Drive partitioning = Better performance?

[skybolt_1]

I've been told by people that if I want to get the most performance out of a large-capacity hard drive, I should make a 1-2 gigabyte partition, install my OS files there, and leave the rest of the space for programs. Any pros/cons to this that anyone would like to share? Thankx

Skybolt_1

[jaida]

Basically any partitions would help the performance of your drive because it would have less empty space to go through before accessing files.

I would go with a little bigger partition for the os because i have found that with a 1-2 gig partition you can generally run out of room because it's a bit too small.

[NDD]

What size of HD do you have ? Generally, it truly better to partition you HD, leave some space, usually 2-3 GB to OS, and the rest to games/apps, according to you need, even more partitions, maybe ...
You can also search for same posts, I've seen similar question just few days ago, and it had something like 30 replies - really should help you ...

Best Regards ...

[NDD]

Posting again at the same time http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[jaida]

hehe http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[skybolt_1]

The drive is a 40 gig Maxtor 7200 RPM ultra DMA/100. if that helps. Ill look for past posts too thanks.
skybolt_1

[Variable]

In that case I would set it up like that:
1. 4GB for the OS
2. 4GB optional for a secondary or backup OS
3. 12GB for programs
4. 10GB for games
5. 10GB for all your files, downloads and stuff
6. 10GB for mp3s

The main reason (for me) to partition is to have the OS on a seperate partition so that when things go bad you can just wipe this partition clean, do a re-install and have all your files and stuff save. (It also makes it easy to change from one OS to another)

[Variable]

oops double posting



[This message has been edited by Variable (edited 03-07-2001).]

[Wilan Wong]

Putting a swap file on its own partition claims to have better performance. But I can hardly notice a thing though.

[DanU]

I also went the multi-parition route, but I didn't notice any speed gains at all. The only benefit was when windows crashed. Scandisk only scans the partition where the OS resides, so its a lot quicker. But other than that, having multiple paritions can be a pain. I ended up having two partitions, one for windows and one for linux. Well... technically three since linux creates a swap partition too.

[otheos]

Put the most used partitions first and leave static (like mp3's and backup for OS or other) last.

The first partition can be as much as 25% faster than the last (due to the geometry of the hard drive).

Having multiple partitions on one disk does not improve performance as the heads need to travel over the whole disk to access various files whereas if all is on one big (defragmented) partition the empty space is at the (slow) end and the files at the begining hence the head only moves across a smaller distance.

Partitioning is good for keeping the system tidy.

For a performance boost you need not only a second HD but it has to be connected on a different controller (ie if your first drive is on the 1st connector, the second drive should be on the second connector, not a slave to the first one).

As for the swap, ideally it should be on the first partition (even better the first thing on the first partition) of a different drive (on a different connector) so that it uses the fastest part of the HD and can be accessed simultaneously with the OS HD.

[Variable]

yep otheos is right!
and I have to add again! ahving multiple partition makes your computer maybe not faster (or just a tiny little bit) but it makes it much easyer to manage.

[otheos]

I thought I'd say a bit about RAID0 on IDE but I ended up getting off topic so I posted it here: http://www.sysopt.com/forum/Forum1/HTML/011901.html

[Nathan]

Your calculator not working there Variable? Or is there a new way to get 25% more space on a hard drive without using compression? hehe

[wyvrn]

What is the difference in having multiple folders and multiple partitions? They are just divisions of a whole. Why in the world would you need to spend time in fdisk to create 6 partitions? Creating a folder in Windows is sooo much easier.

As for reinstalling the OS, you would then have to spend time reinstalling many of your apps in order for them to run right, so you do not save a whole lot of time there.

Partitions do not make drive access faster. Data is data, and using partitions to divide it just ensures that there will be needless blank space between clusters. Seems like a higher seek time to me.

If you are talking about scandisk and defrag, it takes no less time to scan and degrag 6 partitions than one gigantic partition. Unless you are a zealot and defrag one particular partition everyday. Personally, I just run defrag at night when I am sleeping so it can take as long as needed...

Some of the reasons people give for partitioning are not quite as sound when you reason them out..

[This message has been edited by wyvrn (edited 03-07-2001).]

[DanU]

I agree with you wyvern. Having multiple partitions is a pain to deal with. If you want to organize your data, use folders instead.

Lets say you want to move several hundred MB of data from one partition to another. The drive has to physically copy the data to the other partition then clear out the data from the original partition. This could take several minutes. With folders, all it does is a rename, which takes a fraction of a second.

