Hairsplitting partition questions

[Arie123]

hi,

I've decided to replace my old hard disk with a new 160 GB one, in an
attempt to get some more years out of my PC. I will be installing XP Home
Edition on it.

My questions:
- If it's smart to create a separate partition for XP (I mean exclusively
for the OS), how big should I make it?
- Is it overly geeky to create a separate partition for virtual memory? Will
that produce a noticeable performance increase or is that slightly
overzealous?
- In addition I would like to have separate partitions for my program files,
my music files and also for my pictures. How should I go about deciding on
primary or extended partitions?

Thanks.

 

[Pegasus \(MVP\)]

*** See below.

hi,

I've decided to replace my old hard disk with a new 160 GB one, in an
attempt to get some more years out of my PC. I will be installing XP Home
Edition on it.

My questions:
- If it's smart to create a separate partition for XP (I mean exclusively
for the OS), how big should I make it?

*** I strongly recommend this: Not only for the OS but also
*** for all apps. Make it 20 GBytes. Keep your data elsewhere
*** so that you can create image files of your system partition,
*** e.g. with Acronis TrueImage or with Ghost.

- Is it overly geeky to create a separate partition for virtual memory?
Will
that produce a noticeable performance increase or is that slightly
overzealous?

*** I think it's over the top but I have no measurements
*** to back it up.

- In addition I would like to have separate partitions for my program
files,
my music files and also for my pictures. How should I go about deciding on
primary or extended partitions?

*** I would not mix program files (see above) and data files.
*** Data files can grow enormously - they should be on a
*** dedicated data partition.
*** Use primary partitions if you need 4 or fewer. Use logical
*** drives if you need more than four. Note that if you have
*** lots of partitions you are very likely to run out of space
*** on some of them. Two should suffice.

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

When performing a clean install, Microsoft recommends that NTFS be used
and that the system be installed in a single partition on each disk. Under
Windows XP, big partitions are better managed than in previous versions
of Windows. Forcing installed software into several partitions on the disk
necessitates longer seeks when running the system and software.

Benchmarking on Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/benchmark.mspx


NTFS Preinstallation and Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/winpreinst/ntfs-preinstall.mspx



--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User

---------------------------------------------------------------

hi,

I've decided to replace my old hard disk with a new 160 GB one, in an
attempt to get some more years out of my PC. I will be installing XP Home
Edition on it.

My questions:
- If it's smart to create a separate partition for XP (I mean exclusively
for the OS), how big should I make it?
- Is it overly geeky to create a separate partition for virtual memory? Will
that produce a noticeable performance increase or is that slightly
overzealous?
- In addition I would like to have separate partitions for my program files,
my music files and also for my pictures. How should I go about deciding on
primary or extended partitions?

Thanks.

 

[Arie123]

OK, thanks, to see see whether I have understood it well:

- I should keep XP and program files on the same partition (20 GB), Windows
XP is actually designed to work with one big partition.
- I should keep data on a deparate, dedicated partition.
- I should disregard the article "How to move the paging file in Windows XP"
(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307886) about the performance increase
achieved by moving the paging file.

 

[Pegasus \(MVP\)]

This would be my recommendation. However, different
people have different preferences. If you wanted to move
the paging file then you should carry out some experiments
(or get more opinions) before committing yourself.

 

[Anna]

hi,

I've decided to replace my old hard disk with a new 160 GB one, in an
attempt to get some more years out of my PC. I will be installing XP Home
Edition on it.

My questions:
- If it's smart to create a separate partition for XP (I mean exclusively
for the OS), how big should I make it?
- Is it overly geeky to create a separate partition for virtual memory?
Will
that produce a noticeable performance increase or is that slightly
overzealous?
- In addition I would like to have separate partitions for my program
files,
my music files and also for my pictures. How should I go about deciding on
primary or extended partitions?

Thanks.

Arie123:
Just let me add the following comments to the one's you've already received
and no doubt will be receiving...

This issue of organizing one's day-to-day working HDD, i.e., creating
multi-partitions to determine whether the segregating of the operating
system from programs & applications as well as creating individual
partitions for this or that major block of programs, has been discussed and
argued about for more years than I care to remember. Ditto for "memory
management" and "page file" manipulation issues. When all is said & done no
clear-cut answers have emerged from all these discussions/debates.

