partition HD

[Genehackman]

Hi,
I just installed a new HD (320g). I partitioned 4 way 30g for windows,
90g,80g,90g.
The idea was to get a faster acces to info. but ever since the system has a
noticeable delay in accessing a files which is not located in the primary
partition.
Is this normal or can I do something to change that?
thanks

 

[Shenan Stanley]

I just installed a new HD (320g). I partitioned 4 way 30g for
windows, 90g,80g,90g.
The idea was to get a faster acces to info. but ever since the
system has a noticeable delay in accessing a files which is not
located in the primary partition.
Is this normal or can I do something to change that?

Where did you get the idea that there would be a *noticable* difference in
accessing a file/information by doing this? You still only have one arm for
the read-write heads to travel on since you havea single hard disk drive...
;-)
http://www.howstuffworks.com/hard-disk.htm/printable

 

[Genehackman]

ok.
it seems fair enough. what do you recommend for a configuration?
only 2 partition
thanks Shenan

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Hi,
I just installed a new HD (320g). I partitioned 4 way 30g for windows,
90g,80g,90g.
The idea was to get a faster acces to info.

That might have been the idea, but it's based on a false premise.
Having more partitions does *not* improve performance. If anything, it
will hurt performance, because it places files farther apart, and
increases the time needed for the drive heads to move from file to
file. That is probably what's happening in your case.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

I just installed a new HD (320g). I partitioned 4 way 30g for
windows, 90g,80g,90g.
The idea was to get a faster acces to info. but ever since the
system has a noticeable delay in accessing a files which is not
located in the primary partition.
Is this normal or can I do something to change that?

Where did you get the idea that there would be a *noticable*
difference in accessing a file/information by doing this? You still
only have one arm for the read-write heads to travel on since you
have a single hard disk drive... ;-)
http://www.howstuffworks.com/hard-disk.htm/printable

it seems fair enough. what do you recommend for a configuration?
only 2 partition

That is more an individual's choice... Based on what they are going for.

Personally - I seldom use partitions. I am more apt to combine many drives
into one using some level of RAID and/or just have separate drives for my OS
and for my data (gaining performance and protection that a partition just
doesn't give me.)

However - many people do partition - and each with their own reasoning.

Some partition to separate their OS partition from their data partition -
with the theory that if they have to reinstall the OS - at least the data is
safe on its own partition (does not necessarily take into account that if
the drive physically dies - all partitions die with it.)

Some partition to separate their OS, their installations and their data.
Truthfully - I have more trouble following that logic, given how much
integration goes on with most installations these days and the fact they
will likely have to install 50+% of their applications in a disaster
recovery/install the OS over situation anyway.

Some partition as they see it working in their mind. Example, someone
collects music, digital books and records their own video. They might have
the OS partition and three others to keep the three types of main data they
desire separate easily and logically in their mind and to possibly make
backing up easier.

I have a separate drive for my OS (single partition) and in one case, 4 hard
drives in a RAID 5 array (two partitions) for performance but mostly data
protection. I also have one with a separate drive for the OS (single
partition) and 4 hard disk drives in a RAID 0+1 array (single partition) for
performance and data redundancy. Yet one more that has a separate drive for
my OS (single partition) and 4 hard disk drives in two RAID 0 configurations
for performance (two single partitions).

So - what I am saying is that you have to decide what you want out of the
system and figure out the best configuration for you personally. ;-)

 

[Genehackman]

so what do you think I should do ?
only two partition.

 

[Poprivet`]

ok.
it seems fair enough. what do you recommend for a
configuration?
only 2 partition
thanks Shenan

The "general" rule is usually as few as possible, and
what YOU can make the best use of, and there are very
few technical advantages to multiple partitions on a
single drive. So if you want one for the system and
one for data, then make two. If you want a data1 and a
data2, then make 3.

Maybe an example would help too:
I have C & D for my first drive. Back up the system?
Backup drive C. Backup my data? Backup drive D.

My second physical drive has 3 partitions: Development,
Sandbox, and Downloads ( anything that was downloaded
from the 'net. )
I also have a swap file on drive E; it does make
things a tiny bit faster, especially when I'm rendering
video but otherwise it's not noticeably helping
anything.
Also makes defrags faster; less to defrag at a time,
and not all need to be defragged; as a rule only 2 of
the 5 drives "need" defrag monthly unless I'm working
with video, and that drive needs a defrag after every
session.
Then I use a 500 Gig external drive to back up to.
It holds compressed backups from two computers.

