How would you distribute these 6 partitions between 2 HDDs?

[Stan Hilliard]

I'm building a PC. For best performance, how should I distribution the
following partitions between two volumes:

Six Partitions:
1 Windows XP Pro SP2
2 Application program files
3 Text data (my documents, program code, etc.)
4 Video (very large files.)
5 Virtual memory pagefile
6 Backups

Volume 1 = 500GB SATA RAID 0 (2 WD HDDs)

Volume 2 = 250GB SATA HDD.
(I'd consider making volume 2 into a 2nd 500GB RAID 0)

CPU=AMD 3700+, 2.45GHz.

Memory = 2GB

If it matters, I also plan to have two hidden "C:\" partitions, one
for DOS 6.2 and one for a future Vista.

Advice would be appreciated,
Stan Hilliard

 

[Dave]

Get your 2nd 250GB drive. Then ask the question again. Eliminate item 2,
waste of time.
Backup (6) means alot of things in many ways.

 

[...winston]

Ditto also to item 5 without a second drive.
..winston

: Get your 2nd 250GB drive. Then ask the question again. Eliminate item 2,
: waste of time.
: Backup (6) means alot of things in many ways.
:
: --
: Dave
:
: Apathy and denial are close cousins
: : > I'm building a PC. For best performance, how should I distribution the
: > following partitions between two volumes:
: >
: > Six Partitions:
: > 1 Windows XP Pro SP2
: > 2 Application program files
: > 3 Text data (my documents, program code, etc.)
: > 4 Video (very large files.)
: > 5 Virtual memory pagefile
: > 6 Backups
: >
: > Volume 1 = 500GB SATA RAID 0 (2 WD HDDs)
: >
: > Volume 2 = 250GB SATA HDD.
: > (I'd consider making volume 2 into a 2nd 500GB RAID 0)
: >
: > CPU=AMD 3700+, 2.45GHz.
: >
: > Memory = 2GB
: >
: > If it matters, I also plan to have two hidden "C:\" partitions, one
: > for DOS 6.2 and one for a future Vista.
: >
: > Advice would be appreciated,
: > Stan Hilliard
:
:

 

[Stan Hilliard]

I'm building a PC. For best performance, how should I distribution the
following partitions between two volumes:

Six Partitions:
1 Windows XP Pro SP2
2 Application program files
3 Text data (my documents, program code, etc.)
4 Video (very large files.)
5 Virtual memory pagefile
6 Backups

Volume 1 = 500GB SATA RAID 0 (2 WD HDDs)

Volume 2 = 250GB SATA HDD.
(I'd consider making volume 2 into a 2nd 500GB RAID 0)

CPU=AMD 3700+, 2.45GHz.

Memory = 2GB

If it matters, I also plan to have two hidden "C:\" partitions, one
for DOS 6.2 and one for a future Vista.

Advice would be appreciated,
Stan Hilliard

Here is part of the answer to my own question, assuming that the
criterion for "better" is the loading speed.

I measured the time to load OpenOffice 2.2, which takes some time to
load the first time after starting the computer. (After that it starts
almost instantaneously.)

I installed OpenOffice on the C: volume (RAID 0, 2X250G) and then on
the D: disk (1X250G) The single D: drive is identical to the two
drives of the RAID array.

Loading times from the RAID 0 drive= 10, 8, 9, 12, 8, 9
Average=9.33 seconds

Loading times from the single drive= 21, 19, 19, 19, 19
Average=19.4

Ratio=2.08 The RAID 0 was twice as fast.

So if I want to have the application programs on a separate partition
I should either

1) get another drive and make partition D: into a RAID 0, or

2) move the D: partition to the current RAID 0 volume.

Stan Hilliard

 

[a]

Here is part of the answer to my own question, assuming that the
criterion for "better" is the loading speed.

I measured the time to load OpenOffice 2.2, which takes some time to
load the first time after starting the computer. (After that it starts
almost instantaneously.)

I installed OpenOffice on the C: volume (RAID 0, 2X250G) and then on
the D: disk (1X250G) The single D: drive is identical to the two
drives of the RAID array.