For what it's worth let me submit my comments based upon our experience with
a few thousand home & small-business users & PC systems over the years (and
with particular reference to the XP OS environment)...

It seems to me your *primary* focus should be on creating & maintaining a
routine systematic backup program. One that is comprehensive in scope so
that in the event that your day-to-day working HDD becomes defective or
dysfunctional for any reason (physical - software corruption, etc.), you
will have at hand media, e.g., another HDD, containing your OS, all your
programs & applications, all your user-created data, etc. So that you will
be able to easily & effectively return your system to a bootable, functional
state.

In our experience, partitioning one's day-to-day HDD for the desired purpose
of achieving some sort of security should things go awry is all too often "a
will-o-the-wisp". What is vital (in our opinion) is what I've stated in the
preceding paragraph.

In our experience with the XP OS environment, there is nothing to be gained
in terms of increasing operational effectiveness and/or speed of operations
by virtually any user tampering with XP's management of memory or page file
manipulations. Indeed, we run into more problems involving instability of
operations because users have done so. It is true that in a few - a precious
few - instances there is something to be gained by user manipulation
involving these areas but the instances are so few & far behind that it's
hardly worth discussing for the vast majority of PC users. The bottom line
in all this - at least our bottom line - is leave well enough alone, i.e.,
let XP manage these things.

Now, having said all this...

If you are more comfortable with the notion of installing your XP OS on a
single, discrete partition and similarly prefer to "house" your programs, e.
g., games, music, photos, etc., in major blocks (partitions), then by all
means do so. No great tragedy will ensue. Just realize that no truly
substantive security nor any appreciable efficiency of operations will
result from that type of organization. But if you feel or determine that
this organization simplifies *your* day-to-day PC operations, then by all
means go for it.

But I hope you will take my comments to heart as it pertains to establishing
& maintaining a comprehensive backup system perhaps using one of the popular
disk-cloning or disk-imaging programs. This should be your *first* order of
business. All that follows is conversation.
Anna

 

[Arie123]

Thanks, Anna, for that thorough answer.

Arie123:
Just let me add the following comments to the one's you've already received
and no doubt will be receiving...

This issue of organizing one's day-to-day working HDD, i.e., creating
multi-partitions to determine whether the segregating of the operating
system from programs & applications as well as creating individual
partitions for this or that major block of programs, has been discussed and
argued about for more years than I care to remember. Ditto for "memory
management" and "page file" manipulation issues. When all is said & done no
clear-cut answers have emerged from all these discussions/debates.

For what it's worth let me submit my comments based upon our experience with
a few thousand home & small-business users & PC systems over the years (and
with particular reference to the XP OS environment)...

It seems to me your *primary* focus should be on creating & maintaining a
routine systematic backup program. One that is comprehensive in scope so
that in the event that your day-to-day working HDD becomes defective or
dysfunctional for any reason (physical - software corruption, etc.), you
will have at hand media, e.g., another HDD, containing your OS, all your
programs & applications, all your user-created data, etc. So that you will
be able to easily & effectively return your system to a bootable, functional
state.

In our experience, partitioning one's day-to-day HDD for the desired purpose
of achieving some sort of security should things go awry is all too often "a
will-o-the-wisp". What is vital (in our opinion) is what I've stated in the
preceding paragraph.

In our experience with the XP OS environment, there is nothing to be gained
in terms of increasing operational effectiveness and/or speed of operations
by virtually any user tampering with XP's management of memory or page file
manipulations. Indeed, we run into more problems involving instability of
operations because users have done so. It is true that in a few - a precious
few - instances there is something to be gained by user manipulation
involving these areas but the instances are so few & far behind that it's
hardly worth discussing for the vast majority of PC users. The bottom line
in all this - at least our bottom line - is leave well enough alone, i.e.,
let XP manage these things.

Now, having said all this...

If you are more comfortable with the notion of installing your XP OS on a
single, discrete partition and similarly prefer to "house" your programs, e.
g., games, music, photos, etc., in major blocks (partitions), then by all
means do so. No great tragedy will ensue. Just realize that no truly
substantive security nor any appreciable efficiency of operations will
result from that type of organization. But if you feel or determine that
this organization simplifies *your* day-to-day PC operations, then by all
means go for it.

