To partition or not to partition

[Jon Davis]

Back in the old days of FAT16, it was good to partition into smaller
partitions partly because the larger partitions [large in its day],
"stretched" the cluster size such that there was a lot of wasted space among
small files that didn't fill entire clusters.

Question: Is this still an issue with NTFS on, say, an 80GB notebook HD?
What about a 300GB IDE HD (for my desktop system)?

About to buy a laptop w/ 80GB hard drive. Going to upgrade to XP Pro.
Thinking about partitioning into two, three, or four partitions. But I might
just as soon just leave it alone, if it would be better.

Jon

 

[SteveL]

That would be your call, I do partition at least 2
partitions, 1 is for the OS and or programs depending on
the size of the drive and the other is for downloads,
shares, and other needs, you may want to do 3 1 for a test
partition as in another OS install like Red Hat.

 

[Larry(LJL269)]

Using http://www.aumha.org/a/parts.htm I partitioned my
2 HD's into C thru H (running ME then XP) & was
impressed with greater speed & reliability. Buying
partitioneng & imaging software
greatly increases ur capabilites & options over the
'big picture'- like having a backup system or
recovering from a HD crash or having VM on separate
drive or having highly fragmented files all in same
partition. Ur just playing the game on a higher level.

Consider getting 2 40's where VM & backups ( for OS
too) r the 2 parts on 2nd and OS,apps, TIFs r on 1st
ala above URL. I boot 2 XPs with >100 tweaks on each &
my XP Purrrs.

Contrary to some MVP claims, it does NOTHING for ur
sex life
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 19:39:46 -0700, "Jon Davis"

|Back in the old days of FAT16, it was good to partition into smaller
|partitions partly because the larger partitions [large in its day],
|"stretched" the cluster size such that there was a lot of wasted space among
|small files that didn't fill entire clusters.
|
|Question: Is this still an issue with NTFS on, say, an 80GB notebook HD?
|What about a 300GB IDE HD (for my desktop system)?
|
|About to buy a laptop w/ 80GB hard drive. Going to upgrade to XP Pro.
|Thinking about partitioning into two, three, or four partitions. But I might
|just as soon just leave it alone, if it would be better.
|
|Jon
|

Any advise is my attempt to contribute more than I have received but I can only assure you that it works on my PC. GOOD LUCK.

 

[Hilary Karp]

It's generally a good idea to have at least two partitions, one for the
operating system and programs and another for data. That way if the OS
needs to be reinstalled your data is separate, and can make for easier
backups. Some people like to keep a third partition for installed
programs though some insist on installing in the system partition and
some, though they will install to a different partition keep portions on
the system drive.

It's all in how you like to have things organized, though I would
recommend at the least a separate data partition.

 

[Crusty \Old B@stard\]

Many people use at least 2 partitions, one for the operating system (about
10-15 gig) and another for all their personal data. When the system crashes,
and you have to redo Windows, you will not lose your personal files.

--
Regards:

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard

 

[Plato]

Many people use at least 2 partitions, one for the operating system (about
10-15 gig) and another for all their personal data. When the system crashes,
and you have to redo Windows, you will not lose your personal files.

Is is a correct assumption that if you do above you should also install
all your programs to Drive D: ie the second partition?

 

[Alex Nichol]

Back in the old days of FAT16, it was good to partition into smaller
partitions partly because the larger partitions [large in its day],
"stretched" the cluster size such that there was a lot of wasted space among
small files that didn't fill entire clusters.

Question: Is this still an issue with NTFS on, say, an 80GB notebook HD?
What about a 300GB IDE HD (for my desktop system)?

I would always do a split, having the system on a tightly controlled
partition and the data kept elsewhere. The reason is that this makes it
practicable to back the system's one (which will not change seriously
very often) up as an image, that you can restore in the event of
disaster *without* either overwriting all the data on the other one or
having to make enormous backups every day. Then the data can be backed
up on a file-by-file basis, using 'incremental' backup of only files
that have been changed (and ignoring ones of only transitory interest).
I would split say 16 MB for the system and the rest for data. Further
splitting - eg a partition for installing third party programs to; or
for smaller but critical data files, is optional.

 

[Ron Sommer]

Is is a correct assumption that if you do above you should also install
all your programs to Drive D: ie the second partition?

