work for you. Grab a
| sheet of paper and visualize the Folders you'll want to create. Is it
| worth it to separate them by drive letters? Or can it all be done with
| folders? Remember, whatever you do should be such that it's somethign
| you can REMEMBER 6 months down the road, and that will make sense to
| you.
|
| Some perceived advantages of partitions:
| -- Faster searches since there is less to search
| -- faster defrags since it can be done on a drive by drive basis & not
| all drives may need fragmenting very often.
| -- Drives hold less; less to peruse at your leisure when just "checking
| what you've got".
| -- Have to remember to give drive letters meaningful names after
| creating them, in addition to the drive letter.
|
|
| Some perceived advantages of folders only:
| -- More than 2 partitions requires 3rd party software.
| -- Can make any changes to them without either losing any data, and no
| 3rd party app to keep updated & handy.
| -- No worry about creating/deleting/modifying partitions as required.
| -- Easier to create/delete/modify structures.
| -- One defrag does everything, although it takes a little longer.
| -- Folder names are easier to remember than drive letter contents.
|
| I'm sure you can add to that list if you wished. See Wikipedia for some
| better info & ideas:
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backup
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folders
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:File_system_management
|
| There are lots more info sites available with a few searches.
|
| HTH
|
| Twayne
|
|
|
|
|
M
Mingo
Is 1TB made of two disk 500GB x 2? Would it be best to divided it 500gb
each?
"Unknown" <[email protected]> ¼¶¼g©ó¶l¥ó·s»D:ega5l.11042$x%[email protected]...
| Yes it will but, totally insignificantly.
| | > On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:59:32 +0800, "Mingo"
| >
| >>THX Sheesh for the reply!
| >>
| >>By the way, does making many partition reduce the life span of the HD?
| >
| > You're probably the first - ONLY - person to have ever thought of
| > asking that question. How could it?
I bought 3 year ago a second 3.5" 250GB which I divided into 50GB x 5
partitions. I mainly use it for storing photos and downloads. Resently i'm
having a lot of problem with it. (bad cluster and making wierd sounds )
My main HD 80GB which i partitioned (40GBx2) (use it for gaming and works)
is 5 years old and still working fine.
Because my first HD is lasting longuer than my second HD. That why I'm
thinkin' the life span is reduced due to the many partition I created.
each?
"Unknown" <[email protected]> ¼¶¼g©ó¶l¥ó·s»D:ega5l.11042$x%[email protected]...
| Yes it will but, totally insignificantly.
| | > On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:59:32 +0800, "Mingo"
| >
| >>THX Sheesh for the reply!
| >>
| >>By the way, does making many partition reduce the life span of the HD?
| >
| > You're probably the first - ONLY - person to have ever thought of
| > asking that question. How could it?
I bought 3 year ago a second 3.5" 250GB which I divided into 50GB x 5
partitions. I mainly use it for storing photos and downloads. Resently i'm
having a lot of problem with it. (bad cluster and making wierd sounds )
My main HD 80GB which i partitioned (40GBx2) (use it for gaming and works)
is 5 years old and still working fine.
Because my first HD is lasting longuer than my second HD. That why I'm
thinkin' the life span is reduced due to the many partition I created.
L
Leonard Grey
The number of physical disks in a hard drive has no connection to the
number of partitions you choose to create.
The number of partitions on a hard disk does not affect its lifespan.
number of partitions you choose to create.
The number of partitions on a hard disk does not affect its lifespan.
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.