But I hope you will take my comments to heart as it pertains to establishing
& maintaining a comprehensive backup system perhaps using one of the popular
disk-cloning or disk-imaging programs. This should be your *first* order of
business. All that follows is conversation.
Anna

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

hi,

I've decided to replace my old hard disk with a new 160 GB one, in an
attempt to get some more years out of my PC. I will be installing XP Home
Edition on it.

My questions:
- If it's smart to create a separate partition for XP (I mean exclusively
for the OS), how big should I make it?

Here are some general thoughts on how to partition:

I think many people over-partition, but that doesn't mean it's always
bad to have more than one partition. My view is that most people's
partitioning scheme should be based on their backup scheme. If, for
example, you backup by creating a clone or image of the entire drive,
then a single partition might be best. If, on the other hand, you
backup only your data, then the backup process is facilitated by
having all data in a separate partition.

Except for those running multiple operating systems, there is seldom
any benefit to having more than two partitions. Note the word "seldom"
rather than "never." I'm sure there are many exceptions.

Some people make a separate partition for installed programs, because
they think that separating programs from Windows will let them
reinstall Windows and keep their installed programs. That's false,
since all installed programs (except for an occasional trivial one)
have pointers to them within Windows, in the registry and elsewhere.
So if Windows goes, the pointers go with it. Since programs have to be
reinstalled if Windows does, this rationale for a separate partition
for programs doesn't work.

Some people erroneously think that having the page file on a separate
partition will improve performance. That of course is also false; it
hurts performance, because it increases head movement to get back and
forth from the page file to the other frequently-used data on the
drive. For best performance, the page file should normally be on the
most-used partition of your least-used physical drive. For most
people, that's C:.

Some people make a separate partition to store backups of their other
partition(s). People who rely on such a "backup" are just kidding
themselves. It's only very slightly better than no backup at all,
because it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original
and backup to many of the most common dangers: head crashes and other
kinds of drive failure, 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.

Separating different kinds of files on partitions is a organizational
technique, but so is separating different kinds of files in folders.
The difference is that partitions are static and fixed in size (their
size can only be changed with special third-party software), while
folders are dynamic, changing size automatically as necessary to meet
your changing needs. That generally makes folders a much better way to
organize, in my view.

What frequently happens when people organize with partitions instead
of folders is that they miscalculate how much room they need on each
such partition, and then when they run out of room on the partition
where a file logically belongs, while still having lots of space left
on the other, they simply store the file in the "wrong" partition.
Paradoxically, therefore, that kind of partition structure results in
*less* organization rather than more.

- Is it overly geeky to create a separate partition for virtual memory? Will
that produce a noticeable performance increase or is that slightly
overzealous?

Worse, it's counterproductive, and will *hurt* performance, rather
than improve it. See above.

- In addition I would like to have separate partitions for my program files,

Almost always a mistake, in my view. See above.

my music files and also for my pictures.

Why? In my view that too is almost always a mistake. Music and
pictures are just simply special kinds of data and should normally be
kept with the rest of your data. See the last two paragraphs above.

How should I go about deciding on
primary or extended partitions?

Normally you have one primary partition. Everything else is a logical
drive in an extended partition.

 

[Pegasus \(MVP\)]

Here are some general thoughts on how to partition:

I think many people over-partition, but that doesn't mean it's always
bad to have more than one partition. My view is that most people's
partitioning scheme should be based on their backup scheme. If, for
example, you backup by creating a clone or image of the entire drive,
then a single partition might be best. If, on the other hand, you
backup only your data, then the backup process is facilitated by
having all data in a separate partition.

Except for those running multiple operating systems, there is seldom
any benefit to having more than two partitions. Note the word "seldom"
rather than "never." I'm sure there are many exceptions.

Some people make a separate partition for installed programs, because
they think that separating programs from Windows will let them
reinstall Windows and keep their installed programs. That's false,
since all installed programs (except for an occasional trivial one)
have pointers to them within Windows, in the registry and elsewhere.
So if Windows goes, the pointers go with it. Since programs have to be
reinstalled if Windows does, this rationale for a separate partition
for programs doesn't work.

Some people erroneously think that having the page file on a separate
partition will improve performance. That of course is also false; it
hurts performance, because it increases head movement to get back and
forth from the page file to the other frequently-used data on the
drive. For best performance, the page file should normally be on the
most-used partition of your least-used physical drive. For most
people, that's C:.

