Partition Planning

[contrapositive]

Hi. I just built a new PC with a 250 GB SATA hard drive, and I'm installing
Windows XP, SP2. I want to partition the drive in some practical way, but
without going completely overboard. My thought was to have four partitions
as follows:

C: Windows XP, Program Files (19 GB)
D: Temporary system/internet files (1 GB, disposable)
E: Essential data (30 GB, to be backed up regularly)
F: Non-essential data (200 GB, mostly disposable multimedia files such as my
iTunes library)

Some questions:
1. Any thoughts on a dedicated partition for the swap file? I decided
against it, as I read it only makes sense if you have more than one physical
drive.
2. I decided to keep Windows and program files on the same partition. Again,
I read that the cost outweighs the benefit for most of us. Any thoughts?
3. Should I use FAT32 on C and NTFS on the others?
4. When designating partition sizes, should the sizes be a multiple of some
magic number, or is there some other means for calculating efficient
partition sizes? Or is it completely arbitrary?


Thanks in advance. Any other thoughts are welcome.

 

[JS]

First, your 250GB drive is a decimal value, when your done formatting you
will find that the actual size is about 235GB (Binary).
To end up with even numbers for each partition you need to specify binary
values. Therefore to create a 20GB partition you will be entering a value of
20480 Megabytes when creating the partition. All partitions should be
formatted as NTFS.

For C: (20GB) = 20480
For D: (4GB) = 4096
For E: (30GB) = 30720
For F: All the remaining amount that is available.

I would put the pagefile on D: as it gets it out of the way of disk
defragmentation. Since SATA drives are fast and partition D: is still near
the front of the drive I don't think you will see any performance drop.
Create a permanent pagefile on D: before placing any other files on this
partition and the pagefile will always be at the beginning of the drive and
it will not be or become fragmented.

JS

 

[Ron Martell]

Hi. I just built a new PC with a 250 GB SATA hard drive, and I'm installing
Windows XP, SP2. I want to partition the drive in some practical way, but
without going completely overboard. My thought was to have four partitions
as follows:

C: Windows XP, Program Files (19 GB)
D: Temporary system/internet files (1 GB, disposable)
E: Essential data (30 GB, to be backed up regularly)
F: Non-essential data (200 GB, mostly disposable multimedia files such as my
iTunes library)

Some questions:
1. Any thoughts on a dedicated partition for the swap file? I decided
against it, as I read it only makes sense if you have more than one physical
drive.

A dedicated swap file/page file partition rarely makes sense.

2. I decided to keep Windows and program files on the same partition. Again,
I read that the cost outweighs the benefit for most of us. Any thoughts?

When applications are being launched they invariably also require some
files that are installed into the \Windows\System32 folder or other
system folders so it does help a bit to have all of these files in the
same partition thereby reducing the travel distance for the disk head
mechanism as it searches out the various files.

3. Should I use FAT32 on C and NTFS on the others?

I would only use FAT32 these days if I were multi-booting more than
one operating system, and needed FAT32 for one of the other operating
systems.

4. When designating partition sizes, should the sizes be a multiple of some
magic number, or is there some other means for calculating efficient
partition sizes? Or is it completely arbitrary?

Just make sure they are big enough. Resizing existing partitions,
while it can be done with appropriate software, can be a real p.i.t.a.

Good luck

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."

 

[Ron Martell]

I would put the pagefile on D: as it gets it out of the way of disk
defragmentation.

Not very sound advice, inasmuch as Windows requires the pagefile to be
on the system boot drive (e.g. C for some of the ancillary functions
that it performs such as receiving the content of system failure
memory dumps.

Without a pagefile on C: it is not possible to create a memory dump
when a system failure class error occurs. This in turn can make
diagnosis more difficult.

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."

