Do not partition the hard drive

[DasFox]

I just saw this online:

http://www.techbuilder.org/recipes/59201471

Number 18:
====================
Do not partition the hard drive. Windows XP's NTFS file system runs more efficiently on one large partition. The data is no safer on a separate partition, and a reformat is never necessary to reinstall an operating system. The same excuses people offer for using partitions apply to using a folder instead. For example, instead of putting all your data on the D: drive, put it in a folder called "D drive." You'll achieve the same organizational benefits that a separate partition offers, but without the degradation in system performance. Also, your free space won't be limited by the size of the partition; instead, it will be limited by the size of the entire hard drive. This means you won't need to resize any partitions, ever. That task can be time-consuming and also can result in lost data.
====================

Ok Now my input here, I have always partitioned NTFS since it came out and I have never seen any performance losses, but then I never ran one single one to compare with it either. I have always believed to make a seperate one for gaming, since games tend to frag the drive pretty good.

Ok I just bought a Raptor 150 just for gaming, so should I really adhere to this and only go with one partition is there really any truth to this that NTFS performs better on one large drive?

THANKS

 

[Bobthelost]

I doubt he's talkin anything but ******, i don't partition but i see the advantages, namely for defraging and for clean installs of XP.

Performance is a non issue imo.

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

Back in the day, when FAT16 and FAT32 were the norm, it was beneficial to partition drives, because it actually saved disk space. That is no long an issue with NTFS and today's large hard drives. However, many people still partition because they think they have to. Under Win XP, the system does run efficiently on a single partition, especially compared to previous iterations. But this does not mean that you can't partition it for reasons of organization. I have multiple disks, and each have multiple partitions, just because I'm outright anal on where data is stored. Hell, I have a damn web page just for it.

Bottom line: partition for organization, not for performance increases. Also, partitioning for purposes of seperating OS and programs from data is a good idea. It won't matter if the drive fails, but if Windows gets fvcked, then you can reformat, and not lose all of your documents that are on another partition.

 

[mphartzheim]

How large of a partition do you need if you want the OS (WinXP) on its own partition?

 

[DasFox]

Originally posted by: mphartzheim
How large of a partition do you need if you want the OS (WinXP) on its own partition?

If you're only talking about the OS and nothing else, not much, probably 1-2GB is all you need.

Personally my concern is my Raptor 150 will be for gaming only, so should I partition? I thought I was going to make the C: drive like 15GB for some programs, then put all the games in the D: drive, but I want pure 100% performance. So would there be much of any performance gain for gaming if I left it as one partition?

THANKS

 

[JimPhelpsMI]

Hi, I think he meant to partition the entire drive as ONE partition. Maybe?, Jim

 

[imported_redlotus]

I highly doubt that NTFS performs that much better (with exceptions, of course) with a single, large partition compared to multiple partitions. However, I would have to agree with him somewhat.

First, if you are transferring large files between partitions on the same physical drive, the time it takes can be excruciating. I've tried to transfer 3 large video files (~600MB each) from My Documents to a partition on the same drive. I found that it was much quicker to move the files to my data drive (a separate physical hdd) and then move them to the small partition. If I were to just move it to a separate folder on the same drive/partition, the process would have been sped up even more.

Second, if you want to have the option of storing your data separately from the OS (so that you can do a format/install of Windows), get another hard drive. Trust me, it's the best $50+ you can spend.

Anyway, just my $.02 worth.

-red

 

[ProviaFan]

He's FOS regarding his statement that the OS is just fine to be reinstalled without repartitioning; that just leaves around a ton of junk spewed in various places, which is one of the main reasons that people reinstall in the first place. With that said, if you don't keep many important documents on your system, then for simplicity a single partition would be best. However, to tell people that they are stupid for using two partitions on a one-drive system to separate OS & programs from data, is simply wrong.

 

[DasFox]

Well getting back to my gaming question, with a Raptor 150, for the best gaming performance, should I just leave it all as on big partition C: drive?

Like I said I was going to just make the C: around 15mb, just to put a few programs on and the D: for all the games.

THANKS

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: DasFox
Well getting back to my gaming question, with a Raptor 150, for the best gaming performance, should I just leave it all as on big partition C: drive?

Like I said I was going to just make the C: around 15mb, just to put a few programs on and the D: for all the games.

THANKS

For your specific usage, a single large partition would be best. As another poster mentioned, moving files between partitions is one of the few things that performs very poorly on a multi-partitioned single-drive setup; however, for most activities, there is no discernable difference in performance either way. The only reason (albeit a big one, of importance to most non-gamers) to go dual-partition is for the convenience and protection of keeping data isolated from the OS in the event of reinstalls.

