C Drive size and performance

[perdomot]

Just wanted to ask if I should use the entire hdd for the c partition on my new v-raptor or limit the size if trying to get the best performance from the drive. I'd asked about resizing the C partition but I think I'll try a clean install instead. Thanks

 

[Smilin]

You can actually slow things down if you partition improperly. If you have a single drive stick to a single partition.

If you are using multiple spindles then you can get creative with say pagefile, OS, programfile locations etc.


300gig raptor I assume? I'm digging mine. Big improvement over the two older 74gig raptors I had in a raid 0.

 

[perdomot]

I'd heard that making a smaller OS partition would place the OS files on the fastest part of the hdd.

 

[Blain]

Did you hear that in your...
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=83&threadid=2264481">C Drive size and performance
</a>

 

[degibson]

Locality is the only thing that matters. Most OSes don't give you any control over locality anyway (except perhaps, FS choice).

 

[Ratman6161]

If in a single drive configuration, I typically create two partitions, regardless of any performance issues there may be with that. I keep the OS and programs on one partition and all data on the other. That leaves me with the option to format c:\ and reinstall if I ever need to without worrying about losing my data.

 

[perdomot]

To Blain,
Hmmm, thought that post didn't go through so I wrote this one. Oh well.

 

[VinDSL]

Originally posted by: Smilin
You can actually slow things down if you partition improperly. If you have a single drive stick to a single partition.

You know...

I used to partition my drives in the old days, mostly to keep things organized, e.g. I used partitions for folders - and I never noticed any difference in performance.

As drives got bigger, and there were limitations on the amount of HD space that was recognized, I had to partition my drives - and I still didn't notice any difference in performance.

Now they are making huge drives for laptops/notebooks. I have a 'latest-and-greatest' 320 GB HD in my Toshiba lappy. This drive has 2 platters. The prevailing logic says, in order to get the best performance out of a lappy drive, you should partition it in equal numbers to the amount of platter you have.

Following this logic, my 320 GB Hitachi Travelstar has 2x160 GB platters, sooo... for best performance you should divide it into 2x160 GB partitions. I did this when I started dual-booting Windows/Linux, and I still don't notice any difference!

I judge that partitioning a drive makes NO noticeable difference in the performance of the drive - at least, not in the real world. Perhaps it makes a difference in benchmark tests, but when liars figure, figures lie. Benchmark proggies can be skewed in any direction the author(s) wishes them to be.

Personally, I wouldn't worry about it. Partition your drive if you want to, or if you must... or not at all. Makes NO difference, IMHO! :beer:

 

[C1]

Im really surprised no one mentioned anything about specifying cluster size as supposedly "The size of the clusters in a partition has an important impact on the performance of the system".

As for me, I keep my OS partition small as possible within reason. Here you need to consider space for the OS plus all programs and page file then allow a good amount of reserve (eg, on a 15GB OS partition with applications loaded - 9Gb used, allow 6 GB minimum free space). Keep it well defragged. (Note: such a partition will defrag quickly & is easier to maintain).

Data are kept on a separate partition. If you get a virus or something, it most likely would hose the OS partition; both OS and applications are readily restorable, but lost data may not be.

In the case of large drives used soley for DvD movie files (ie, keeping huge media files), I use a 64 KB cluster size (but you could go larger - use the /A switch with the format command to override the built in defaults.

 

[gba]

I recently considered whether my ancient habit of partitioning my Windows HDs still made sense in the modern (read: Vista) era.. I have decided to keep on doing what I have always done... C partition (nowadays about 36GB for x64, 4k clusters) for main portion of Windows, D partition (512k clusters) for relocated Windows "User" folders ("D" is for "data", E (4k clusters) for program files.. I just change the "C" to an "E" in the default install path whenever I install software. Many programs save stuff to their own folders, which I would not want to lose in the event I restore Windows. F is Surplus (4k clusters) for whatever... G stands for "Ghost" and is still Fat 32 (32k clusters). I keep my Ghost .exe there, along with my C drive back-ups, which I create with Ghost in DOS. I also have other things backed-up there, drivers, PIM data files, settings from various programs, etc.... and all of which is, in turn, backed-up to an external drive...

I agree with C1, if you have humongous files, why not set-up a partition with a larger cluster size as long as your defragger can handle it? It is my understanding that you will waste less space to "slack" and your HD will be able to access files more efficiently... I once read somewhere that XP runs more efficiently on a partition that has a decent amount of extra space... do not ask for a reference, bc I cant remember where I heard that, but I have gone with it.. usually use 10GB (4k clusters) for XP's C drive, and 5GB (4k clusters) for my venerable old friend, W2k Pro... and Vista seems right at around 30GB for x86 and 36GB for x64, for which I also create 4k clusters.

This scheme has just worked for me.. I make images of my C drive fairly often, keeping three or so at a time... and just never fight with Windows.. if I am ever baffled by what Windows is throwing at me, I restore to my latest Ghost image... I got a virus one time.. years ago when I was on dial-up... I simply restored my C drive and away I went.

 

[bsobel]

Following this logic, my 320 GB Hitachi Travelstar has 2x160 GB platters, sooo... for best performance you should divide it into 2x160 GB partitions.

That presumes that all data in the 'first 160gb' is placed on one platter and the rest on the second. Unfortunately you can't really presume that.