Do multiple HD partitions slow down seek time/performance?

[MichaelD]

I'm thinking of getting a 120GB WD SE (8mb buffer). Thinking of chopping it into 4 or 5 partitions. Would doing that affect it's seek times/performance/transfer rate?

I have two Maxtor DM+ 40GB drives....they're great but LOUD.

 

[MichaelD]

ttt

 

[Athlex]

Bump for an interesting question...

 

[Whitedog]

Your seek times will drop as you access the later partitions, but I'll tell you this, that hard drive is fast enough where it won't matter... The transfer rates make up for it, and then some.
Just load your programs and games on your first couple of partitions and use the last ones for storage and you'll be set.

If you have both your Maxtor drives on the same channel, file copying will be faster going from partition to partition on the WD1200JB than they would going from disk to disk with your exisiting disks.

One larger disk is always better than two smaller ones... less points of failure.

As far as IDE goes... I think the WD1200JB is wonderful.

 

[Pariah]

"Would doing that affect it's seek times/performance/transfer rate?"

Partitioning would have no affect on transfer rates. Quoted seek times by the manufacturer are assuming the entire drive is one partition. So in a typical setup where the whole drive isn't used, the average seek time is lower than the manufacturer's quoted (assuming the quoted is accurate which it rarely is). By paritioning the drive you force the head to skip over blank areas on the platters (unused portions of partitions) creating additional overhead you wouldn't have with one paritition. If the 2 most common paritions you use are the inner most and outer most you will adversely affect performance of the drive and create a higher average seek than the quoted so don't put your OS and apps on the outside of the drive and then your swap file on the inside for example. For the most part the difference won't mean much as the drive will probably be over the apps/OS portion of the drive the majority of the time.

"If you have both your Maxtor drives on the same channel, file copying will be faster going from partition to partition on the WD1200JB than they would going from disk to disk with your exisiting disks."

Transferring files between 2 drives is always faster, and usually a lot faster, than transferring within one drive regardless of how the drives are connected to the controller. Keep in mind the ATA controller is located on the motherboard, so all the data being sent from one partition to another has to take the same path that data between two drives would take, only now you are expecting one drive to read and write the data instead of doing one or the other. The only time this wouldn't be the case is if the 2 drives are dirt slow and the single drive is state of the art (nothing ATA).

 

[MrBond]

I've never noticed a speed hit with mine.

Personally, at least two partitions is the way to go. Install your OS on a smaller partition, and everything else on another. That way, if windows gets hosed, you just blow it away and dont lose any data (you can backup the documents and settings folder and keep all your icons/start menu/etc too).

 

[0roo0roo]

i make my os partition about 5 gb. that way i can install all basic apps on a clean os and then ghost image it. you can restore the image from the image file on the other partition at anytime.

one partition bad unless you have all your stuff backed up.

 

[Ipno]

Not to mention smaller partitions by default use smaller cluster size which very slightly decreases performance of a large file transfer however wastes less disk space.

Nothing stopping you from changing the cluster size manually though.

The long an the short of it is that its probably not enough difference that you'd even notice on todays ultrafast drives.

 

[MichaelD]

Thanks guys.

Allright, help me out here. So when I'm formatting and creating the partitions, whatever part. I create first will be the innermost, and therefore the fastest partition, correct?

So, in the Windows setup where you format create parts, I'll make this list (example)

A. 1024mb FASTEST
B. 6000mb FASTER
C. 10000mb FAST


Is the above list correct?

 

[Pariah]

"Not to mention smaller partitions by default use smaller cluster size which very slightly decreases performance of a large file transfer however wastes less disk space."

Which is one benefit of using NTFS which doesn't create clusters larger than 4kB regardless of partition size.

"I create first will be the innermost, and therefore the fastest partition, correct?"

The first you create is the outer most which is the fastest paritition.

"A. 1024mb FASTEST
B. 6000mb FASTER
C. 10000mb FAST


Is the above list correct?'

That's right.

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: Pariah
"Not to mention smaller partitions by default use smaller cluster size which very slightly decreases performance of a large file transfer however wastes less disk space."

Which is one benefit of using NTFS which doesn't create clusters larger than 4kB regardless of partition size.

"I create first will be the innermost, and therefore the fastest partition, correct?"

The first you create is the outer most which is the fastest paritition.

"A. 1024mb FASTEST
B. 6000mb FASTER
C. 10000mb FAST


Is the above list correct?'

That's right.

Thanks Pariah.

 

[stingray2]

why would you want to partition that drive? I have many hard drives, since Win2k and NTFS I would never consider Partitioning a drive, unless you only have one drive, and you want to install more then OS, then you would need to partition the drive. one word of caution with this drive.. i have this drive, bought it last January, and it has since died. 9 months it was dead, must have been a bearing or something, my guess it was head related. i have since replaced it, and upgraded my case to allow for better cooling.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: stingray2
why would you want to partition that drive? I have many hard drives, since Win2k and NTFS I would never consider Partitioning a drive, unless you only have one drive, and you want to install more then OS, then you would need to partition the drive. one word of caution with this drive.. i have this drive, bought it last January, and it has since died. 9 months it was dead, must have been a bearing or something, my guess it was head related. i have since replaced it, and upgraded my case to allow for better cooling.

I've had much better luck with hard drives ( still running the 4.3GB drive that was in my first home-built system almost 5 years ago - it was a Cyrix :disgust: ). My disks are always set up with two partitions - one for the OS / programs and one for data. I usually end up fvcking up the OS by installing and uninstalling programs so much, so I eventually need to reinstall the OS by reformatting the first partition. With my data on a 2nd partition, I don't need to worry about making sure it's all backed up.

 

[SUOrangeman]

I just scaled my WD1200JB down to 14 or so partitions. But I've got four versions of Windows installed, with Linux and BeOS to match. I had QNX installed as well, but it has not support for my Promise IDE controller (Ultra100TX2). Oh well.

-SUO

 

[0roo0roo]

best option is to go 2 4-5gb partitions with win98se/winxp or something like that dual boot. that way when your os hits the crapper you have a backup. ever try backing up your long file names from dos in desperation deep in directories? not fun.. fun fun!

 

[Texun]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i make my os partition about 5 gb. that way i can install all basic apps on a clean os and then ghost image it. you can restore the image from the image file on the other partition at anytime.
one partition bad unless you have all your stuff backed up.

Another vote for GHOST. I have the same option and it has saved me hours of rebuilding over the years. Do yourself a favor and get a copy of Symantec Software Utilities for $10 through pricewatch, just for Ghost if nothing else. One little important bit of news though.. personal edition won't work with NTFS. At least the version I bought doesn't.