What is the point of partitioning a hard drive?

[Guest]

I know a lot of people would recommend having a small C drive that just
contains the operating system, and the rest of the hard drive would
have the D drive, consisting of all applications and data. What is the
reasoning behind this?

If your hard drive crashes, both C and D drives are screwed, so that's
not the reason.

Some people might say that it's good to have the OS separate from the
applications and data, that way if you have to re-install Windows, you
only have to wipe out the C drive and don't have to touch the D drive.
But isn't the registry stored on the C drive somewhere? So if you wipe
out the C drive, all of your registry-dependent applications on D drive
won't work anymore and will still need to be re-installed.

The only thing that makes sense is to have the C drive contain the OS
and applications, and the D drive contain only data. That way you
won't need to bother with restoring your data if you have to reinstall
the OS and apps. But then it's hard to determine how large to make the
C and D drives.

I'm about to do a re-install of Windows, and am just wondering how I
should go about partitioning my drive, or if I should just have one
massive C drive.

 

[Rock]

I know a lot of people would recommend having a small C drive that just
contains the operating system, and the rest of the hard drive would
have the D drive, consisting of all applications and data. What is the
reasoning behind this?

If your hard drive crashes, both C and D drives are screwed, so that's
not the reason.

Some people might say that it's good to have the OS separate from the
applications and data, that way if you have to re-install Windows, you
only have to wipe out the C drive and don't have to touch the D drive.
But isn't the registry stored on the C drive somewhere? So if you wipe
out the C drive, all of your registry-dependent applications on D drive
won't work anymore and will still need to be re-installed.

The only thing that makes sense is to have the C drive contain the OS
and applications, and the D drive contain only data. That way you
won't need to bother with restoring your data if you have to reinstall
the OS and apps. But then it's hard to determine how large to make the
C and D drives.

I'm about to do a re-install of Windows, and am just wondering how I
should go about partitioning my drive, or if I should just have one
massive C drive.

I would recommend one partition for the OS and applications. No need to
have a separate one for apps. As you correctly state if the OS needs to
be reinstalled so do the apps. [Note it's a good idea to use a drive
imaging program to backup the partitions.] Have a separate partition(s)
for data. How you want to set that up depends on what kind of data is
on the system.

 

[Pegasus \(MVP\)]

I know a lot of people would recommend having a small C drive that just
contains the operating system, and the rest of the hard drive would
have the D drive, consisting of all applications and data. What is the
reasoning behind this?

If your hard drive crashes, both C and D drives are screwed, so that's
not the reason.

Some people might say that it's good to have the OS separate from the
applications and data, that way if you have to re-install Windows, you
only have to wipe out the C drive and don't have to touch the D drive.
But isn't the registry stored on the C drive somewhere? So if you wipe
out the C drive, all of your registry-dependent applications on D drive
won't work anymore and will still need to be re-installed.

The only thing that makes sense is to have the C drive contain the OS
and applications, and the D drive contain only data. That way you
won't need to bother with restoring your data if you have to reinstall
the OS and apps. But then it's hard to determine how large to make the
C and D drives.

I'm about to do a re-install of Windows, and am just wondering how I
should go about partitioning my drive, or if I should just have one
massive C drive.

As Rock says, having one drive for the OS + Applications and
another for your data makes a lot of sense. It makes it easier to
back up your data and it lets you re-install your OS without fearing
for your data. Furthermore, if you wish to protect your investment
in installing Windows and all its apps then you might consider
creating an image of that installation. Imaging and image restoration
becomes very hard if you have just one large partition. It's much
easier with the data out of the way, on its own partition.

 

[Guest]

Hmm, if one of the partitions only contains data, and I re-install
Windows, could that data partition still be a bit of a headache?
Because isn't it possible that after re-installing Windows and
re-creating my users, the users would have different SIDs? And Windows
permissions are based on SID instead of username, right? So I may have
to spend time to reset all of the permissions, owners, etc. for the
data in the data partition.

 

[JasonA]

I use one partition for all (except install files). The point is - you must
backup your data even if you don't image the whole hard drive. I even have
XP (and 2000 on 2000 machines) on the second partition. A couple of
computers that have had corrupt windows are able to keep going by simply
booting into this copy. Before I came across recovery CD's this was a way of
getting to existing data quickly.

 

[Guest]

My computer is used by myself and 2 brothers, younger, whch obviously means
"crap - so to speak" is regularly downloaded onto the computer and half of it
is viruses obviously. I keep a small second FAT32 partition unused, so that
when i go to reformat, instead of having to fish out blank cds and spend
hours writing to them, i drag what i want to back up to my backup partition,
format C (which does actually need doing regularly) and then whack it all
back when i need it when im done. Its a dream compared to sitting there for
hours controlling cd burning, and u can relax with scratched with CDs.