Some people make a separate partition to store backups of their other
partition(s). People who rely on such a "backup" are just kidding
themselves. It's only very slightly better than no backup at all,
because it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original
and backup to many of the most common dangers: head crashes and other
kinds of drive failure, 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.

Separating different kinds of files on partitions is a organizational
technique, but so is separating different kinds of files in folders.
The difference is that partitions are static and fixed in size (their
size can only be changed with special third-party software), while
folders are dynamic, changing size automatically as necessary to meet
your changing needs. That generally makes folders a much better way to
organize, in my view.

What frequently happens when people organize with partitions instead
of folders is that they miscalculate how much room they need on each
such partition, and then when they run out of room on the partition
where a file logically belongs, while still having lots of space left
on the other, they simply store the file in the "wrong" partition.
Paradoxically, therefore, that kind of partition structure results in
*less* organization rather than more.




Worse, it's counterproductive, and will *hurt* performance, rather
than improve it. See above.




Almost always a mistake, in my view. See above.




Why? In my view that too is almost always a mistake. Music and
pictures are just simply special kinds of data and should normally be
kept with the rest of your data. See the last two paragraphs above.




Normally you have one primary partition. Everything else is a logical
drive in an extended partition.

Well said - you put it much better than I did. One query though:
What difference does it make whether the OP keeps his data on
a second primary partition or on a logical drive? I would have
said "none whatsoever".

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Well said - you put it much better than I did.

Thanks very much.

One query though:
What difference does it make whether the OP keeps his data on
a second primary partition or on a logical drive? I would have
said "none whatsoever".

I was only describing what the usual partitioning setup is.

 

[Dave Cohen]

Thanks, Anna, for that thorough answer.

Well, I'm glad you got something from that.
1). If your machine is as old as I assume, that 160gb drive may not be
fully accessible by the bios. It will probably work ok up to the bios
limit which is probably a little less than 130gb, but there may be some
risk. There again you may be lucky and have a sufficiently recent bios.
2). I use and recommend a separate partition for winxp and 'installed
program files'. By installed I mean those that add registry keys. This
partition can then be imaged periodically. Acronis is good although I've
never used it. I use bootitng from www.terabyteunlimited.com. I find
16gb adequate but larger doesn't hurt, the imaging program will only
backup used sectors and add compression.
3). Use an extended partition with whatever volumes you need. I use a
file backup program for data. Whatever you use, you don't want to be
backing up everything each time so you need to be able to deal with
differential backups (I hate incremental, but each to his own). If
you're happy with dos you can even write a suitable batch file and use
xcopy but you're better off with a real program. I don't know what
freeware is available, I use a shareware utility, disk2disk, very good.
Dave Cohen

 

[Thee Chicago Wolf]

I've decided to replace my old hard disk with a new 160 GB one, in an

attempt to get some more years out of my PC. I will be installing XP Home
Edition on it.

My questions:
- If it's smart to create a separate partition for XP (I mean exclusively
for the OS), how big should I make it?
- Is it overly geeky to create a separate partition for virtual memory? Will
that produce a noticeable performance increase or is that slightly
overzealous?
- In addition I would like to have separate partitions for my program files,
my music files and also for my pictures. How should I go about deciding on
primary or extended partitions?

I've read some of the responses on here regarding partitioning and I
must say that there is no performance gain by having your OS and data
in separate partitions on the same physical disk. In theory, it would
decrease performance as it would have to go from partition to
partition to access data depending on how things are set up. While it
is nice to have a dedicated physical disk just for the OS, some people
don't prefer this setup. Yes, it is nice to be able to Ghost just your
C: drive with barely anything but the OS on it but it is analogous to
having a 10,000,000 square foot home and only using the hallway
closet. Disks are faster and cheaper than they've ever been. Other
than in a RAID or Server environment, partitioning is kind of
pointless in a single drive system. If your drive takes a dump or the
OS gets corrupted and you have all your program and data files on a D:
partition on the same physical disk, you'll STILL have to re-install
the OS and applications. Not even Ghost can save you in this kind of
setup. It will only save you the trouble of re-installing the OS if
you've made an image of just C:, nothing else.

I'd say use you old drive as a dedicated secondary D: drive until it
dies or just buy a cheap 2nd drive (if money or space in your case is
not an issue) and keep you OS and Apps on C:. If you have access to
Ghost, install your OS and all apps and THEN make an image backup of
C:. At least that way if something craps out, you can restore your C:
drive with the OS and all apps in a functional state. All files and
stuff on your D: drive remain untouched.

