What's the best way to partition a 120 gig hard drive?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ~A_Sammy
  • Start date Start date
A

~A_Sammy

Hi,
I'm not sure on the best way to do this. I currently have a 40 gig hard
drive with 3 partitions: one has the operating system and programs, one has
audio files, and one has graphics files. This keeps me fairly organized.

My question is, should I make 4 partitions on the new drive, and seperate
the programs from the operating system?
Some writers say this is a good idea because when it all blows up, all you
have to do is reload the os and your back in business. That never made
sense to me because I thought, and still think, when programs install they
add files to the os, ie dll's, so they wouldn't run after a reinstall of the
os due to missing installation files, but I could be wrong about this. Can
anyone straighten me out on that?

Also, if you put the programs in their own partition, will that make them
load, and/or run, slower than if they were on the partition with the os? If
so, is it enough to notice?

If the boot partition is only for the operating system, say XP, how big
should it be? Does it grow signifigantly over time?

Finally, is it a good idea to create yet another partition and use it
exclusively for the swap file? If so, once again, how big should it be?

Thanks,

as
 
I'd just make a partition for the swap file to keep it from getting
fragmented. But separate harddrives are the way to go instead of partitions
IMHO. A 120 gig drive is great for video capture but I'd rather have four
40 gig drives.
 
It's been suggested to me (and I follow the advice) to put the swap
(page) file on a separate physical drive (not the OS drive). I have
three physical drives; one holds my OS (Win2k), another holds my work,
and the third holds my apps. My swap file is on its own partition.
Surprisingly, even after trashing and reinstalling my OS several times,
most, if not all, of my apps work well. I guess they replace the
missing .dll files.
-jc
 
Same here, different drives !

Glenn

JC said:
It's been suggested to me (and I follow the advice) to put the swap
(page) file on a separate physical drive (not the OS drive). I have
three physical drives; one holds my OS (Win2k), another holds my work,
and the third holds my apps. My swap file is on its own partition.
Surprisingly, even after trashing and reinstalling my OS several times,
most, if not all, of my apps work well. I guess they replace the
missing .dll files.
-jc
Click to expand...
 
~A_Sammy said:
Finally, is it a good idea to create yet another partition and use it
exclusively for the swap file? If so, once again, how big should it be?
Click to expand...

This whole deal with separate partitions doesn't really make much sense any
more for most systems. For example, it doesn't do any good to put yoru swap
file on another partition. On another *hard drive*, yes.
 
I can put the 120 and the 40 in the system. The other ide controller is
running a dvd/cd rom, and a burner, so I'll be maxed out with 4 ide devices.

If I put the swap file on the 40, how big should the partition be that holds
it? Also, why is it advantages to put it on a seperate drive? Speed?

Thanks,

Sammy
 
This whole deal with separate partitions doesn't really make much sense
any
more for most systems. For example, it doesn't do any good to put yoru swap
file on another partition. On another *hard drive*, yes.
Click to expand...

The point was so that I can reformat the partition with the os on it and not
loose my data files.
Why doesn't that make sense these days?
 
| Finally, is it a good idea to create yet another partition and use it
| exclusively for the swap file? If so, once again, how big should it be?

Are you running WinXP? Here's what Microsoft has to say about using a separate
partition for the swap file:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q314482

Here is one quote from that page:

"To enhance performance, move the paging file to a different partition. When the
paging file is on the boot partition, Windows must perform disk reading and
writing requests on both the system folder and the paging file. When the paging
file is moved to a different partition, there is less competition between
reading and writing requests."

It goes on to say that there should also be a swap file set up in the boot
partition to accommodate creation of a dump file if necessary.

I'm using two hard drives in my system and have a 2MB min and 50MB max paging
file specified for the boot partition (C:) XP has never even bothered to create
that (50MB isn't enough space for a full dump file, but I have the dump set for
"mini").

There is a 1GB partition at the beginning of my second hard drive that's
reserved for a 50MB min paging file. It's free to use the entire partition if
needed, but the largest file that XP has set up yet is about 108MB.

Larc



§§§ - Please raise temperature of mail to reply by e-mail - §§§
 
Are you running WinXP? Here's what Microsoft has to say about using a
separate
partition for the swap file:
Click to expand...

Yepper, XP it is.
Thanks, Larc, that's exactly what I was trying to find out.
 
My rule of thumb for the swap file is to allow 2.5 times your memory. I've
a gig of memory and have 4 gig patition for swap, so a huge amount of space
is not required. Using a separate drive prevents the swap file from being
fragmented and increases speed a little. But by all means use that 40 gig
drive instead of partitions. I'm using one of those PCI cards that came
with hard drives (ATA100 and ATA133 drives) to increase my ide device total.
 
~A_Sammy said:
The point was so that I can reformat the partition with the os on it and not
loose my data files.
Why doesn't that make sense these days?
Click to expand...

I just haven't had any problems doing that with Windows (i.e. after
reinstalling the system, my installed apps still work fine). I haven't done
it with XP specifically yet, but I don't thing it would work differently.
 
Hi,
I'm not sure on the best way to do this. I currently have a 40 gig hard
drive with 3 partitions: one has the operating system and programs, one has
audio files, and one has graphics files. This keeps me fairly organized.

My question is, should I make 4 partitions on the new drive, and seperate
the programs from the operating system?
Click to expand...

It is a good idea to keep the O/S separate.
Some writers say this is a good idea because when it all blows up, all you
have to do is reload the os and your back in business. That never made
sense to me because I thought, and still think, when programs install they
add files to the os, ie dll's, so they wouldn't run after a reinstall of the
os due to missing installation files, but I could be wrong about this. Can
anyone straighten me out on that?