Also perhaps you want to setup a dual boot. I use to have windows XP for
work, and 98 on another partition for games, when it was the beter OS.

But yeh different people do it for different reasons lol.
Hope it helps =)
Ice

 

[Michael Stevens]

In

I know a lot of people would recommend having a small C drive that
just contains the operating system, and the rest of the hard drive
would have the D drive, consisting of all applications and data.
What is the reasoning behind this?

If your hard drive crashes, both C and D drives are screwed, so that's
not the reason.

Some people might say that it's good to have the OS separate from the
applications and data, that way if you have to re-install Windows, you
only have to wipe out the C drive and don't have to touch the D drive.
But isn't the registry stored on the C drive somewhere? So if you
wipe out the C drive, all of your registry-dependent applications on
D drive won't work anymore and will still need to be re-installed.

The only thing that makes sense is to have the C drive contain the OS
and applications, and the D drive contain only data. That way you
won't need to bother with restoring your data if you have to reinstall
the OS and apps. But then it's hard to determine how large to make
the C and D drives.

I'm about to do a re-install of Windows, and am just wondering how I
should go about partitioning my drive, or if I should just have one
massive C drive.

You seem to have a handle on the reasons, I can add that backing up a 200
gig partition with junk files along with important data files takes a lot
longer and different backup media than just backing up data on a dedicated
data partition.
It really depends on how you use your computer and computer configuration.

--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm

 

[DP]

Another reason, besides all of those given already: You might find it more
convenient to do things like virus scans and defragmentation runs on smaller
drives.
Instead of doing a long virus scan on a 200 gig drive, it might be easier to
do shorter virus scans on separate partitions at different times. Same thing
with defragging or surface scans.
And, as others have already said, the same is true of backups. Easier to do
on smaller partitions.

 

[PaulFXH]

Hi
I have two HDs (80GB and 160GB) both of which are unpartitioned other
than the 32MB FATS32 partition on the (Dell) C: drive.
However, I am gearing up to partition both drives on the basis that I
will gain performance from:
i) keeping the OS in a small partition near the outer edge of the HD
ii) putting the page file in a separate small partition also near the
edge of the "other" HD
iii) avoiding "contagious fragmentation" of the OS and important apps
by keeping them away from nasty .tmp files and cookies
iv) facilitating data backup by keeping it in its own partition.

However, I have just recently come across this 2 year old article
http://www.techbuilder.org/recipes/59201471
which categorically advocates NOT partitioning the system HD on the
basis that "Windows XP's NTFS file system runs more efficiently on one
large partition".
(see point 18).
The same article states that with todays more efficient HDs that
"defragmenting no longer makes much improvement, if any, to system
performance".
Given that at least part of the benefit of partitioning arises from
lower levels of file fragmentation, these two points suggest that
partitioning of the HD is not really worth bothering about and may
actually reduce performance.
I'd love to hear the opinion of more-knowledgable people on this.
TIA
Paul

 

[Jonny]

I know a lot of people would recommend having a small C drive that just
contains the operating system, and the rest of the hard drive would
have the D drive, consisting of all applications and data. What is the
reasoning behind this?

Don't know who this people are, but they're probably lacking in some
fashion.

If your hard drive crashes, both C and D drives are screwed, so that's
not the reason.

Yep, that's hardware; not software in origin.

Some people might say that it's good to have the OS separate from the
applications and data, that way if you have to re-install

Now that just plain BS.

Windows, you

only have to wipe out the C drive and don't have to touch the D drive.
But isn't the registry stored on the C drive somewhere? So if you wipe
out the C drive, all of your registry-dependent applications on D drive
won't work anymore and will still need to be re-installed.
Yep.


The only thing that makes sense is to have the C drive contain the OS
and applications, and the D drive contain only data. That way you
won't need to bother with restoring your data if you have to reinstall
the OS and apps. But then it's hard to determine how large to make the
C and D drives.

Not hard, just not ideally perfect for an exact number.

I'm about to do a re-install of Windows, and am just wondering how I
should go about partitioning my drive, or if I should just have one
massive C drive.

As long as you treat yourself with boundaries, rules, and limitations (dog
whisperer) regarding application installations, the partition capacity of C:
can easily be arrived at.

Use this formula:
2(X + Y + Z) = C:'s partition capacity
where
X= 4GB for XP
Y= Total RAM onboard governing the swapfile size
Z= Estimated GB in space for any intended and future 3rd party applications

If unable to:
Arrive at a number for Z, or unable to restrain oneself in 3rd party
application installation:
Change "2" to ~
where
~ = capacity of the entire hard drive, and ignore X, Y, and Z.