- Thee Chicago Wolf

 

[Timothy Daniels]

I've decided to replace my old hard disk with a new 160 GB one,
in an attempt to get some more years out of my PC. I will be
installing XP Home Edition on it.
[....]
- Is it overly geeky to create a separate partition for virtual
memory? Will that produce a noticeable performance increase
or is that slightly overzealous?

It would only affect performance favorably if the paging file were
on a separate seldom-used hard drive and on the outside partition
of the disk (for speed of data flying past the head). But more cost
effective (in bytes/second increase per dollar) than a 2nd hard drive
would simply be more RAM that would obviate the need to page in
the first place.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Patrick Keenan]

hi,

I've decided to replace my old hard disk with a new 160 GB one, in an
attempt to get some more years out of my PC. I will be installing XP Home
Edition on it.

Does your system BIOS support this size disk?

My questions:
- If it's smart to create a separate partition for XP (I mean exclusively
for the OS), how big should I make it?
- Is it overly geeky to create a separate partition for virtual memory?
Will
that produce a noticeable performance increase or is that slightly
overzealous?
- In addition I would like to have separate partitions for my program
files,
my music files and also for my pictures. How should I go about deciding on
primary or extended partitions?

Thanks.

Personally, I find it it best to use one partition, for the OS, apps and
data. The reason is that it's quite easy to create a dedicated OS
partition and suddenly find that it's too small. And then, it's not
always so easy to make system partition adjustments. I prefer to use the
one physical limitation - the size of the drive.

Yes, this can require a larger backup. However, modern imaging programs
allow you to split images over several files; Acronis TrueImage Home
creates DVD-sized files by default. As well, you can create "images" of
only selected data. It's really pretty easy to set this up. It's also
not a big deal to shovel seldom-changing data like photos and music off to
another physical disk.

As to a partition for virtual memory, about the only way it would be
beneficial is to have that partition on a physically separate disk.
Otherwise, you are forcing the heads to move farther than they might have
to. Chances are that you can actually slow the system down.

HTH
-pk

 

[Charlie]

My personal choice is to keep your environment as simple as possible. First,
you should follow up on the bios issue as stated above. You may need to
flash your bios to support the HD. Second, I would only use one partition
for everything. The benefits,if any, with multiple partitions are not worth
adding complexity to your environment, especially the backup and restore
procedures. Use a product like Acronis for an image back of the entire C
drive on a regular basis. The first backup will take a long time but the
rest will be only incremental backups and run quickly. This way all your
data, OS and data, will be backed up and ready to be restored if necessary.

Just my opinion.

 

[Lil' Dave]

hi,

I've decided to replace my old hard disk with a new 160 GB one, in an
attempt to get some more years out of my PC. I will be installing XP Home
Edition on it.

My questions:
- If it's smart to create a separate partition for XP (I mean exclusively
for the OS), how big should I make it?
- Is it overly geeky to create a separate partition for virtual memory?
Will
that produce a noticeable performance increase or is that slightly
overzealous?
- In addition I would like to have separate partitions for my program
files,
my music files and also for my pictures. How should I go about deciding on
primary or extended partitions?

Thanks.

One partition for XP, use NTFS.
One partition for your personal data, hardware drivers, 3rd party
application INSTALLATION software if applicable, and download location
(folder) for internet stuff.

Use default installation location with any 3rd party software installation.
Leave the swapfile alone. Change the location of the swapfile to the 2nd
partition temporarily. Reboot, defrag, change the swapfile location back to
default, reboot. Do this in an effort to keep the swapfile out of mixing
with all your other files. Every 6 months or so is adequate for my
purposes.

The size of the XP partition depends on how much 3rd party software is
intended to be installed at any given time, any freepspace the 3rd party
software needs, and MS's intent on further XP updates. Plus the swapfile,
plus 50% freespace minimum. My opinion.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

hi,

I've decided to replace my old hard disk with a new 160 GB one, in an
attempt to get some more years out of my PC. I will be installing XP Home
Edition on it.

My questions:
- If it's smart to create a separate partition for XP (I mean exclusively
for the OS), how big should I make it?

That depends upon the size of your swap file (dependent upon the amount
of physical RAM) and the number and types of applications that will also
be installed.

