Partition

PressX

Some where on this site/forum is a guide for HD partitions etc... I have read it. I can not find it. I have tried. I fell like a muppet again. Please show me. It was a good read and wanted to review it again. Please. Help Me.



<strike>Marcus </strike>
Muppet

PressX

bump

Shorty

http://www.short-media.com/review.php?r=209

PressX

Thanks Mr Shorty but that I had found... I am sure I read about the different partitions and their use. What to put where etc... apps, data, swop file. It's not a problem.

Shorty

That article was the one but it appears to be missing a chunk... hmm...

Paging MM to thread...

PressX

Hmmm So I did not imagine it then...

Yeah, that's right... you would've gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those pesky kids and that darn dog of theirs.

Tex

I have a differant way of looking at the whole partition layout deal. If your looking for the fastest disk access your better off not cutting it all up with a bunch of partitions at all. The OS, pagefile, and apps you use generally should all be near each other in the same partiton. If you have multiple disks then there are advantages to spreading it across multiple drives and having pagefiles on both drives but in general with ide drives the access times are slow and the access times quoted are average access times. If the heads have to move to extremes like either rim or inside edge its longer. So you want the OS, pagefile etc as close as possible and spreading it across differant partitions hurts performance. With fast scsi drives the dynamics change a little and you can get huge benefits in spreading the I-O across two or three drives that you don't fully get with ide. In the last couple years there has been a lot of theory from some of the serious guys knowing the internals of XP and disk access patterns that completely contradict some of our older accepted ways of doing things and optimizing the partiton layout. You want to keep the heads from moving very far and just let XP handle the pagefile and apps. The theorys posted by MediaMan made more sense back for win98 and win me. I am not picking on MediaDude but rather saying there are other ways to think about this today based on new information available that he did not have available when he wrote that article. XP actually tries to optimize itself with the prefetch areas and stuff and we tend to muck it up by doing things the old way. You want all that stuff as close as possible and putting it apart in differant partitions hurts not helps.

Tex

PressX

Hmmm If you looking purely at speed then you may have a good point. However, there are many other reasons to partiton. The Elder Geek sums it up quite well:

Partitioning allows the distinct separation of operating system, program, and data files. To a new user this may seem like a minor point, but if you've ever suffered a system crash or virus infection where everything on a partition has been wiped out, this one item alone is worth the time and planning it takes to implement an advanced partitioning scheme.
Partitioning allows you to create a selective backup scheme that targets the areas that need frequent backups while paying less attention to items like system and program files.
Partitioning allows you to make much more efficient use of hard disk space. Files are stored on a hard disk in a unit called a cluster. Smaller partitions use a smaller cluster size, more closely matching the size of the majority of files that are stored on a hard drive, resulting in more efficient use of available space.
Partitioning allows for faster and more efficient disk maintenance. Like it or not, hard disks require maintenance. Not the kind of maintenance where you disassemble the hard drive and clean it out, but more along the lines of organizational maintenance such as defragmenting. It's much quicker to perform these maintenance tasks on smaller partitions than one huge, non-partitioned drive.
Partitioning allows for better data directory and file organization. Setting aside a specific partition allows it to be organized much more efficiently than having it strewn across a single, huge partition.
Partitioning allows the paging file to be placed in it's own partition which will eliminate the fragmentation problem of the system drive when the paging file is constantly resized due to varying virtual memory requirements.
Partitioning allows the creation of separate areas for what are commonly known as scratch disks that are used by some programs as a temporary work area. Adobe Photoshop and many other graphics and multimedia editing programs that work with very large files experience a substantial performance benefit from having a separate, defined scratch partition.
Partitioning allows one system to contain multiple operating systems on separate partitions. Depending on what operating systems are involved in the multi-boot scheme it can impact the file system that must be used, but the capability is available.
Partitioning increases system stability. Breaking a hard drive down into smaller parts makes sense to me. Toss 100 - 200 gigabytes of operating system, applications, data, music, and other miscellaneous items onto one large partition and you're asking for trouble. Something is bound to go wrong with something and it's much easier to diagnose a problem when the drive contents are separated into smaller chunks.