Loading times from the RAID 0 drive= 10, 8, 9, 12, 8, 9
Average=9.33 seconds

Loading times from the single drive= 21, 19, 19, 19, 19
Average=19.4

Ratio=2.08 The RAID 0 was twice as fast.

So if I want to have the application programs on a separate partition
I should either

1) get another drive and make partition D: into a RAID 0, or

2) move the D: partition to the current RAID 0 volume.

Stan Hilliard

Not surprising that the RAID 0 is twice as fast - that's about what it
should work out to.

So, you save about 10s loading OpenOffice once per day, and fractions of
a second on subsequent loads that day. You've probably already spent
more time wondering about this than you could save in the entire life of
the machine. Application load time - how often do you load a new app?

I'd put the fast RAID 0 drive where the speed will really matter, and the
increased chance of data loss (lose either drive, lose it all) will have
less impact - probably where the video files are, as they are large and
should be backed up elsewhere anyway, if they are important.
Don't worry about the virtual memory - it won't experience much data
transfer if you have enough RAM (2GB should be more than enough for
almost anything) - likely this is okay left on the system partition, but
most of it could go on the RAID 0 drive. Note that I am suggesting that
the system drive not be RAID 0.

I see no advantage to putting the applications on a different partition
than the system. I'd keep the system&applications partition fairly
small, back it up by imaging, and try to keep all user data elsewhere.

Text and other data - I prefer this on a different partition than the
system. Speed perhaps a minor issue here. A few folders in the same
partition as the video data should do.

Backups - should be on a different drive than the data being backed up,
and speed isn't much of an issue (should be able to have the backup
happen when you aren't there waiting for it). Likely should have some
backup space on each drive to backup data from the other drive.

I'd say 4 partitions would be the max I would use, and more likely would
be 3: 2 on the drive where the system is (one for the system and one for
backups from the other drive), and 1 on the other (RAID 0) drive, where I
would put all the data and the backup of the system partition. You could
go for the 4th drive, to mirror the system drive.

I'd just run the DOS 6.2 in a virtual machine or boot it from a USB key
or other removable media. Or you could put DOS on first, then add XP to
get a dual boot option. This would have DOS in a FAT partition (C, and
XP in another partition (D - the XP boot files would be in C:.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

I missed your question originally, but let me comment on your overall
partitioning scheme, mostly without reference to which drive each
partition is on.



Application program files should almost always be in the same
partition as Windows. Installed applications have many references to
themselves within Windows, in the registry and elsewhere. If you
reload Windows, you have to reinstall your applications. That's the
reason why the practice that many people have of separating their
applications on a separate partition or physical drive really makes no
sense.



What is the rationale for separating the two types of data? For most
people, data is data, and there is no reason to separate it into
multiple partitions.




A couple of points here:

1. The main performance issue with the page file is the time it takes
to move the drive heads to and from it. So, for almost everyone with a
single physical drive, the page file should be on the same partition
as Windows, normally C:

2. However, if you have two physical drives, the main part of the page
file should probably be on the second drive. However don't put it in
its own partition, but on the most-used partition on that
drive--thereby minimizing the time for head movement. A good rule of
thumb is to put it on the most-used partition of the least-used
physical drive.

But even if you put it on the second drive, you should also maintain a
small page file on C:. The best info on the page file is in this
article by the late MVP Alex
Nichol: "Virtual Memory in Windows XP"
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php

3. Most people running Windows XP these days have enough memory so
that page file use is minimal. In that case, it makes very little
difference where you put it.




If you care about your data, you should reconsider the idea of putting
backups on a separate partition or even a separate internal hard
drive. Such a scheme is better than no backup at all, but just barely.
It is always possible that a hard drive crash, user error, nearby
lightning strike, virus attack, even theft of the computer, can cause
the loss of everything on your drive or even everything on your entire
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.

My computer isn't used for business, but my personal backup scheme
uses two identical removable hard drives,I alternate between the two,
and use Acronis True Image to make a complete copy of the primary
drive.

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.