 

[Jonny]

Hi. I just built a new PC with a 250 GB SATA hard drive, and I'm
installing Windows XP, SP2. I want to partition the drive in some
practical way, but without going completely overboard. My thought was to
have four partitions as follows:

C: Windows XP, Program Files (19 GB)
D: Temporary system/internet files (1 GB, disposable)
E: Essential data (30 GB, to be backed up regularly)
F: Non-essential data (200 GB, mostly disposable multimedia files such as
my iTunes library)

Some questions:
1. Any thoughts on a dedicated partition for the swap file? I decided
against it, as I read it only makes sense if you have more than one
physical drive.

Requirements for an effective partition, other than the boot partition.
Must be a separate hard drive just as fast or faster than the operating
system hard drive. The bus systems must run independently for both hard
drives in XP.

2. I decided to keep Windows and program files on the same partition.
Again, I read that the cost outweighs the benefit for most of us. Any
thoughts?

Works best this way in operation.

3. Should I use FAT32 on C and NTFS on the others?

NTFS for all, unless you anticipate some other way to access the data.

4. When designating partition sizes, should the sizes be a multiple of
some magic number, or is there some other means for calculating efficient
partition sizes? Or is it completely arbitrary?

For the XP partition, I use my own formula. XP 2GB, plus any installed and
anticipated applications (?GB), plus XP swapfile (4GB=max RAM), application
swapfiles (4GB) used in video editing and translation, times 2 of all
previous equals the appropriate partition size.

I don't sweat the cluster size if that's what you're referring to.
Partition size is just a matter of allowing enough room for all, for now and
the future.

 

[Kerry Brown]

Hi. I just built a new PC with a 250 GB SATA hard drive, and I'm
installing Windows XP, SP2. I want to partition the drive in some
practical way, but without going completely overboard. My thought was
to have four partitions as follows:

C: Windows XP, Program Files (19 GB)
D: Temporary system/internet files (1 GB, disposable)
E: Essential data (30 GB, to be backed up regularly)
F: Non-essential data (200 GB, mostly disposable multimedia files
such as my iTunes library)

Some questions:
1. Any thoughts on a dedicated partition for the swap file? I decided
against it, as I read it only makes sense if you have more than one
physical drive.
2. I decided to keep Windows and program files on the same partition.
Again, I read that the cost outweighs the benefit for most of us. Any
thoughts? 3. Should I use FAT32 on C and NTFS on the others?
4. When designating partition sizes, should the sizes be a multiple
of some magic number, or is there some other means for calculating
efficient partition sizes? Or is it completely arbitrary?


Thanks in advance. Any other thoughts are welcome.

C: may be a little small. It is a waste of time dedicating 1 GB to temp
files. Programs will often put them where ever they want anyway. FAT32 only
makes sense for a data partition that will be accessed by an older OS. With
XP the only valid reason for partitioning a single drive is for organizing
data for backups. In your case I would allocate at least 30 GB for C:, skip
the 1 GB partition, and allocate the other two as you see fit. You may want
to redirect My Documents to one of the data partitions so it gets backed up.

 

[Kerry Brown]

C: may be a little small. It is a waste of time dedicating 1 GB to
temp files. Programs will often put them where ever they want anyway.
FAT32 only makes sense for a data partition that will be accessed by
an older OS. With XP the only valid reason for partitioning a single
drive is for organizing data for backups. In your case I would
allocate at least 30 GB for C:, skip the 1 GB partition, and allocate
the other two as you see fit. You may want to redirect My Documents
to one of the data partitions so it gets backed up.

Forgot to mention you'll also want to redirect your email store to one of
the data partitions.

 

[Richard In Va.]

Hello Contrapositive,

Looks like you've gotten some good advice here already. However If I might,
I'd like to add some opinions of my own.

1. Dedicated partition for the swap file.

Having a dedicated partition for the swap file will most likely prevent the
swap file from getting fragmented. This is assuming that the partition is
larger than the swap file will ever want/need to be. I've read several times
that
the best location for the partition is at the most accessed area of the
least used (physical) hard drive. You would also want this to be the
fastest hard drive in your case. This would leave the heads sitting ontop
(or near) the swap partition ready to read and write at will. However, I
think Ron
is correct in saying that XP expects to find the swap file on C:\, otherwise
it will fuss at you. I've also read that you can put a small swap file on
C:\ and have a larger one on another partition if you want.