Tex

That was written years ago. Probably for win98/me just like Mediamans was. Or at least still using the old mindset to justify it and if you look close its pretty obvious. If you have a hardware failure you lose them all. So seperating them onto differant partitons doesnt help. Unless your jacking around with changing the size of a partition with tools or your box is unstable for other reasons NTFS is so many hundreds of time more stable a lot of the early fussing about losing crap was meant for fat32 also.

The cluster size doesnt change with ntfs based on the size of the partition. So this was written in the fat32 era. You can't just keep the programs in their partiton and think you "saved" anything if you lose the OS with XP as they need reinstalled because they make registry entries in a modern OS like xp. And if your saving any program data or stuff into the directory of the program files and not your own data file directory you need spanked. XP provides directories that modern programs use inside yoiur "My documents" folder for local and application data. XP HANDLES STUFF the way we only wished older OS's would have.

The only thing advantageous to be saved on a seperate partitoon is your own user/document files and for gods sake hopefully your keeping them backed up daily anyway. Preferably to a second disk or cd/dvd's not a second partition. because thats really not backed up is it?

My boxes tend to currently get two parttions. A smaller OS one and a second Huge one called "user Data" and that partiton has directorys for "ISO's" "Installs" "one of my name, that contains My documents, My favorites, Outlook etc..." one for MP3's. Really like 6 or 7 top level directorys. You can back up a directory as easy as a partition if your half way logical about the directory structure you use.

He mentions the photoshop scratch file and sticking it in its own partiton hurts. It needs a second DISK not partition. But the program only complains to you if its on the same partiton as the programs. It doesnt help but the program is only smart enough to check the drive letter. YOU HURT IT if you stick it in another partiton. It wants the heads to stay locked for long sequential reads and writes and your forcing them to jump bacfk and forth if you use another partiton and not a seperate physical drive. He isnt even beginning to think LOGICALY about whats happening. Thats how deep he really looked into this. ANYONE CAN HAVE A GUIDE ON THE NET PUBLISHED. Doesn't mean they know squat.

All my data except my own datafiles in mY documents stays pretty constant. Its all backed up to other machines and disks and only my personal directory needs dailiy backing up. I don't need a lot of help figuring out what to backup daily. One directory changes. Only the OS one gets fragmented on most the boxs and my daily use box has seperate disks with directorys just for temp and internet temp so even the OS won't need defragged often.

Again the point is that article was also written for OS's of a previous era (or using that mindset) and most the advice doesnt apply as much to XP which was what I specificaly pointed to as not needing all the crap cut up on it.

Tex

PressX

OK. What you are suggesting above has some validity. I too build two partitions. One for OS the one for the rest. You have argued points well but are more opinion. As you say anyone can have their article published on the web...


Separating various elements of your data over several partitions may not be great if you have a hardware failure. (back up, back up. back up) But it is convenient. If you want to reinstall the OS. It's is a lot easier than if all your eggs are in one basket. Yes you have to reinstall your applications but the "data" is safe on a separate partition. No need to worry about it been deleted and then having to go through a restore from back up. Just makes life easier. Not necessarily better.

NTFS may be more stable etc but not everyone uses it. Some people still use FAT32. However, you are incorrect. NTFS chooses a default cluster size based on the size of the partition. However, it uses a different method for selecting the cluster size for a partition than the default cluster assignment system for FAT16 and the one for FAT32. As well as NTFS choosing the default when you format the partition manually, you can specify cluster size 512 bytes, 1 KB, 2 KB, 4 KB, 8 KB, 16 KB, 32 KB, 64 KB.

I enjoyed you retort but I think some of your points were more opinion than solid fact.

Tex

no ntfs does not. Its always defaults to 4k no matter how big or small the partiton is. ntfs is optimized for 4k. You can change it manualy to anything you want for any size of partiton it has no limits like fat32 nor does the default ever change. I setup terrabyte raid arrays and tune disk subsystems for a living. 4k is ALWAYS the default for ntfs. I think you need to maybe get your facts straight instead.

