Partitioning in Windows 7

  • Thread starter Thread starter anton.m
  • Start date Start date
A

anton.m

I tried to help my brother make a new partition on his 1 terabyte HD with
Windows 7 premium installed.

In Computeradmin. it shows:



The HD is partitioned with:

boot partition without a letter - 100 MB

OEM partition also without a letter - 20 MB

C: partition, system - 945 GB

D: partition, Recover- 20 GB



All partitions are Simple, fundamental, primary partitions.



I did reduce the C-partition from 945 to 439 GB.

Then I would make a new simpel partition on the unallocated part.



I right clicked to create a simple partition, but it said all partitions
would be converted to dynamic dishes.

I would only have a simple partition, but there was no such choice.



Can anybody help me solve this problem.



Regards from Anton
 
You can have a maximum of 4 primary partitions on a Windows hard disk
and you already have 4.

If you delete D, after transferring its contents to C, you can create an
extended partition - not a primary partition - in the space on the disk.
An extended partition can be divided into several logical partitions.
 
From: "anton.m" <[email protected]>

With NTFS partitioning is NOT a good idea !

There is no need for it.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying, but don't understand the reasoning.
What is wrong with partitioning a large drive with NTFS? I can see
that I can effectively create folders for things like my Image
partition, my data partition, etc, instead of using partitions, but
that seems to create longer path names. I've been partioning... but if
I'm causing some performance degration, I might want to change my
method.
 
From: "Charlie Hoffpauir" <[email protected]>

| On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:01:43 -0400, "David H. Lipman"

| I understand what you're saying, but don't understand the reasoning.
| What is wrong with partitioning a large drive with NTFS? I can see
| that I can effectively create folders for things like my Image
| partition, my data partition, etc, instead of using partitions, but
| that seems to create longer path names. I've been partioning... but if
| I'm causing some performance degration, I might want to change my
| method.


You gain nothing and lose drive letters. The concepts are good if you instead use
separate drives. Now you have compartmentalized areas and failsafe. If you partition, if
the disk goes, so do the partitions. Use separate drives and if one drive goes only that
drive is affected. Additionally if they are NOT IDE than you have OS multitasking
benefits becuase you can read and write multiple drives simultaneously. If one drive is
partionined you can can't access multiple paritions simultaneously.
 
From: "Charlie Hoffpauir" <[email protected]>

I forgot to mention why it was done with FAT and why there was a benefit to partitioning.

As the size size of the hard disk increased so do the cluster size; 8KB, 16KB, 32KB etc.
(I believe it was cluster size)

Thus it is conceivable that 1 Byte file can consume 32KB or 64KB.

Under NTFS this stays flat at 4KB.
 
From: "Charlie Hoffpauir" <[email protected]>

I forgot to mention why it was done with FAT and why there was a benefit to partitioning.

As the size size of the hard disk increased so do the cluster size; 8KB, 16KB, 32KB etc.
(I believe it was cluster size)

Thus it is conceivable that 1 Byte file can consume 32KB or 64KB.

Under NTFS this stays flat at 4KB.
Click to expand...

OK, thanks for the information in both posts.

As it turns out, I do have multiple drives (3 internal SATA & 3
external Firewire). I have the OS (Vista) on a small drive in the
first partition, and a second partition for temporary files (that I
don't back up). The 2nd drive is partitioned for all the data files
(right now 6 partitions on a 1 TB drive). The other internal SATA (500
GB)is just for data backups.

From what you said, I doubt I'd gain very much by converting that one
large drive to a single partition, since I'm not running short of
drive letters. I might gain something from being able to write (or
read) simultaneously from what are now separate partitions if I
rearrange so that they might be on separate drives.

Is there any "rule of thumb" for what improvement that might produce?
 
From: "Charlie Hoffpauir" <[email protected]>


| OK, thanks for the information in both posts.

| As it turns out, I do have multiple drives (3 internal SATA & 3
| external Firewire). I have the OS (Vista) on a small drive in the
| first partition, and a second partition for temporary files (that I
| don't back up). The 2nd drive is partitioned for all the data files
| (right now 6 partitions on a 1 TB drive). The other internal SATA (500
| GB)is just for data backups.

| From what you said, I doubt I'd gain very much by converting that one
| large drive to a single partition, since I'm not running short of
| drive letters. I might gain something from being able to write (or
| read) simultaneously from what are now separate partitions if I
| rearrange so that they might be on separate drives.

| Is there any "rule of thumb" for what improvement that might produce?

Personally, I use a SCSI sub-system.

The OS in on "C:"

The TEMP folder is moved t "D:" as well as all browser caches as well as my OE folder.

If you have already partitioned a drive. Leave it be.
If you setup a new system THINK about just how to setup the system to improve its
performance.
 
Might that I should explain way I wanted to partition the 1 TB HD. The new
partition was meant to hold an .iso image of the C partition. In case of a
serious break down of Windows 7, I could then install the isofile.
Does that give cause for any comments?

Regards Anton
 
The most likely problem, although rare, is a failure of the hard disk.
If the backup image is on the same disk it will be lost with the disk.

If you want a system backup image, store it on a different disk.

Even more important is backing up your data to a different disk. Windows
and programs can be reinstalled. Data usually cannot be recreated.
 
From: "anton.m" <[email protected]>

| Might that I should explain way I wanted to partition the 1 TB HD. The new
| partition was meant to hold an .iso image of the C partition. In case of a
| serious break down of Windows 7, I could then install the isofile.
| Does that give cause for any comments?

| Regards Anton

What you REALLY should be doing is creating an image using Acronis True Image or Ghost on
a sperate hard disk.
 
Might that I should explain way I wanted to partition the 1 TB HD. The new
partition was meant to hold an .iso image of the C partition. In case of a
serious break down of Windows 7, I could then install the isofile.
Does that give cause for any comments?
Click to expand...


Yes. It's far and away the weakest form of backup there is. It leaves
you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original and backup to
many of the most common dangers: hard drive crashes, severe power
glitches, nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks, user errors, even
theft of the computer.

In my view, secure backup needs to be on removable media, and not kept
in the computer. For really secure backup (needed, for example, if the
life of your business depends on your data) you should have multiple
generations of backup, and at least one of those generations should be
stored off-site.
 
You can have a maximum of 4 primary partitions on a Windows hard disk
and you already have 4.

If you delete D, after transferring its contents to C, you can create an
extended partition - not a primary partition - in the space on the disk.
An extended partition can be divided into several logical partitions.
Click to expand...

Do *not* delete D: or copy it to C:. It is the manufacturer's recovery
partition, and is a way to return the hard drive to its condition when it
was shipped.

In fact, it is best to remove the drive letter from D: to make it less
accessible.
 
Back
Top