Should I partition HDD?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stuart Roberts
  • Start date Start date
S

Stuart Roberts

Hi,

I'm building a new desktop system and have a nice new SATA II hard drive of
250GB.
My previous drive (IDE), which I am removing has two partitions. One
partition for the system and the other for all my photo, music, re-install
files, etc.

I have read somewhere that using a second partition on a hard drive effects
performance.

Question - Will I negatively effect the hard drive performance if I create a
second partition of around 80GB for my permanent files?

I want to use my old hard drive in an external enclosure but if that
suddenly decides not to work one day I will lose everything!!

Advice????

Thanks

Stu
 
Question - Will I negatively effect the hard drive performance if I create
a second partition of around 80GB for my permanent files?
Click to expand...

Nope.

This is just one of many strategies.....Consider a smaller partition for the
system and apps, say 20 GB or whatever, depending on the size of your apps.
Keep ALL of your data on the other partition, even My Documents. That way
you can make easy backups (fewer DVDs required) and if the OS explodes you
don't lose much more than some time.

-John O
 
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:55:26 -0000, "Stuart Roberts"
I'm building a new desktop system and have a nice new SATA II hard drive of
250GB.
Click to expand...
My previous drive (IDE), which I am removing has two partitions. One
partition for the system and the other for all my photo, music, re-install
files, etc.
Click to expand...
I have read somewhere that using a second partition on a hard drive effects
performance.
Click to expand...

Yep - depending on how you design your installation, it can speed it
up or slow it down. It's like "will my car be faster if I change the
engine?" is answered as "depende on the engine" ;-)
Question - Will I negatively effect the hard drive performance if I create a
second partition of around 80GB for my permanent files?
Click to expand...

The aim of the game is to reduce head travel, so all
frequently-accessed material (page file, OS, temp files, web cache)
should be in one small volume with paging-friendly 4k clusters. I use
7.9G FAT32 C: in XP and 32G NTFS C: in Vista.

To reduce travel to other volumes, disable SR, indexers and other
underfootware there.

I use the primary as mentioned, with the rest as an extended that
contains (in this order); a FAT16 2G volume for user data, a huuuuge
FAT32 volume for "everything else", and a final 7.9G FAT32 volume for
auto-backups and cold storage.

Head travel to all volumes will be nearly as fast as if everything was
dumped in one huge doomed C:; the last volume is slow, but that's
intentional, as it's low-traffic and more likely to stay recoverable.

The nice things about this are:
- 90% traffic stays in 8G of C:, no matter how fragmented C: gets
- C: and D: are within 137G, can maintain via DOS mode Scandisk
- D: is small enough to peel off for data recovery
- SR runs only in C:
- bad-exits usually require only C: to be checked
- you can kill BootExecute AutoChk for D:, E: and F:
- easier to image C: to transfer or backup bootable OS
- other volumes can be preserved via file copy

If you use such a small C:, then you have to manage duuuuhfault
locations, grossly-huge IE cache, collection of Windows Update gunk,
etc. otherwise the benefits are lost.
I want to use my old hard drive in an external enclosure but if that
suddenly decides not to work one day I will lose everything!!
Click to expand...

External housings cook HDs and eat them, eventually. Best used only
for old drives that don't get too hot, and best not to use them as the
only storage location for things you want to see again.


--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
Click to expand...
Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!
 
Back
Top