The need to seperate anything on a another partiton is no longer needed with XP. Thats the point here. You back up your own user directory and simply copy it back. The only thing to do is keep the general OS files like progs, pagefile, OS etc.. in one directory with IDE drives. All other misc crap goes in another. Two partitons. Bingo thats the magic number with XP.

Tex

Gobbles

I have multiple partitions. OS Swap Data and Music. I have found that games and other software load and perform better with a swap file located on another disk on the first partion.

Game maps load faster with out a doubt, its noticable visually. Im set up like this...
[ ] = drives
( ) = Partitions

[ disk 0 (C:\ OS and Programs)]
[ disk 1 (D:\ Swap)(E:\My Documents)(F:\Muzak)]

To me its a cleaner setup and more managable.
thats my 2 cent.

Tex

two disks change the whole picture. Man I have GOT to get you to try multiple scsi disks. Ide/sata serialize the i-o requests where scsi issues them simultaneously. Your setup with two disks is better but with scsi it gets even sweeter. it will ruin you for ever and used scsi drives that are as fast in str as the non raptor sata crowd and withfaster access times then a raptor are cheap as they are three years old.

My one suggestion for you is to go ahead and have swapfiles on both disks. XP will pick the least active one to page to and even use both if no other I-O is going on.

Tex

TheBaron

scsi arrays are addictive, RUN AWAY

PressX

Point 1:

no ntfs does not. Its always defaults to 4k no matter how big or small the partiton is.

See the table below:

Although in most cases it will be 4k as very few people have partitions this small. Windows XP Disk Management bases the cluster size on the size of the volume:

Drive size

(logical volume) Cluster size Sectors

---

512 MB or less 512 bytes 1
513 MB - 1,024 MB 1 KB 2
1,025 MB - 2,048 MB 2 KB 4
2,049 MB and larger 4 KB 8

See M$ for more info.


Point 2

The need to separate anything on a another partition is no longer needed with XP. That's the point here.

My point was:

No need to worry about it been deleted and then having to go through a restore from back up. Just makes life easier. Not necessarily better.

To restore is an extra step. I only restore if I delete a file I need or I have a hardware problem. This way I do not need to restore every time I build a PC.

"I setup terabyte raid arrays and tune disk subsystems for a living". I also have a little experience. I spent the last 15 years in the industry working globally for blue chips. I have been around the block with server builds and back office environments. I am sure you appreciate that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Tex

ntfs does not change the default cluster size except on partitons to small to use for an OS, PAgefile or much of anything else in todays world. lets put it that way. It doesnt go up from 4k like fat32 it goes down if its tiny.

PressX

Tex wrote:

ntfs does not change the default cluster size except on partitions to small to use for an OS, PAgefile or much of anything else in todays world. lets put it that way. It doesnt go up from 4k like fat32 it goes down if its tiny.

OK, so now we agree. Good.

There is a difference between real world and hard facts. Sometimes, it needs clarity to know which direction to go in. As I said it is much about opinion as it is about being correct. Some people like to set their Optical drive letter to Z. Is the wrong or just a preference. The same applies to partitions, in part. There are some obsolete methods that are now redundant as XP performs a better job at managing disk space. However, some users like to set things up the way they are more comfortable with. This may effect performance but that is tier call.

There is Little room for my argument in a corporate or enterprise environment. But most readers here are running home PC's and enjoy to read the option available to them. This is why I was looking for the guide in the first place. I wanted to point out part of it to a n00b who was interested.

Straight_Man

There are possibly other reasons than pure speed to partition. Most of my data resides on a partition that is on a physical HD different than the XP boot HD (happens to be aprimary partition). This second HD that has most of my data also has a partition that is an archival one(logical drive in an extended partition). SWAP is to the one with my personal data on it, not the boot partition nor drive, and the box has only one swap defined.

With swap not on the boot drive at all, XP runs better and smoother with more programs running simultaneously than it did with swap even partly on the boot partition (true for 2000 Pro and XP through SP2). BUT, it is still on a primary partition that is also NTFS file type. IF the boot drive were to die, I would have my data from backup and the fact that my work product is on another physical drive than the boot drive. If the drive with swap and work product dies I recover from backup. I do it for other than pure speed reasons. This is on systems with IDE drives or SATA non-raid drives.