Also, if you put the programs in their own partition, will that make them
load, and/or run, slower than if they were on the partition with the os? If
so, is it enough to notice?
No.

If the boot partition is only for the operating system, say XP, how big
should it be? Does it grow signifigantly over time?
Click to expand...

15 GB should be plenty.
Finally, is it a good idea to create yet another partition and use it
exclusively for the swap file? If so, once again, how big should it be?
Click to expand...

No. You'll need to experiment to find out what is best. I'd start
with 1 GB
 
Greetings...

Hi,
I'm not sure on the best way to do this. I currently have a 40 gig hard
drive with 3 partitions: one has the operating system and programs, one has
audio files, and one has graphics files. This keeps me fairly organized.
Click to expand...


You have the right idea here. Music, pictures archives etc, don't change, hence don't
defragment over time. Ideally you want to seperate files that have that quality from
those that don't. If you do a lot of photo editing for example - do it on your apps drive
then move the edited picture to the archive drive for storage. In the long run, you will
find that ONLY your system (on occasion) and your apps drive need defragging... A good
defragger utility should do this anyway, but unfortunately most do not - they claim to,
but they end up rearranging everything anyway. I've had too many archives get killed this
way.

My question is, should I make 4 partitions on the new drive, and seperate
the programs from the operating system?
Click to expand...
anyone straighten me out on that?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a good idea... Many programs do not actually need to be installed to work.
Some do and some don't. Some programs (which need it) when reinstalled will work exactly
as you had it set up before the reinstall. So all in all, its a win win situation. Many
games especially, frequently don't need to be installed - you just need to remake any
shortcuts.
A good example is quake 2 - if it were on your c: and you had to do a reformat - you
would lose it all, plus all the maps, skins, models etc... You could spend a whole day
restoring it. Even if you could... But if you had it on your D: - you just make a
shortcut back to your desktop, and viola - You're back in the fragging business.

For those that DO need to be reinstalled, here's what you do - ZIP or RAR up the whole
folder and sub folders of the program that needs to be reinstalled - reinstall it, then
overwrite that installation with your old installation from the archive. Viola - you are
right back in business.. - Bonus - you can keep the archive as a backup if (when) you
have to do it again.
Some of the better written programs even have a repair option that will restore it
without all the copying - Others I have seen even come with a small utility that just
writes the Registry entrys back...

The ONLY downside is that you do not have the option to uninstall when you do it this
way. But then, given the state of uninstallers these days does it really matter? They
all leave so much trash that having a good registry cleaner is often all you really
need...

Also, if you put the programs in their own partition, will that make them
load, and/or run, slower than if they were on the partition with the os? If
so, is it enough to notice?
Click to expand...

Think about it... It's the same physical drive isn't it... It has the exact same
characteristics as your C: partition doesn't it... The OS doesn't give a rat's tail about
where it's actually located... As long as it can find it. If there IS any difference it
will be so small that you will never notice it.
When your programs are on a seperate drive from your swap file, your swap file isn't
competing for space with data and other programs. It makes defragging quick and easy, it
makes other utilities like virus scanners and such much quicker, especially it makes
scandisk work much faster if you have it set to auto when you shut down poorly...

If the boot partition is only for the operating system, say XP, how big
should it be? Does it grow signifigantly over time?
Click to expand...

For XP I would start by making it about 8 gig Depends on how much memory you have
installed and how much XP actually takes. If that isn't enough then make it bigger but
certainly no smaller.

Finally, is it a good idea to create yet another partition and use it
exclusively for the swap file? If so, once again, how big should it be?
Click to expand...

That's very subjective - personally I think not. It's just an extra hassle not really
worth the time. Just let windows do it's thing on your system partition and you will have
fewer problems in the long run... Few utilities are that well written - when you are
playing around with system utilities you may find that some of them will even move your
swap file back to the system drive without even asking -Norton for example will screw you
without even lubing you up first...
Peter Norton screwed the whole world when he sold his name to Symantec - If he showed
up on my doorstep begging for bus money I wouldn't even piss on his head if his hair was
on fire... Which is too bad because back in the pre-windows days, he was the best. Now -
ALL my machines are Norton free zones...

ll
Kanda'

<>SPAM-KILLER<>- If you really want to contact me, then -
kandaje<at>bresnan<dot>net

You figure it out...
 
Greetings...

When the paging
file is moved to a different partition, there is less competition between
reading and writing requests."
Click to expand...

Hmm... I'd really like a HD that can both read and write at the same time!!

Maybe MS is getting into the HD market and wants everyone to Thrash their HD's to death
for a few years...

If you place your swap file onto a seperate partition - the HD has to seek to that
partition to do any writing. If your system is near one end of the physical platter, and
your swap file is way over on the other end, you are going to get a lot of seeking going
on.... Back and forth back and forth - thrashing....

No thanks....

The only time I would ever have my swap file on a seperate partition than the system
would be if it were on a different physical drive...

Now if you are doing RAID - that's a whole different ball of wax...

ll
Kanda'

<>SPAM-KILLER<>- If you really want to contact me, then -
kandaje<at>bresnan<dot>net

You figure it out...
 
my solution for this is creating a boot/system partition for just the OS +
office and some utilities, <1GB for win95, <2GB for win98, about 2GB for XP,
a second, swap-dedicated partition right after that (size depends on system
needs, let say ~ 250-500MB), then the rest (partition for programs,
partition for stored files, partition of game or for burning / capturing
etc...)
the D partition is quite close to C, and there isn't much thrashing.
E.V
 
Back
Top