Not correct.
Most programs have entries in the Registry.
A reinstall of Windows will also require a reinstall of programs.
So there is little reason to put the program files on D:.

 

[Larry(LJL269)]

Using http://www.aumha.org/a/parts.htm I partitioned my
2 HD's into C thru H (running ME then XP) & was
impressed with greater speed & reliability. Buying
partitioneng & imaging software
greatly increases ur capabilites & options over the
'big picture'- like having a backup system or
recovering from a HD crash or having VM on separate
drive or having highly fragmented files all in same
partition. Ur just playing the game on a higher level.

Consider getting 2 40's where VM & backups ( for OS
too) r the 2 parts on 2nd and OS,apps, TIFs r on 1st
ala above URL. I boot 2 XPs with >100 tweaks on each &
my XP Purrrs.

Contrary to some MVP claims, it does NOTHING for ur
sex life
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 19:39:46 -0700, "Jon Davis"

|Back in the old days of FAT16, it was good to partition into smaller
|partitions partly because the larger partitions [large in its day],
|"stretched" the cluster size such that there was a lot of wasted space among
|small files that didn't fill entire clusters.
|
|Question: Is this still an issue with NTFS on, say, an 80GB notebook HD?
|What about a 300GB IDE HD (for my desktop system)?
|
|About to buy a laptop w/ 80GB hard drive. Going to upgrade to XP Pro.
|Thinking about partitioning into two, three, or four partitions. But I might
|just as soon just leave it alone, if it would be better.
|
|Jon
|

Any advise is my attempt to contribute more than I have received but I can only assure you that it works on my PC. GOOD LUCK.

 

[Ken Blake]

Back in the old days of FAT16, it was good to partition into smaller
partitions partly because the larger partitions [large in its day],
"stretched" the cluster size such that there was a lot of wasted space among
small files that didn't fill entire clusters.

The issue wasn't with small files, it was with all files. Unless
a file is an exact multiple of the cluster size, all files waste
part of the last cluster. On the average, each file, regardless
of whether it's large or small, wastes approximately half a
cluster.

Question: Is this still an issue with NTFS on, say, an 80GB notebook HD?
What about a 300GB IDE HD (for my desktop system)?

The size of the drive doesn't matter. The default NTFS cluster
size remains at 4KB.

Even with NTFS, the average amount of space wasted to slack is
still approximately half a cluster for each file. But with 4KB
clusters, it's not as significant as it was with 32KB clusters.
And regardless of how you partition with NTFS, the amount of
slack stays the same.

About to buy a laptop w/ 80GB hard drive. Going to upgrade to XP Pro.
Thinking about partitioning into two, three, or four partitions. But I might
just as soon just leave it alone, if it would be better.

My personal view is that, whether you're talking about FAT16,
FAT32, or NTFS, if you calculate the amount of space wasted to
slack in dollars (substitute your local currency, if not
dollars), it doesn't amount to very much. All those megabytes or
gigabytes sound like a lot of space, but as hard drive prices per
gigabyte continue to decline partitioning to save slack space
makes little sense.

So with NTFS it doesn't matter. And with FAT32 or FAT16, my
recommendation is to partition for your personal convenience, and
ignore the few dollars-worth of space you might save by having
extra partitions.

 

[Ken Blake]

files.

Is is a correct assumption that if you do above you should also install
all your programs to Drive D: ie the second partition?

No. If you reinstall Windows, you lose all the registry entires,
etc. associated with those programs. They will have to be
reinstalled anyway.

 

[Larry(LJL269)]

Using http://www.aumha.org/a/parts.htm I partitioned my
2 HD's into C thru H (running ME then XP) & was
impressed with greater speed & reliability. Buying
partitioneng & imaging software
greatly increases ur capabilites & options over the
'big picture'- like having a backup system or
recovering from a HD crash or having VM on separate
drive or having highly fragmented files all in same
partition. Ur just playing the game on a higher level.

Consider getting 2 40's where VM & backups ( for OS
too) r the 2 parts on 2nd and OS,apps, TIFs r on 1st
ala above URL. I boot 2 XPs with >100 tweaks on each &
my XP Purrrs.