HTH

Pop`

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

so what do you think I should do ?
only two partition.

I think you're asking the wrong question. The right question isn't
"how many?" It's "what do you want to use the partitions for?" and
it's a question you need to ask yourself, not me. Once you've
determined the need correctly, the "how many" question answers itself.

That said, here's my general advice on planning partitions:

I think that most people's partitioning scheme should be based on
their backup scheme, and backup schemes generally fall into two types:
imaging the entire hard drive or backup of data only. If you backup
data only, that backup is usually facilitated by having a separate
partition with data only; that permits backing up just that partition
easily, without having to collect bits and pieces from here and there.
On the other hand, for those who backup by creating an image of the
entire drive, there is usually little, if any, benefit to separating
data in a partition of its own.

Except for those booting more than one operating system, there is
seldom any benefit to having more than two partitions, and often a
disadvantage.

 

[db ´¯`·.. >]

having multiple partitions
is an excellent idea.

one partition can be
dedicated to the system
files,

another partition can be
dedicated for the pagefile,
which improves performance,

another partition can be for your
personal files and the
"my documents" location.
(this partition would be easier
to image on a regular basis
and or for the microsoft synctoy)

and

another can be for diskimages,
backup files and other
utilities and software for recovery.

if you are a graphic artist
then you can create yet
another partition for the
scratch.

what i recommend is to
acquire a high quality partition
manager, like acronis disk director.

initially you can set all
the partitions to equal
sizes, then later you can
evaluate your usage and
resize them accordingly.


--

<)))º>·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. ><)))º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><)))º>

..

 

[Shenan Stanley]

having multiple partitions

is an excellent idea.

Depends on who you are and what you need.

one partition can be
dedicated to the system
files,
Okay.

another partition can be
dedicated for the pagefile,
which improves performance,

This only helps performance if the separate partition is on a separate
physical hard disk drive.

another partition can be for your
personal files and the
"my documents" location.
(this partition would be easier
to image on a regular basis
and or for the microsoft synctoy)

Agreed - partitioning centered around your backup schema is a good idea.

and

another can be for diskimages,
backup files and other
utilities and software for recovery.

if you are a graphic artist
then you can create yet
another partition for the
scratch.

what i recommend is to
acquire a high quality partition
manager, like acronis disk director.

initially you can set all
the partitions to equal
sizes, then later you can
evaluate your usage and
resize them accordingly.

Replied to inline...

 

[db ´¯`·.. >]

having the pagefile
in a dedicated partition
whether it is on the
main drive or slave,
will keep it contiguous.

--

<)))º>·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. ><)))º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><)))º>

..

 

[Shenan Stanley]

Depends on who you are and what you need.


This only helps performance if the separate partition is on a
separate physical hard disk drive.


Agreed - partitioning centered around your backup schema is a good
idea.

Replied to inline...

having the pagefile
in a dedicated partition
whether it is on the
main drive or slave,
will keep it contiguous.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/expert/tulloch_partition.mspx
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm
http://aumha.org/a/parts.htm

 

[db ´¯`·.. >]

you should know by
now that i wouldn't
be interested in debating
my suggestion with you
or yours.

--

<)))º>·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. ><)))º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><)))º>

..

 

[Shenan Stanley]

having the pagefile
in a dedicated partition
whether it is on the
main drive or slave,
will keep it contiguous.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/expert/tulloch_partition.mspx
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm
http://aumha.org/a/parts.htm

you should know by
now that i wouldn't
be interested in debating
my suggestion with you
or yours.

*shrug*
You don't know 'me or mine' <- if you group me in some arbitrary fashion,
that is your own inability to see clearly and not my issue.

I am not debating with you. I am giving the Original Poster what they need
to properly make their own decision. You are welcome to your opinions -
post them all you want. I will do the same and I will usually post
supporting articles as well - so that those reading them can be assured it
is not just me giving what I think they should do when I have no real
interest in things if they go wrong for them. They should be able to make
their own educated decision on the matter. I am giving them the tools
necessary to do that. If you do not wish to do the same - that is your
perogative (or lack there of.)

