Partitioning software and Performance

[Phisherman]

If I have an 80GB drive and use only 20-25 GB total storage for the
first year would I get better performance using a C: partition of 30
GB? Assume the other 50GB is unused. If so, how would a smaller
partition improve performance?

 

[Roby]

If I have an 80GB drive and use only 20-25 GB total storage for the
first year would I get better performance using a C: partition of 30
GB? Assume the other 50GB is unused. If so, how would a smaller
partition improve performance?

No improvement ... and reducing free space tends to slow down defrag.
If you really want to do this anyway, use the partition(s) nearest
to the front of the disk. The outermost cylinders have the highest
surface speed under the heads and transfer data fastest.

 

[Ed Medlin]

If I have an 80GB drive and use only 20-25 GB total storage for the
first year would I get better performance using a C: partition of 30
GB? Assume the other 50GB is unused. If so, how would a smaller
partition improve performance?

Partitioning has no effect on performance. I use partitions only to help me
keep track of where everything is. Kind of like a file cabinet. You could
make a 30 and a 50gb partition and just use the 50 for file storage like
photos, music or whatever but it would be just a waste to keep it empty. In
your case if you really want to partition, I would probably go with a 40 and
60gb just in case you install more on C: in the future. If you get too close
to your max for your OS partition you can have problems with page file
expansion and get errors. If performance is what you are looking for, I
would not partition at all with an 80g drive since it will make no
difference in that respect.

Ed

 

[Rod Speed]

If I have an 80GB drive and use only 20-25 GB total storage
for the first year would I get better performance using a C:
partition of 30 GB? Assume the other 50GB is unused.

Yes, tho the difference isnt huge.

If so, how would a smaller partition improve performance?

Basically that concentrates the files in the area of the platters
which have the maximum sectors per track. The sectors per
track varys in bands across the platters.

And you will see marginally quicker seeks because the heads
dont have to move as far, tho that is a pretty minor factor
with modern hard drives which spend most of their time
accelerating and decelerating and not much actually moving,
so the distance moved is a relatively minor effect.

 

[JAD]

Yes, tho the difference isnt huge.


Basically that concentrates the files in the area of the platters
which have the maximum sectors per track. The sectors per
track varys in bands across the platters.

And you will see marginally quicker seeks because the heads
dont have to move as far, tho that is a pretty minor factor
with modern hard drives which spend most of their time
accelerating and decelerating and not much actually moving,
so the distance moved is a relatively minor effect.

and to add, NONE of it will be noticed unless you sit in front of a
benchmark all day looking at it.......

 

[Ed Medlin]

and to add, NONE of it will be noticed unless you sit in front of a
benchmark all day looking at it.......

That is what I was getting at.......... With an 80gb drive I doubt even
benchmarks would show much, if any improvement.

Ed

 

[John Weiss]

If I have an 80GB drive and use only 20-25 GB total storage for the
first year would I get better performance using a C: partition of 30
GB? Assume the other 50GB is unused. If so, how would a smaller
partition improve performance?

Theoretically you get better performance when the drive heads are at the
outer edge of the platter, and slowest access at the inner core.
Partitioning so you do not use the inner sectors of the HD for
often-accessed data is a reasonable measure.

I'd save the inner 25-30% for archives and little-used data, and use the
rest as an active partition. Otherwise, you may run out of space and wind
up repartitioning.

 

[Rod Speed]

That is what I was getting at.......... With an 80gb drive I doubt
even benchmarks would show much, if any improvement.

They do actually, stands out like dogs balls in HDTach.

Not noticeable with normal personal desktop use tho.