Here's another example. Let's say you underestimated how much your mp3 partition needed be and overestimated how much your games partition needed to be. You would have to use a special utility to re-size the partitions, stealing space from one to give to the other. What a pain. To make it even more troublesome, you only could do this IF they were adjacent partitions. The chances of that are slim if you've got 3 or more partitions. With folders, this is a non-issue since they all share the same free space.

[Lebo]

As Variable said, one of the main reasons for partitioning your hard drive is the safety aspect. If you have only one partition and your os dies on you, you will be faced with formated the HDD, all information will be lost. Unless you can access it through dos, have a truckload of floppy disks and two weeks of spare time to copy the info to disk.

If on the other hand you have a partition for data, drivers, zipped progams etc, you just reinstall the os (and some apps) and away you go. A lot safer and smarter. Folders will be all gone with the rest.

Partitioning also saves time with housekeeping, defragging all partitions may not be faster than defragging the whole drive. However you realise that the partition with most changes to files will require more defragging, so you will usually only need to defrag one or possibly two of your partitions on a regular basis.

[wyvrn]

Partitioning also saves time with housekeeping, defragging all partitions may not be faster than defragging the whole drive. However you realise that the partition with most changes to files will require more defragging, so you will usually only need to defrag one or possibly two of your partitions on a regular basis

Since I am not one who likes to watch the pretty colors while defragging, I schedule it for a time while I am not using my computer, like at night. How long it takes to defrag is moot.

As Variable said, one of the main reasons for partitioning your hard drive is the safety aspect. If you have only one partition and your os dies on you, you will be faced with formated the HDD, all information will be lost. Unless you can access it through dos, have a truckload of floppy disks and two weeks of spare time to copy the info to disk.

Nope if the OS dies on me, I deltree on the Windows directory and reinstall. I do not need a partition for that.

If the hard drive dies, partitions are not going to help you either. Only a valid backup scheme will do for that.

If on the other hand you have a partition for data, drivers, zipped progams etc, you just reinstall the os (and some apps) and away you go. A lot safer and smarter. Folders will be all gone with the rest.

You can do this with folders as well. Check my original reply.

[DanU]

There was a time that multiple partitions saved my data. I had two partitions, one for data and one the OS and programs. The OS/programs partition somehow got physically corrupted. Files on the first partition were dying at an alarming rate, but files on the second partition, my data partition, were unaffected. Fearing an imminent HD meltdown, I copied all my data files onto another HD. Right after copying all the files, the HD died completely. God must have been keeping that HD together just long enough for me to complete my transfer.

However, wyvern is right. Multiple partitions is absolutely not a replacement for proper backups. What if the entire drive died immediately, or if the data partition died first?

Three partitions I can understand. One for swap, one for OS and one for everything else. But six is more of a hassle than it's worth.

[elroy]

I use 3 partitions. 1: OS and programs 2: storage 3: data that is burned to CD This way when Windows gets goofy I move any valuables from C onto D and format C and re-install Windows. Works for me.

[Lebo]

"Since I am not one who likes to watch the pretty colors while defragging, I schedule it for a time while I am not using my computer, like at night. How long it takes to defrag is moot. "

I agree, I have used this method myself in the past,hoever not everybody leaves their PC on 24/7, and usually think about it while they are using their PC.

"Nope if the OS dies on me, I deltree on the Windows directory and reinstall. I do not need a partition for that. "

Thanks I think I'll give that a go. I do own a full copy Dos, pity not everybody does, as deltree is not available in the average Startup Disk. I'll probably still stick with the partitioning and format and reinstall, it has always worked well in the past.

One important reason for partitioning that I neglected to mention earlier is that once your HDD is over 8gig on a fat32 partition the number of sectors per cluster increases from 8 to 16, when you go above 16gig you end up with 32 sectors per cluster.

As you may be aware a cluster is the smallest unit of data that can be read or written to the HDD at one time.

It is obviously more advantagous to work with small clusters as there is less wasted space. Anybody who has changed their system from FAT16 to FAT32 will attest to this.

If you are using NTFS it is probably not as important as the cluster size over 1gig is still only 4 sectors.

[skybolt_1]

Ok, now that everyone with a seemingly conflicting opinion has put in their two cents ( ;P ), heres what i have in mind...

Don't partition it.