I responded to you because you were posting something that I had a response
to. I don't care who you are, who you believe you are or if you ever
respond. That's what a newsgroup is all about. Discussion on topics,
getting various opinions out there, posting your experience on the matter
and deciding on your own what you wish to believe/do/respond to/ignore.
Enjoy it the way you desire - I made no 'debate challenge' - I only gave the
OP the tools the need to make their own decision. If you took it as
something else - again - not my issue.

 

[db ´¯`·.. >]

i recommend what has
worked for me.

another perspective and
method to resolve pagefile
fragmentation can be found
here:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/utilities/PageDefrag.mspx


--

<)))º>·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. ><)))º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><)))º>

..

 

[Shenan Stanley]

I just installed a new HD (320g). I partitioned 4 way 30g for
windows, 90g,80g,90g.
The idea was to get a faster acces to info. but ever since the
system has a noticeable delay in accessing a files which is not
located in the primary partition.
Is this normal or can I do something to change that?

<snipped>

having the pagefile
in a dedicated partition
whether it is on the
main drive or slave,
will keep it contiguous.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/expert/tulloch_partition.mspx
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm
http://aumha.org/a/parts.htm

you should know by
now that i wouldn't
be interested in debating
my suggestion with you
or yours.

i recommend what has
worked for me.

another perspective and
method to resolve pagefile
fragmentation can be found
here:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/utilities/PageDefrag.mspx

That corresponds directly with the recommendations on the pages I gave
earlier. Great addition!

Although - the original discussion was not about pagefile fragmentation - it
is something to consider when dealing with file access and other types of
performance lags. It should be thought about whether or not your pagefile
is on a separate physical drive and/or partition or still on the C: drive
with everything else.

 

[Lil' Dave]

That is more an individual's choice... Based on what they are going for.

Personally - I seldom use partitions. I am more apt to combine many
drives into one using some level of RAID and/or just have separate drives
for my OS and for my data (gaining performance and protection that a
partition just doesn't give me.)

However - many people do partition - and each with their own reasoning.

Some partition to separate their OS partition from their data partition -
with the theory that if they have to reinstall the OS - at least the data
is safe on its own partition (does not necessarily take into account that
if the drive physically dies - all partitions die with it.)

Some partition to separate their OS, their installations and their data.
Truthfully - I have more trouble following that logic, given how much
integration goes on with most installations these days and the fact they
will likely have to install 50+% of their applications in a disaster
recovery/install the OS over situation anyway.

Some partition as they see it working in their mind. Example, someone
collects music, digital books and records their own video. They might
have the OS partition and three others to keep the three types of main
data they desire separate easily and logically in their mind and to
possibly make backing up easier.

I have a separate drive for my OS (single partition) and in one case, 4
hard drives in a RAID 5 array (two partitions) for performance but mostly
data protection. I also have one with a separate drive for the OS (single
partition) and 4 hard disk drives in a RAID 0+1 array (single partition)
for performance and data redundancy. Yet one more that has a separate
drive for my OS (single partition) and 4 hard disk drives in two RAID 0
configurations for performance (two single partitions).

So - what I am saying is that you have to decide what you want out of the
system and figure out the best configuration for you personally. ;-)

Git off your high horse. In the partitioning scenarios you're mentioning,
you seem to assume there's no clone drive removed from the system, and/or,
no image of said partitions elsewhere on another hard drive.

If one hard drive (won't see that in a RAID system anyway, but you fail to
point that out), partitioning is the most economic way to keep personal data
separate from the OS in case of OS partition failure.
Dave

 

[Shenan Stanley]

Git off your high horse. In the partitioning scenarios you're
mentioning, you seem to assume there's no clone drive removed from
the system, and/or, no image of said partitions elsewhere on
another hard drive.
If one hard drive (won't see that in a RAID system anyway, but you
fail to point that out), partitioning is the most economic way to
keep personal data separate from the OS in case of OS partition
failure.

Did I talk DOWN partitioning? No.

Get your facts straight and read the entire thread before making a rash and
uninformed comment.

 

[Wally]

Git off your high horse. In the partitioning scenarios you're mentioning,
you seem to assume there's no clone drive removed from the system, and/or,
no image of said partitions elsewhere on another hard drive.

Little Dave,

Shenan went through a lot of thought and typing to help out and was very
clear and polite.
Why are you even here?

BTW braniac - virus.net is a valid domain