Contrary to some MVP claims, it does NOTHING for ur
sex life
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 19:39:46 -0700, "Jon Davis"

|Back in the old days of FAT16, it was good to partition into smaller
|partitions partly because the larger partitions [large in its day],
|"stretched" the cluster size such that there was a lot of wasted space among
|small files that didn't fill entire clusters.
|
|Question: Is this still an issue with NTFS on, say, an 80GB notebook HD?
|What about a 300GB IDE HD (for my desktop system)?
|
|About to buy a laptop w/ 80GB hard drive. Going to upgrade to XP Pro.
|Thinking about partitioning into two, three, or four partitions. But I might
|just as soon just leave it alone, if it would be better.
|
|Jon
|

Any advise is my attempt to contribute more than I have received but I can only assure you that it works on my PC. GOOD LUCK.

 

[Jon Davis]

The issue wasn't with small files, it was with all files. Unless

a file is an exact multiple of the cluster size, all files waste
part of the last cluster. On the average, each file, regardless
of whether it's large or small, wastes approximately half a
cluster.
The size of the drive doesn't matter. The default NTFS cluster
size remains at 4KB.
Even with NTFS, the average amount of space wasted to slack is
still approximately half a cluster for each file. But with 4KB
clusters, it's not as significant as it was with 32KB clusters.
And regardless of how you partition with NTFS, the amount of
slack stays the same.

Thanks for the info, Ken. However, if the above is true, and I believe you,
then the size of the files does matter. If wasted space consists of whatever
is unused of a 4KB block, then for twenty 1KB files, 60KB is lost, whereas
for a single 23KB file only 1KB is lost.

It doesn't matter much for most people. The trend is files are growing, not
shrinking.

However, the software programming work I do has caused me to consider using
tiny flat files rather than SQL Server as a database, so this matters to
me... very, VERY much.

Jon

Back in the old days of FAT16, it was good to partition into smaller
partitions partly because the larger partitions [large in its day],
"stretched" the cluster size such that there was a lot of wasted space among
small files that didn't fill entire clusters.

The issue wasn't with small files, it was with all files. Unless
a file is an exact multiple of the cluster size, all files waste
part of the last cluster. On the average, each file, regardless
of whether it's large or small, wastes approximately half a
cluster.

Question: Is this still an issue with NTFS on, say, an 80GB notebook HD?
What about a 300GB IDE HD (for my desktop system)?

The size of the drive doesn't matter. The default NTFS cluster
size remains at 4KB.

Even with NTFS, the average amount of space wasted to slack is
still approximately half a cluster for each file. But with 4KB
clusters, it's not as significant as it was with 32KB clusters.
And regardless of how you partition with NTFS, the amount of
slack stays the same.

About to buy a laptop w/ 80GB hard drive. Going to upgrade to XP Pro.
Thinking about partitioning into two, three, or four partitions. But I might
just as soon just leave it alone, if it would be better.

My personal view is that, whether you're talking about FAT16,
FAT32, or NTFS, if you calculate the amount of space wasted to
slack in dollars (substitute your local currency, if not
dollars), it doesn't amount to very much. All those megabytes or
gigabytes sound like a lot of space, but as hard drive prices per
gigabyte continue to decline partitioning to save slack space
makes little sense.

So with NTFS it doesn't matter. And with FAT32 or FAT16, my
recommendation is to partition for your personal convenience, and
ignore the few dollars-worth of space you might save by having
extra partitions.

 

[Jon Davis]

I'd still put it on D: anyway, because a lot of software out there
erroniously puts user settings and user files in their directory paths.
Examples: WinAmp and WindowBlinds skins; WebShots photos, etc ...

Any reason not to? The only reason I can think of is all those extra,
unwanted programs that are put in Program Files on D: that you decide not to
reinstall are still there as ghost files.

Jon

 

[Jon Davis]

I have verified this to be the case.

1. create a text file called "test.txt".
2. open it in notepad
3. add a "0" to the content. save.
4. view file properties: "Size: 1 byte Size on disk: 4KB" Wasted space is
3.99KB
5. do it again, with "test2.txt", and add "12345678", select all / copy /
paste EIGHT times, copy all / copy / paste EIGHT more times, and then again
SIX times. Save, should be "3KB, size on disk: 4KB" Wasted space is 1KB.