Why? Because I feel that the majority of the responding parties either felt that A: There was no performance increase, or B: That having partions was just not worth it for the slight performance increase. Tell my if im wrong. Also, I beleve that partitioning is a permenant change in the hard drive. I could be wrong on this but im not sure I want to be making any permenant changes... Anyway, thanks for all the input I appreciate it.

Skybolt_1

[Lebo]

I don't mean to harp on, but if your drive is over 8gig than it is advantagous to partition it. There is a performance increase, that is you will be able to store more files on a large disk, the larger the more advantagous.

Partitions need not be permanent, utilities like Partion Magic can move and resize partitions. It may take while, but who cares, do it at night while you sleep!

Anyway a lot of interesting things to think about, I certainly have a few things to test and trial. Good thread.

[Gutter Ball]

I partitioned my drive 5 times. Major reasons are that backups are easier (each partition usually fits on one CD) and even better organization(at least to me) of my files. I don't think it has improved speed in anyway though. Since I use Norton Ghost, I have to have a different drive to store the images. Restoring 1-2gig's of stuff is easier than restoring 10! Before I install a program, I always ghost the drive first. Last time I installed a program(Adaptec update), my burner stopped working. An uninstall and reinstall didn't fix it so I just reghosted that partition and everything was working again. I had to redistribute free space once, just used Partition Magic and all was well. I setup all systems with partitioned drives and my "customers" are happy with the end result. So for partitioning, do as you like http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[araaraara]

The only reason I would partition a drive is for multiple boots or cluster size. With a 40gig drive, you clusters are going to be 32kb. With win98 and some app, that translates into a lot of wasted space. I had a 1.2 gig drive with win95, 32kb clusters and about 3/4 full. I installed win98 and the drive went down to 4kb clusters. I recovered over 200mb of wasted space! in a little while you 40gig will be wasting a gig or two due to cluster size. Here is what I would do: Make 2 or 3 8gig partitions and leave the rest of the drive as it is. Use the first ones and leave the big one alone. If you ever need more space, you can always divide it up later.

[wyvrn]

One important reason for partitioning that I neglected to mention earlier is that once your HDD is over 8gig on a fat32 partition the number of sectors per cluster increases from 8 to 16, when you go above 16gig you end up with 32 sectors per cluster.


Partly true. If you have a drive that big, most often it is filled with mp3s, avi files, or games. Because those files are large, they are not going to wasted much more space on a 32 sector per cluster than 8. We are talking a very small % difference here. If you have a buttload (read: tens of thousands) of small files, then your theory would prove true. What percentage of the time does that happen? I still do not see your explanation as a reason to partition.

I installed win98 and the drive went down to 4kb clusters. I recovered over 200mb of wasted space! in a little while you 40gig will be wasting a gig or two due to cluster size.

Not likely, see my explanation above. Sure for a small hard drive it will make a difference because it contains lots of OS files and such. But what are you gonna put on the rest of that drive, ten thousand word documents? Nope. Because you are going to fill it with larger files, percentage of wasted space will still be low, thereby giving no reason to partition the drive. So what if you lose a couple hundred Mb's on a 40GB drive? What percentage of wasted space is that and why would the average user care?


Major reasons are that backups are easier (each partition usually fits on one CD) and even better organization(at least to me) of my files

That is the only legitimate reason I see for partitioning (other than dual-booting). How many users actually do this? Very small percentage. Partitioning should not be a common practice, only used for special cirumstances. Unless, of course, you just want to be able to brag about your ability to use fdisk or partition magic.

[This message has been edited by wyvrn (edited 03-13-2001).]

[Lebo]

Wyvern

After lately reading a post by BBA re reinstalling windows I am keen to follow his suggestions. Seems like a lot less hassle than formating etc.I think next time I install a system I will be using the folders method as opposed to the partition method of organisation and system optimisation.

You are right that most space is taken up by large files, therefore only loosing minimal space due to cluster size.

You can protect yourself by backing up your MBR or if you haven't done this Fdisk /MBR will often rescue your boot record.

[zskillz]

DanU's last statement is why I put 1 partition on my hdd... a 4 gig C for the OS, and the rest (10 gigs) for everything else (D drive) I use folders to organize everything on D. I had a similar problem with the first partition dying on me, and I was extremely fortunate that I could recover the data on the D drive. for whatever reason (I somehow managed to damage the boot sector of C), I was unable to access anything on the C drive when I plugged the hdd into another computer to recover the data... since then... OS on 1 partition, everything else on the rest!

-Z