You mention you bought a new system with a SATA drive. I assume you got a
newer (faster) CPU and likely have a mainboard with a fast BUS speed. How
much RAM do you have, 1GB... 2GB...? The more RAM you have, the less XP
will need to access the swap file. (But no matter how much RAM you have, you
will always need a swap file.

My opinion is that with the system speeds of today, There is little need to
get wrapped up with the swap file issue. Now 5 years ago? It was something
to think about if you where a big gamer or something.

Here is what I might consider, Install the XP OS and the mobo drivers,
chipset drivers, intel/MS storage drivers. Get the BASE system up and
running. Don't install any hardware or software yet. Don't even get on the
internet or email. Create a fixed/permanent swap file on drive C:\ that is
sized larger than the amount of RAM you have, maybe 1.5 times
larger. Take into consideration if you plan on adding RAM in the near
future. Like JS said, a fixed size swap (page) file bigger than it will ever
need to be will prevent the page file from becoming fragmented. Although
the space dedicated might be more than is needed. You have (250GB) for your
"Drive 0", so HD space is aplenty. You likely have room in your case for
additional HD's if you need more GB later. This approach should locate your
swap file on C:\ right behind the XP OS, hopefully the OS hasn't had time to
fragment itself, or at least very much. Now go ahead and install your
hardware (printers and such) along with their associated software. Establish
your internet connection. Open your email and open your internet browser.
Obtain your OS updates and such. Doing this will locate the swap file in
it's own happy space right in the middle of all the activity and still be
near the top of the drive. I think the "basic" OS occupies ~2-4GB, but over
time may grow upwards to 8-10GB depending on how you handle "My Documents".

Locating the swap file in a separate partition on the same HD as the OS is
likely not worth the trouble.

If you want, here is a great little desktop meter that will show you your
RAM usage, Swap file usage and many other useful things.
http://www.ipi.fi/~rainy/index.php?pn=projects&project=rainmeter

My Dell Dimension 9100 has 1GB of RAM, less than 50% is used (most of the
time). I have a 1.6GB swap file on C:\ managed by XP, Rainy's Rainmeter
shows about
260-270MB utilization. Head room is a good thing.

Their desktop calendar is cool too! (see link towards the left).

As for the size of C:\, maybe add allittle? say around 25-30GB. Junk will
collect over time and the room will help defrag to run faster.

2. Installing Application's on drive C:\.

Based on my personal opinion... I install software associated with the OS or
installed hardware on drive C:\ and Personal Software on drive D:\.
My drive D:\ seldom becomes fragmented. I think most application files are
pretty much read only files, so they don't really grow much or need to move
around. The files that do read/write are likely stored in your "Local
Settings" or "My Documents" folders anyway. So maybe keeping applications
away from the OS partition will prevent the OS from skipping over to the
other side of your applications when it fragments. The OS partition is
going to fragment itself all the time. (I think it will even do it at night
when the system is turned off).

I defrag my Applications partition maybe once a year. I defrag C:\ once a
week...!

3. Use NTFS on all partitions under XP. However, you mention the
Non-essential drive for multimedia and iPod files. You could use FAT32 here
if you wanted.

4. Efficient partition size.

My opinion here is that any hard drive that is 75% full is already full.
Defrag needs alittle headspace to do it's job. So plan ahead as to your
space requirements then add 25% or more on top of that.

Here is my HD layout...
C:\ = 35GB = (XP OS + Swap file + temp files)
D:\ = 25GB = Personal Applications
E:\ = 30GB = Personal Files (incl Outlook Express Mail Store Folders)
F:\ = 40GB = Backup (daily staging area for offline backups)
G:\ = 20GB +/- = Misc Junk

If at a later time you decide to change your swap file around, I think you
can do the change and then apply an edit to the registry that tells the OS
to dump the contents of your swap file at shut down. At reboot, the swap
file will grow into your changed settings. Is that a tip that can be
downloaded from Kelly's Corner does anyone know? Of course tho, you won't
know where on the partition it locates itself until after the deed is done.