Jon

The issue wasn't with small files, it was with all files. Unless
a file is an exact multiple of the cluster size, all files waste
part of the last cluster. On the average, each file, regardless
of whether it's large or small, wastes approximately half a
cluster.
The size of the drive doesn't matter. The default NTFS cluster
size remains at 4KB.
Even with NTFS, the average amount of space wasted to slack is
still approximately half a cluster for each file. But with 4KB
clusters, it's not as significant as it was with 32KB clusters.
And regardless of how you partition with NTFS, the amount of
slack stays the same.

Thanks for the info, Ken. However, if the above is true, and I believe you,
then the size of the files does matter. If wasted space consists of whatever
is unused of a 4KB block, then for twenty 1KB files, 60KB is lost, whereas
for a single 23KB file only 1KB is lost.

It doesn't matter much for most people. The trend is files are growing, not
shrinking.

However, the software programming work I do has caused me to consider using
tiny flat files rather than SQL Server as a database, so this matters to
me... very, VERY much.

Jon

Back in the old days of FAT16, it was good to partition into smaller
partitions partly because the larger partitions [large in its day],
"stretched" the cluster size such that there was a lot of wasted space among
small files that didn't fill entire clusters.

The issue wasn't with small files, it was with all files. Unless
a file is an exact multiple of the cluster size, all files waste
part of the last cluster. On the average, each file, regardless
of whether it's large or small, wastes approximately half a
cluster.

Question: Is this still an issue with NTFS on, say, an 80GB notebook HD?
What about a 300GB IDE HD (for my desktop system)?

The size of the drive doesn't matter. The default NTFS cluster
size remains at 4KB.

Even with NTFS, the average amount of space wasted to slack is
still approximately half a cluster for each file. But with 4KB
clusters, it's not as significant as it was with 32KB clusters.
And regardless of how you partition with NTFS, the amount of
slack stays the same.

About to buy a laptop w/ 80GB hard drive. Going to upgrade to XP Pro.
Thinking about partitioning into two, three, or four partitions. But I might
just as soon just leave it alone, if it would be better.

My personal view is that, whether you're talking about FAT16,
FAT32, or NTFS, if you calculate the amount of space wasted to
slack in dollars (substitute your local currency, if not
dollars), it doesn't amount to very much. All those megabytes or
gigabytes sound like a lot of space, but as hard drive prices per
gigabyte continue to decline partitioning to save slack space
makes little sense.

So with NTFS it doesn't matter. And with FAT32 or FAT16, my
recommendation is to partition for your personal convenience, and
ignore the few dollars-worth of space you might save by having
extra partitions.

 

[Ken Blake]

In

Thanks for the info, Ken. However, if the above is true, and I
believe you, then the size of the files does matter. If wasted space
consists of whatever is unused of a 4KB block, then for twenty 1KB
files, 60KB is lost, whereas for a single 23KB file only 1KB is

lost.


You're welcome. Yes, what you say is true, but you're comparing
twenty files to one file. My point is that, on the average, 20
large files wastes approximately as much space as 20 small files.

(Note the word "approximately." Studies have shown that in
practice small, single-cluster, files are likely to waste
somewhat more than larger ones, but that's a relatively minor
effect.)

 

[Ken Blake]

In

I have verified this to be the case.

1. create a text file called "test.txt".
2. open it in notepad
3. add a "0" to the content. save.
4. view file properties: "Size: 1 byte Size on disk: 4KB" Wasted
space is
3.99KB
5. do it again, with "test2.txt", and add "12345678", select all /
copy / paste EIGHT times, copy all / copy / paste EIGHT more times,
and then again SIX times. Save, should be "3KB, size on disk: 4KB"
Wasted space is 1KB.

I went to the trouble of duplicating your experiment, even though
I was sutre what the results would be. They are not at all as you
describe. Each 1-byte file wastes 4095 bytes, and the total waste
of the 15 files is 61,425 bytes.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

The issue wasn't with small files, it was with all files. Unless
a file is an exact multiple of the cluster size, all files waste
part of the last cluster. On the average, each file, regardless
of whether it's large or small, wastes approximately half a
cluster.
The size of the drive doesn't matter. The default NTFS cluster
size remains at 4KB.
Even with NTFS, the average amount of space wasted to slack is
still approximately half a cluster for each file. But with 4KB
clusters, it's not as significant as it was with 32KB clusters.
And regardless of how you partition with NTFS, the amount of
slack stays the same.

