Necessity of Partitioning with NTFS

[Damaeus]

I've always partitioned hard drives because I've heard it's best to do that
due to performance increases. So I tried to have a Windows and Program
Files partition, a data partition, a misc partition, MP3 partition, game
partition, and a partition for my local POP3/NNTP server. The POP3/NNTP
partition I like having, but the other partitions I end up running out of
space on, or I have way too much space, and I end up being less organized
when I put a MP3 folder on my games partition, store some data on system
and program files partition, etc... so it just becomes a big mess.

So I just installed a SATA PCI card and got a new 320 gigabyte SATA hard
drive, which has nearly quadrupled my hard drive space. I now have a
year-old, 80-gig Western Digital, an old 30-gig Maxtor (about 8-9 years
old), and the new 320-gig Western Digital. As of now I have not
partitioned the 320-gig drive, and I plan to migrate and organize all the
data from the Maxtor drive into "folders" that I would make into partitions
if they weren't so inflexible. I'll then delete all the partitions on the
Maxtor and just have one 30-gig drive which I may use for video captures or
something.

Does this sound reasonable with the NTFS file system? What would you do?

 

[John Weiss]

I've always partitioned hard drives because I've heard it's best to do
that
due to performance increases. So I tried to have a Windows and Program
Files partition, a data partition, a misc partition, MP3 partition, game
partition, and a partition for my local POP3/NNTP server. The POP3/NNTP
partition I like having, but the other partitions I end up running out of
space on, or I have way too much space, and I end up being less organized
when I put a MP3 folder on my games partition, store some data on system
and program files partition, etc... so it just becomes a big mess.

So I just installed a SATA PCI card and got a new 320 gigabyte SATA hard
drive, which has nearly quadrupled my hard drive space. I now have a
year-old, 80-gig Western Digital, an old 30-gig Maxtor (about 8-9 years
old), and the new 320-gig Western Digital. As of now I have not
partitioned the 320-gig drive, and I plan to migrate and organize all the
data from the Maxtor drive into "folders" that I would make into
partitions
if they weren't so inflexible. I'll then delete all the partitions on the
Maxtor and just have one 30-gig drive which I may use for video captures
or
something.

Does this sound reasonable with the NTFS file system? What would you do?

There is at least one good performance reason to partition off a section of
the HD for your little-used files: The inner cylinders or "back end" of the
HD are accessed more slowly than the outer cylinders because the liner speed
of the disk surface across the heads is lower. The closer you can keep your
active apps & data to the outer rings, the faster overall the HD will be.

I have my main HDs partitioned into 3 logical drives: Boot (15-20 GB), Apps
& Data (30-40 GB), and Archives (15 GB). My large backup HD (300 GB) is
partitioned into 3 also: Future Boot (no OS yet, 30 GB) and 2 Data
partitions (135 GB each).

I also have Partition Magic, so the partition sizes are adjustable if I
need; I've done that about 5 times over 11 years on 6 computers.

 

[Rod Speed]

I've always partitioned hard drives because I've heard
it's best to do that due to performance increases.

That is just plain wrong.

So I tried to have a Windows and Program Files partition,
a data partition, a misc partition, MP3 partition, game
partition, and a partition for my local POP3/NNTP server.

Completely mad number of partitions.

The POP3/NNTP partition I like having, but the other partitions
I end up running out of space on, or I have way too much space,

Yep, that's the main downside with multiple partitions.

and I end up being less organized when I put a MP3 folder
on my games partition, store some data on system and
program files partition, etc... so it just becomes a big mess.

Yep, that's the main downside with multiple partitions.

And dangerous to resize partitions without a
full image of the entire physical hard drive too.

So I just installed a SATA PCI card and got a new 320 gigabyte
SATA hard drive, which has nearly quadrupled my hard drive space.

I hope you superglued your sox on first.

I now have a year-old, 80-gig Western Digital, an old 30-gig Maxtor
(about 8-9 years old), and the new 320-gig Western Digital.

You want to watch the drive temperatures with that many drives.

As of now I have not partitioned the 320-gig drive, and I plan to
migrate and organize all the data from the Maxtor drive into "folders"
that I would make into partitions if they weren't so inflexible.

Yep, that's the best approach.

I'll then delete all the partitions on the Maxtor and just have one
30-gig drive which I may use for video captures or something.

Does this sound reasonable with the NTFS file system?
Yes.

What would you do?

I dont normally have more than on partition per physical drive except
for a separate partition for the OS and apps, just because its easier
to do a quick safety image of that before making any changes, in case
the system restore doesnt work with an update or new install etc.

And might have a separate partition for linux just because
it cant handle ntfs properly for writes and XP isnt that
great for very big downloads for stuff like DVD isos etc.

 

[RussellS]

That's hysterical. May I have your permission to use that expression in the
future??

 

[jaster]

I've always partitioned hard drives because I've heard it's best to do
that due to performance increases. So I tried to have a Windows and
Program Files partition, a data partition, a misc partition, MP3
partition, game partition, and a partition for my local POP3/NNTP server.
The POP3/NNTP partition I like having, but the other partitions I end up
running out of space on, or I have way too much space, and I end up being
less organized when I put a MP3 folder on my games partition, store some
data on system and program files partition, etc... so it just becomes a
big mess.

Unreal.
Yeah that's why most people stopped partitioning. I thought the reason
for partitioning was to get around the 32GB limits.

So I just installed a SATA PCI card and got a new 320 gigabyte SATA hard
drive, which has nearly quadrupled my hard drive space. I now have a
year-old, 80-gig Western Digital, an old 30-gig Maxtor (about 8-9 years
old), and the new 320-gig Western Digital. As of now I have not
partitioned the 320-gig drive, and I plan to migrate and organize all
the data from the Maxtor drive into "folders" that I would make into
partitions if they weren't so inflexible. I'll then delete all the
partitions on the Maxtor and just have one 30-gig drive which I may use
for video captures or something.

Does this sound reasonable with the NTFS file system? What would you
do?

Not really.
3 Hds are enough partitions
If you do a lot of videos and music the 80Gb could be dedicated to that,
20GB to server duty and small files, the 320GB Sata to XP and everything
else with everything else in folders beneath My Documents. Trust me
loading a few games will eat up the 320GB if you don't clean them out
after. Small files (<4k) going to the 20GB utilizes space better than
the 320GB because of a smaller cluster size.

2 things
1 it's easier to defrag disk1, disk2 and disk3 than disk1,,,,disk8
2 easier to backup

 

[Rod Speed]

You may indeed.

RussellS" <rsullivan@tastycomputersdotcom"replace dot with .

 

[Damaeus]

1 it's easier to defrag disk1, disk2 and disk3 than disk1,,,,disk8

Really... That was another concern. Suppose I have 270 GB on the 320 GB
disk. That's gotta take ages to defrag. Seems like with partitions, you
could defrag a partition at a time and get back in business more quickly.
But then I have no idea how long it'd take to defrag that much data.

 

[jaster]

Really... That was another concern. Suppose I have 270 GB on the 320 GB
disk. That's gotta take ages to defrag. Seems like with partitions, you
could defrag a partition at a time and get back in business more quickly.
But then I have no idea how long it'd take to defrag that much data.

NTFS isn't that bad at keeping the disk defragged. I had about 120Gb of a
160Gb and it defrags in minutes. I just went to a 230 of 300Gb and at
about 55% free and it still defrags in minutes. If your HD is badly
fragmented it might take longer.

I use Diskkeeper for defrag but I set up scheduler to execute
Diskkeeper twice a week after hours. Ditto AV scan, Spybot, etc.