Speaking of deeds, I suppose by now you've already set up your hard drive.
I'm sure whatever you've come up with will work perfectly fine for you....

Hope this helps!

Richard In Va.
++++++++++++++++++++

 

[Kerry Brown]

Richard In Va. wrote:

3. Use NTFS on all partitions under XP. However, you mention the
Non-essential drive for multimedia and iPod files. You could use
FAT32 here if you wanted.

You gave some good advice and another perspective. The above statement won't
work. FAT32 has a 4 GB file size limit. Multimedia files can exceed this.

 

[Richard In Va.]

Aaaa, yes of course... Thanks for intervening Kerry!

Seems to me I remember a discussion some time ago where someone had a drive
to store mostly photos.
The advice was that due to the image files being relatively small, that it
might be advantageous to use FAT32 and/or setting a larger cluster size for
the partition. Although a larger cluster size would yield less (quantity of
files) storage space, the directory listing of files via explorer would show
up faster.

I suppose NTFS with it's file ownership and so-forth adds alittle overhead
to each file that sometimes may not really be needed.

Would you have a take on this as well?

Best regards,

Richard in Va.
+++++++++++++++++++++

 

[JS]

Well I just don't like to do an image backup of a large pagefile, don't like
the pagefile splattered in bits and pieces all over the C: partition and
it's not my fault that XP can't handle memory dumps without the pagefile
being on the C: drive. I suppose if the pagefile is on a separate drive like
on my PC then there are more issues with New Technology.

In any case I expected that there would be a lot of input on this post and
mine is just one of many.

JS

 

[Kerry Brown]

Aaaa, yes of course... Thanks for intervening Kerry!

Seems to me I remember a discussion some time ago where someone had a
drive to store mostly photos.
The advice was that due to the image files being relatively small,
that it might be advantageous to use FAT32 and/or setting a larger
cluster size for the partition. Although a larger cluster size would
yield less (quantity of files) storage space, the directory listing
of files via explorer would show up faster.

I suppose NTFS with it's file ownership and so-forth adds alittle
overhead to each file that sometimes may not really be needed.

Would you have a take on this as well?

All the points are valid. The actual performance difference on most machines
however would be negligible. In almost all cases the advantages of NTFS
outweigh the disadvantages. There are special cases where FAT32 is
definitely better. Access from OS's that don't work with NTFS is the main
one.

 

[Ron Martell]

Well I just don't like to do an image backup of a large pagefile, don't like
the pagefile splattered in bits and pieces all over the C: partition and
it's not my fault that XP can't handle memory dumps without the pagefile
being on the C: drive. I suppose if the pagefile is on a separate drive like
on my PC then there are more issues with New Technology.

System failure memory dumps occur at a time of absolute crisis, where
there are often only a matter of milliseconds available to prepare the
dump and save it before the system locks up completely.

Using an existing file in a known location that is large enough to
contain the memory dump and then renaming it is very much faster than
creating a new file. Microsoft chose to use the pagefile in the
default for this purpose and Windows is hardcoded to do this. There
were undoubtedly other choices they could have made which would have
been equally fast, but this is what was decided on.

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."

 

[Ron Martell]

Hello Contrapositive,

Looks like you've gotten some good advice here already. However If I might,
I'd like to add some opinions of my own.

1. Dedicated partition for the swap file.

Having a dedicated partition for the swap file will most likely prevent the
swap file from getting fragmented.

Swap file fragmentation as a performance issue is right up there with
Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy - lots of hype but no
substantiation.

The only possible circumstance where this fragmentation could be a
performance issue would be if Windows required information to be
loaded back in from the swap file and the information is in two or
more different locations on the hard drive but would have been
contiguous if the swap file were not fragmented.

The probability of that happening is infinitesimal.

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."

 

[contrapositive]

Hello Contrapositive,

Looks like you've gotten some good advice here already.

This is all great advice. Thanks so much To answer some other questions, I
have 2GB of RAM, and an AMD Athlon 64 3000+.