 

[Richard Urban]

The Windows partition is the one that usually gets the most activity, and
there is subject to the most fragmentation. It is a lot faster to defrag a
10-15 gig partition than it is to defrag a 300 gig partition that has
everything on it.

Also, by placing your My Documents folder on drive D:, it will survive a
reinstall of the operating system and not be lost. Notice I said reinstall.
That is not the same as a recovery with the computer manufacturers tools.
These will usually wipe the main hard drive clean - all partitions.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Pegasus \(MVP\)]

The Windows partition is the one that usually gets the most activity, and
there is subject to the most fragmentation. It is a lot faster to defrag a
10-15 gig partition than it is to defrag a 300 gig partition that has
everything on it.

Also, by placing your My Documents folder on drive D:, it will survive a
reinstall of the operating system and not be lost. Notice I said reinstall.
That is not the same as a recovery with the computer manufacturers tools.
These will usually wipe the main hard drive clean - all partitions.

Some manufacturers appear to have wisened up a little.
I recently restored a Dell machine from its inbuilt recovery
partition and it was kind enough to leave drive D: alone.

 

[Richard Urban]

That IS good to hear!

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Michael Stevens]

--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm

Hi
I have two HDs (80GB and 160GB) both of which are unpartitioned other
than the 32MB FATS32 partition on the (Dell) C: drive.
However, I am gearing up to partition both drives on the basis that I
will gain performance from:
i) keeping the OS in a small partition near the outer edge of the HD
ii) putting the page file in a separate small partition also near the
edge of the "other" HD
iii) avoiding "contagious fragmentation" of the OS and important apps
by keeping them away from nasty .tmp files and cookies
iv) facilitating data backup by keeping it in its own partition.

However, I have just recently come across this 2 year old article
http://www.techbuilder.org/recipes/59201471
which categorically advocates NOT partitioning the system HD on the
basis that "Windows XP's NTFS file system runs more efficiently on one
large partition".
(see point 18).
The same article states that with todays more efficient HDs that
"defragmenting no longer makes much improvement, if any, to system
performance".
Given that at least part of the benefit of partitioning arises from
lower levels of file fragmentation, these two points suggest that
partitioning of the HD is not really worth bothering about and may
actually reduce performance.
I'd love to hear the opinion of more-knowledgable people on this.
TIA
Paul

Not sure what you mean about outer edge, but any performance gains will be
realized from files being accessed on the beginning of a hard drive. You
would never want to move any page files or programs to another partition on
the same hard drive or even locate a pagefile on a different partition other
than the main system partition on the same hard drive. If you have a second
hard drive equal to or faster than the main drive, you can move the page
file to first partition of the hard drive and possibly get a little
performance gain. Changing pagefile location is not very noticable unless
the hard drive is must faster than the original location. Big differences in
performance from a 5200 rpm hard drive compared to a 7200 rpm would be the
most noticeable performance gain.
I upgraded my HP laptop from a 5200 rpm 20 gig hard drive to a 7200rpm 40
gig drive and the difference in performance was dramatic. I was about to
dump the laptop before the swap, but now I got another years use out it.
I also have the old drive connected as a USB 2 external drive for one of my
redundant backups which makes the swap even sweeter.
I used the external drive and the new drives Toshiba utilities from their
web site to clone my old system to the new drive.


--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm

 

[Kerry Brown]

Hmm, if one of the partitions only contains data, and I re-install
Windows, could that data partition still be a bit of a headache?
Because isn't it possible that after re-installing Windows and
re-creating my users, the users would have different SIDs? And
Windows permissions are based on SID instead of username, right? So
I may have to spend time to reset all of the permissions, owners,
etc. for the data in the data partition.

Yes, but that's quicker than restoring from a backup. Depending on how you
backup you will most likely have the exact same permission issues to deal
with after the restore.

Kerry

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

(e-mail address removed) wrote:


First, a word on the terminology: portioning a drive isn't optional, it's
required in order to use it. Partitioning is the act of creating one or more
partitions, and you can't use the drive unless it has at least one
partition.

So what you're really asking, I assume, is "what is the point of having more
than one partition?"

I know a lot of people would recommend having a small C drive that
just contains the operating system, and the rest of the hard drive
would have the D drive, consisting of all applications and data.
What is the reasoning behind this?

Their reasoning is often spurious

If your hard drive crashes, both C and D drives are screwed, so that's
not the reason.

You're right, of course, but not everyone realizes it.

