XP Pro and Hard Disc Size

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alexi
  • Start date Start date
A

Alexi

I intend to buy a new PC. Considering a 200GB HDD. Will
also buy XP Pro and install it myself. I need to format
the HDD as NTFS - presumably this can be done directly
from the XP CD-ROM. Questions : Can I create a single
~200GB partition (i.e. a big Drive C:) or do I have to
split the HDD into numerous smaller partitions (e.g.
C=20GB, D=50GB, E=100GB, etc. up to the HDD capacity) ? Is
there a limitation on partition size for NTFS (I know
there is for FAT32) ? Also, since 5 1/4" FDDs no longer
exist, is it possible to designate the CD/DVD drive as B: ?
Thanks !
 
Can I create a single 200GB partition (i.e. a big Drive C:) or do I >have
to split the HDD into numerous smaller partitions (e.g. >C=20GB, D=50GB,
E=100GB, etc. up to the HDD capacity) ?

You can create a single partition, but I strongly recommend that you split
it up into smaller partitions. This is much more efficient (smaller cluster
sizes) and organized. Imagine defragmenting a single 200GB partition for
example. I have a 10GB partition for XP, 30GB for program files and another
20GB for other things like photos, music, documents, etc.
Is there a limitation on partition size for NTFS (I know there is >for
Click to expand...
FAT32) ?

I believe it's in the range of Terabytes or even exabytes, can't remember
for sure but it's definately nothing to worry about.
Also, since 5 1/4" FDDs no longer exist, is it possible to >designate the
Click to expand...
CD/DVD drive as B: ?

Yes
 
Something to be aware of.

I recently formatted and installed using a Maxtor 160 gig HD. According to
the Maxtor Installation Guide, XP Pro and XP Home (among other OSs) have a
problem recognizing a boot drive that is larger than 137 gig. Maxtor offered
both a hardware (promise ATA 133 card) and software (SP1 and Registry Patch)
solution to this problem.

As to partitions. I am currently partitioned at 30/30/50/50, but after
reading Nylo's post "To Partition or Not" 7/28/2003, and the replies to that
post , I am reconsidering.

Mox
 
I just read that post and I didn't see anything to indicate that having one
large partition was better than dividing the disk up, and I still firmly
believe that it is best to partition.
 
I am still new to XP so I don't firmly believe in anything. :-)

In the past I have always partitioned my drives, but in reviewing the
Microsoft links provided by Nicholas it seems that this may need a rethink.
Here's a couple of excerpts.

"The contiguous disk layout of these pages results in reduced disk seeks and
improved disk I/O, contributing to improved boot time and application launch
time. Windows XP does not perform these optimizations across volumes.
Therefore, for this optimization to be available to users, the hard disk
must be partitioned as a single volume."

"When performing a clean install, Microsoft recommends that NTFS be used and
that the system be installed in a single partition on each disk. Under
Windows XP, big partitions are better managed than in previous versions of
Windows. Forcing installed software into several partitions on the disk
necessitates longer seeks when running the system and software."

Currently I am not totally satisfied with my seek times, especially in
games. I am considering getting a smaller drive (40-80 gig.) for the
operating system and using my 160 gig. for data. Each drive would have 1
partition.

Mox
 
That's interesting, I may try it out the next time I do a clean install. I
am satisified with the performance of my drive though and that's not really
the reason I partition. It's mostly because it makes it easier to keep
everything organized and separate, cuts down on the time it takes to
deframent each partition, and if I need to format a partition I can keep my
data safely on one of the others without having to worry about what to do
with it. Another reason to partition is of course for dual booting with
other operating systems; a while back I had Mandrake Linux installed along
with XP. I guess it mainly comes down to personal preference, and I never
liked having one huge partition myself. :)
 
But, from same page:
"For example, comparing performance under Windows 2000 for a 75 GB hard
disk partitioned with multiple smaller volumes versus a single volume
shows that disk performance drops by about five to ten percent for the
single large volume."
Notice the part about "....performance drops...."
Also:
"However, when comparing disk performance for the same small versus
single large volume configuration under Windows XP, performance drops by
only one to two percent for the single large volume."
Now, it "drops", but not much.
-
Todd
I am still new to XP so I don't firmly believe in anything. :-)
Click to expand...
In the past I have always partitioned my drives, but in reviewing the
Microsoft links provided by Nicholas it seems that this may need a rethink.
Here's a couple of excerpts.
Click to expand...
"The contiguous disk layout of these pages results in reduced disk seeks and
improved disk I/O, contributing to improved boot time and application launch
time. Windows XP does not perform these optimizations across volumes.
Therefore, for this optimization to be available to users, the hard disk
must be partitioned as a single volume."
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top