Anyway, now that I'm ready to create my partitions, I notice that XP skips
over the D designation for drive lettering -- i.e. it goes from C to E.
Also, as I add partitions, a single partition of 8MB of "unpartitioned
space" shows up at the end.

Is this all because I'm using the XP disk to create partitions? Should I use
fdisk instead?

 

[JS]

The letter D may be assigned to your DVD or CD drive, if it is just change
the letter to one past the last drive letter you plan to use.
You just need to create the C partition to install XP, then after XP is
installed re-assign the DVD/CD drive letter and then create the remaining
partitions.

JS

 

[Andy]

This is all great advice. Thanks so much To answer some other questions, I
have 2GB of RAM, and an AMD Athlon 64 3000+.

Anyway, now that I'm ready to create my partitions, I notice that XP skips
over the D designation for drive lettering -- i.e. it goes from C to E.
Also, as I add partitions, a single partition of 8MB of "unpartitioned
space" shows up at the end.

Is this all because I'm using the XP disk to create partitions? Should I use
fdisk instead?

After you've created the partitions, just reboot the computer. Then
Windows setup will assign drive letters consecutively to the now
existing partitions.

 

[Richard In Va.]

Hello Contrapositive,

Your welcome, just keep in mind that I'm sharing my thoughts and ideas
based on only my experiences. So use what your comfortable with and discard
the rest.

With regard to the 8MB (or is that 8GB) of "unpartitioned" or "unallocated"
space. This might be corrected by selecting "use all available space" when
creating the last partition, as apposed to entering the size you want.

If your already well on your way, it might be worth the trouble over 8GB.
But if it's 8MB, I believe I'd let it go.

Also...

If the last partition is an "extended partition" containing "logical
drives", then the last "logical drive" in the partition you'll want to use
"all available space". It may be worded alittle differently tho.

And yea... the D:\ drive is likely assigned to a removable (CD/DVD) drive.

In the past, when installing a OS onto a new HD. I will boot to the OS
install disc, allow it to create the first partition to a size of my liking
and install the OS there. Then, with the OS up and running and all is well,
I'll open the XP "Disk Management" utility and use it to bump the drive
letter for the CD/DVD drive to something like T:\ or whatever. Just to get
it away from my hard drives. Reboot... just for the fun of it, reopen "Disk
Management" and create the other partitions for the "unallocated" space that
remains after C:\. The XP utility is pretty easy on the eyes and you can
see all your drives to better know what's going on.

Start>Programs>Administrative Tools>Computer Management... Then look for
"Disk Management".
(Maybe stick with NTFS and the default cluster size)

I don't think fdisk will work with the NTFS file system (?). And fdisk has
difficulty with large hard drives, unless you've downloaded the fdisk
"patch" or whatever it was to help with large drive capacities. I still
have fdisk too, but I leave it on a floppy buried away somewhere.

So, stick with the XP utility, it's really quite nice. Maximize the window
and drag the screen divider up so you can see ALL the drives in the lower
pane. I think it's right-click on the drive to work on it or just reassign
drive letters.

If your going to rework the last partition to salvage the 8MB (8GB ?), you
could consider "Fast Format" to save some time. Most folks probably use the
fast (quick) format anyway....

When done, you can bump the CD drive letter back up in line behind the hard
drives. You can also label your drive here too!

Good luck!

Richard In Va.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

[Kerry Brown]

This is all great advice. Thanks so much To answer some other
questions, I have 2GB of RAM, and an AMD Athlon 64 3000+.

Anyway, now that I'm ready to create my partitions, I notice that XP
skips over the D designation for drive lettering -- i.e. it goes from
C to E. Also, as I add partitions, a single partition of 8MB of
"unpartitioned space" shows up at the end.

Is this all because I'm using the XP disk to create partitions?
Should I use fdisk instead?

The 8 MB is used by XP if you want to convert the disk to dynamic. You can
use a 3rd party partioning tool to get by this.

 

[Jonny]

Trying to imagine a reason for an imaging program to copy the pagefile
(which isn't done anyway). Or hiberfil.sys as well.