Some people might say that it's good to have the OS separate from the
applications and data, that way if you have to re-install Windows, you
only have to wipe out the C drive and don't have to touch the D drive.
But isn't the registry stored on the C drive somewhere? So if you
wipe out the C drive, all of your registry-dependent applications on
D drive won't work anymore and will still need to be re-installed.

Right again, but many people don't realize that you can't reinstall Windows
and keep installed applications.

The only thing that makes sense is to have the C drive contain the OS
and applications, and the D drive contain only data. That way you
won't need to bother with restoring your data if you have to reinstall
the OS and apps.

I don't agree that that's the *only* thing that makes sense (for example, a
common good reason for having multiple partitions is dual booting), but yes,
it's the most common way to do it that makes sense for many people.

But then it's hard to determine how large to make
the C and D drives.

Yes. However, in these days of large inexpensive drives, that problem isn't
as significant as it used to be. One can usually make C: large enough that
you'll never have to worry about needing more.

I'm about to do a re-install of Windows, and am just wondering how I
should go about partitioning my drive, or if I should just have one
massive C drive.

There are no *right* answers here, and it depends on you and the way you
work. If you are not dual-booting, it seldom makes sense to have more than
two partitions. For many people there can be benefit in separating their
data from Windows. In particular, if their backup scheme is one that backs
up their data, but not the operating system, such a partitioning scheme can
facilitate that. For those whose backup scheme consists of making an image
of everything on the hard drive, there is much less value to separating it
on its own partition.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

I know a lot of people would recommend having a small C drive that just
contains the operating system, and the rest of the hard drive would
have the D drive, consisting of all applications and data. What is the
reasoning behind this?

Other than being not particularly well thought out, I can detect no
real reasoning... People who suggest placing applications on a separate
partition with the intent of preserving them clearly have no conception
of how Windows systems folders and the registry function.

If your hard drive crashes, both C and D drives are screwed, so that's
not the reason.

Some people might say that it's good to have the OS separate from the
applications and data, that way if you have to re-install Windows, you
only have to wipe out the C drive and don't have to touch the D drive.
But isn't the registry stored on the C drive somewhere? So if you wipe
out the C drive, all of your registry-dependent applications on D drive
won't work anymore and will still need to be re-installed.

Correct. There's really very little point in having a separate drive
or partition for just applications. Should you have to reinstall the
OS, you'll still have to reinstall each and every application and game
anyway, in order to recreate the hundreds (possibly thousands) of
registry entries and to replace the dozens (possibly hundreds) of
essential system files back into the appropriate Windows folders and
sub-folders. This is a useful solution only if your system partition
lacks sufficient space for all of your applications.

The only thing that makes sense is to have the C drive contain the OS
and applications, and the D drive contain only data. That way you
won't need to bother with restoring your data if you have to reinstall
the OS and apps. But then it's hard to determine how large to make the
C and D drives.

Correct again. Placing data files on a partition or physical hard
drive separate from the operating system and applications can greatly
simplify system repairs/recoveries and data back-up.

I'm about to do a re-install of Windows, and am just wondering how I
should go about partitioning my drive, or if I should just have one
massive C drive.

It's largely a matter of personal preference. Personally, I create a
"system" partition that I think is large enough to contain the OS and
applications, the swap file, and accommodate future growth, and a much
larger "data" partition to store all of my data files.



--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of
chains and slavery? .... I know not what course others may take, but as
for me, give me liberty, or give me death! -Patrick Henry

 

[Sid Knee]

I know a lot of people would recommend having a small C drive that just
contains the operating system, and the rest of the hard drive would
have the D drive, consisting of all applications and data. What is the
reasoning behind this?

If your hard drive crashes, both C and D drives are screwed, so that's
not the reason.

Your question - and most of the responses as far as I can see at a quick
scan - seems to assume a situation of one drive partitioned to contain
both the c: and d: (and perhaps other)volumes.

However you choose to apportion the os, apps and data, I don't think
this is the best way to go. A second drive containing the d: volume is
safer and I, personally, place the data there with the OS and apps on
the c: volume. That way if the first hd fails (hardware) the data is
still protected.

 

[Richard Urban]

And if the 2nd drive fails?

It doesn't matter how you partition your drives, or how many drives you have
connected. You still need multiple "backups" for DATA safety. External USB
drives and DVD's come to mind.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Rock]

Hmm, if one of the partitions only contains data, and I re-install
Windows, could that data partition still be a bit of a headache?
Because isn't it possible that after re-installing Windows and
re-creating my users, the users would have different SIDs? And Windows
permissions are based on SID instead of username, right? So I may have
to spend time to reset all of the permissions, owners, etc. for the
data in the data partition.

That's easy to deal with.