Thanks for the info, Ken. However, if the above is true, and I
believe you, then the size of the files does matter. If wasted space
consists of whatever is unused of a 4KB block, then for twenty 1KB
files, 60KB is lost, whereas for a single 23KB file only 1KB is lost.

It doesn't matter much for most people. The trend is files are
growing, not shrinking.

However, the software programming work I do has caused me to
consider using tiny flat files rather than SQL Server as a database,
so this matters to me... very, VERY much.

Jon

Back in the old days of FAT16, it was good to partition into
smaller
partitions partly because the larger partitions [large in its
day],
"stretched" the cluster size such that there was a lot of
wasted space among
small files that didn't fill entire clusters.


The issue wasn't with small files, it was with all files. Unless
a file is an exact multiple of the cluster size, all files waste
part of the last cluster. On the average, each file, regardless
of whether it's large or small, wastes approximately half a
cluster.


Question: Is this still an issue with NTFS on, say, an 80GB
notebook HD?
What about a 300GB IDE HD (for my desktop system)?


The size of the drive doesn't matter. The default NTFS cluster
size remains at 4KB.

Even with NTFS, the average amount of space wasted to slack is
still approximately half a cluster for each file. But with 4KB
clusters, it's not as significant as it was with 32KB clusters.
And regardless of how you partition with NTFS, the amount of
slack stays the same.


About to buy a laptop w/ 80GB hard drive. Going to upgrade to
XP Pro.
Thinking about partitioning into two, three, or four
partitions. But I might
just as soon just leave it alone, if it would be better.


My personal view is that, whether you're talking about FAT16,
FAT32, or NTFS, if you calculate the amount of space wasted to
slack in dollars (substitute your local currency, if not
dollars), it doesn't amount to very much. All those megabytes or
gigabytes sound like a lot of space, but as hard drive prices per
gigabyte continue to decline partitioning to save slack space
makes little sense.

So with NTFS it doesn't matter. And with FAT32 or FAT16, my
recommendation is to partition for your personal convenience, and
ignore the few dollars-worth of space you might save by having
extra partitions.

 

[Tom]

In


I went to the trouble of duplicating your experiment, even though
I was sutre what the results would be. They are not at all as you
describe. Each 1-byte file wastes 4095 bytes, and the total waste
of the 15 files is 61,425 bytes.

Well, I don't know what file system you're using, or if you specified a certain cluster size, but I have 4096byte clusters

 

[Ken Blake]

In

Well, I don't know what file system you're using, or if you specified
a certain cluster size, but I have 4096byte clusters

Same here--NTFS with 4K clusters. That's why I said a 1-byte file
wastes 4095 bytes.

 

[Larry(LJL269)]

I put large games (500-1000MB) with little input on a
part that I dont't BU like OS & apps parts. If u lose
them, they're easy to reinstall.

Just my 2¢ worth- bye- Larry


On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 11:29:47 +0100, Alex Nichol

|Jon Davis wrote:
|
|>Back in the old days of FAT16, it was good to partition into smaller
|>partitions partly because the larger partitions [large in its day],
|>"stretched" the cluster size such that there was a lot of wasted space among
|>small files that didn't fill entire clusters.
|>
|>Question: Is this still an issue with NTFS on, say, an 80GB notebook HD?
|>What about a 300GB IDE HD (for my desktop system)?
|
|I would always do a split, having the system on a tightly controlled
|partition and the data kept elsewhere. The reason is that this makes it
|practicable to back the system's one (which will not change seriously
|very often) up as an image, that you can restore in the event of
|disaster *without* either overwriting all the data on the other one or
|having to make enormous backups every day. Then the data can be backed
|up on a file-by-file basis, using 'incremental' backup of only files
|that have been changed (and ignoring ones of only transitory interest).
|I would split say 16 MB for the system and the rest for data. Further
|splitting - eg a partition for installing third party programs to; or
|for smaller but critical data files, is optional.

Any advise is my attempt to contribute more than I have received but I can only assure you that it works on my PC. GOOD LUCK.