- Is it overly geeky to create a separate partition for virtual memory? Will
that produce a noticeable performance increase or is that slightly
overzealous?

Placing the Swap file on a separate partition on the same physical hard
drive as the OS can only decrease your performance. If you're not going
to use a separate physical hard drive for the virtual memory, leave it
on the same partition as the OS.

- In addition I would like to have separate partitions for my program files,
my music files and also for my pictures.

Placing data files on a partition or physical hard drive separate
from the operating system and applications can greatly simplify system
repairs/recoveries and data back-up.

There's very little point, however, in having a separate partition
for just applications. Should you ever have to reinstall the OS, you'll
still also have to reinstall each and every application anyway, in order
to recreate the hundreds (possibly thousands) of registry entries and to
replace the dozens (possibly hundreds) of essential system files back
into the appropriate Windows folders and sub-folders.

How should I go about deciding on
primary or extended partitions?

Inless you're planning on multi-booting at some time in the future,
there's no real reason to have more then one of each.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



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

 

[witan]

Here are some general thoughts on how to partition:

I think many people over-partition, but that doesn't mean it's always
bad to have more than one partition. My view is that most people's
partitioning scheme should be based on their backup scheme. If, for
example, you backup by creating a clone or image of the entire drive,
then a single partition might be best. If, on the other hand, you
backup only your data, then the backup process is facilitated by
having all data in a separate partition.

Except for those running multiple operating systems, there is seldom
any benefit to having more than two partitions. Note the word "seldom"
rather than "never." I'm sure there are many exceptions.

Some people make a separate partition for installed programs, because
they think that separating programs from Windows will let them
reinstall Windows and keep their installed programs. That's false,
since all installed programs (except for an occasional trivial one)
have pointers to them within Windows, in the registry and elsewhere.
So if Windows goes, the pointers go with it. Since programs have to be
reinstalled if Windows does, this rationale for a separate partition
for programs doesn't work.

Some people erroneously think that having the page file on a separate
partition will improve performance. That of course is also false; it
hurts performance, because it increases head movement to get back and
forth from the page file to the other frequently-used data on the
drive. For best performance, the page file should normally be on the
most-used partition of your least-used physical drive. For most
people, that's C:.

Some people make a separate partition to store backups of their other
partition(s). People who rely on such a "backup" are just kidding
themselves. It's only very slightly better than no backup at all,
because it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original
and backup to many of the most common dangers: head crashes and other
kinds of drive failure, 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.

Separating different kinds of files on partitions is a organizational
technique, but so is separating different kinds of files in folders.
The difference is that partitions are static and fixed in size (their
size can only be changed with special third-party software), while
folders are dynamic, changing size automatically as necessary to meet
your changing needs. That generally makes folders a much better way to
organize, in my view.

What frequently happens when people organize with partitions instead
of folders is that they miscalculate how much room they need on each
such partition, and then when they run out of room on the partition
where a file logically belongs, while still having lots of space left
on the other, they simply store the file in the "wrong" partition.
Paradoxically, therefore, that kind of partition structure results in
*less* organization rather than more.


Worse, it's counterproductive, and will *hurt* performance, rather
than improve it. See above.


Almost always a mistake, in my view. See above.


Why? In my view that too is almost always a mistake. Music and
pictures are just simply special kinds of data and should normally be
kept with the rest of your data. See the last two paragraphs above.


Normally you have one primary partition. Everything else is a logical
drive in an extended partition.

Sorry if this is a repeat. I suspect I sent the earlier query not to
the Newsgroup but to Ken Blake by mistake.
Ken Blake's excellent reply is of use to me also. I have an additional
query, please. I remember to have read somewhere that keeping the page
file on a *physical* drive different from the one on which the OS is
installed will improve performance. Is that correct? Thanks in advance.

 

[WaIIy]

Sorry if this is a repeat. I suspect I sent the earlier query not to
the Newsgroup but to Ken Blake by mistake.
Ken Blake's excellent reply is of use to me also. I have an additional
query, please. I remember to have read somewhere that keeping the page
file on a *physical* drive different from the one on which the OS is
installed will improve performance. Is that correct? Thanks in advance.

It is according to Microsoft.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314482

 

[witan]

It is according to Microsoft.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314482

Yes, this is the article I "remembered to have read". Thanks