 

[DasFox]

Yes that is all I'm wondering too, in case of a reinstall. I wonder what the norm is for most high end gamers if they just leave it as one single partition, hmm

THANKS

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: ProviaFan
He's FOS regarding his statement that the OS is just fine to be reinstalled without repartitioning; that just leaves around a ton of junk spewed in various places, which is one of the main reasons that people reinstall in the first place. With that said, if you don't keep many important documents on your system, then for simplicity a single partition would be best. However, to tell people that they are stupid for using two partitions on a one-drive system to separate OS & programs from data, is simply wrong.

Partitioning just moves junk around, though.
Let's say you have OS, apps, and users.
Re-install: clear OS partition. You've still got apps and users with a bunch of crap.

How is that better than deleting \Windows (which the WIndows installer will do for you, no less)? New user folders are made, as well, so your data is still there, too (FI, I've got a cerbie, and cerbie.[domainname]).

Using multiple partitions isn't wrong, but is just more trouble, IMO. If you start using multiple OSes...then think about multiple partitions.

 

[DasFox]

Cerb so what are you saying, your English isn't clear? To me sounds like you are saying two different things here, which I don't know where you stand.

To me it makes sense to have two partitions for something like this. I mean why, well I have a 150GB hard drive, let's say the OS gets messed up and I have to reinstall, personally I'd rather just delete everything on the D: drive and just format a small C: drive as opposed to formatting the entire thing.

I mean why would you want to constantly format 150GB if you need to reinstall, sounds like a lot of extra wear and tear, when you could be just formatting a 15GB partition is all and spare the rest to just removing everything to the trash to clear it all out.

But if someone is going to show me some proof to better performance for one partition and that it WILL make a big difference then I'll keep it all one big partition, because I didn't build a SLI with a Raptor to skimp on performance.

THANKS

 

[Cerb]

That you basically change your issues with partitioning, but not remove them. Except for occasional filesystem corruption (whcih requires virii, very bad luck, or the very common bad PSU and/or overclocking), which will likely have been preceeded by data corruption, partitioning a desktop machine with a single OS really doesn't get any net gain.

You can do everything with folders that you could with partitioning, as far as cleaning up and organizing.

 

[DasFox]

Cerb please look up and read my last post again and sorry I still don't understand anything you are saying. Are you saying ONE partition or TWO is what you like?

THANKS

 

[the Chase]

He is saying one.

Edit- I know you guys are probably sick of page file questions but this relates to the OP's concerns- would it be advantagis to put the page file on a seperate partition or will windows automatically put the page file on the outermost area(fastest) of the HD?

 

[Cerb]

One big one, for Windows.

Several reasons to partition, like performance, used to be very much true, but that was back when everything used FAT32. Now, there may be convenience with partitioning if you're blowing the OS away a whole lot, but it doesn't really solve any potential problems.

 

[DasFox]

any potential problems? Like what?

THANKS

 

[Cerb]

Like having a bunch of little files that use of space and more of the tree(s), and using up too much space per file. Both were hard to handle with FAT32, and significantly impacted performance and useable space. With NTFS, that's not so important.

While filesystem corruption is often cited, so I've had that happen once from a virus (in fact, one that disabled Norton's real-time protection, after which I swapped to Avast!)...and many times with PoS PSUs (the most recent being a Deer). Funny, machines with good PSUs did fine...

The last thing is probably also something to worry about by overclocking too far, or with poor equipment, too, which gamer-types are known to do, as well.

 

[DasFox]

Well one thing you haven't mentioned that I had always thought was the best reason for a second partition for gaming is the amount at which games fragment the hard drive and because of this I have always considered it not to be a good thing to keep and play games on the same partition as the OS, because of this.

THANKS

 

[jiffylube1024]

I always partition my drives because to me it makes a lot more sense. I used to reformat frequently (every 3-4 months) although now I do it much less frequently since I don't really game anymore, so the constant installing and deleting of massive files isn't there.

I like to have a main boot/program partition and then a storage partition with music, movies, downloads, etc.

I also think his idea that you don't have to reformat to reinstall Windows is bogus - it's just plain better to reformat when you put on Windows. No more fragmentation, Windows is at the very beginning (ie the fastest reading) part of the disc, and any crap that is potentially still there (viruses, etc) will be gone after a reformat. Plus the user can back up applications and whatnot to a second partition.

-----------

Some of that article's recommendations are overly simplistic. While I'd agree to spend money otherwise spent on a defrag program on a better HD, their recommendation of ATA-133/SATA or 8MB buffer is more of a half-truth. In reality the main indicators on performance are: buffer size (the jump from 2MB to 8MB gives a bit of a boost), RPM (7200rpm on a desktop drive at minimum) and platter size, which dictates the density of storage. Of course that would require too much research so platter size wasn't mentioned and it's harder to find this info. Eg. Maxtor's Diamond Max 10 series has 100MB platters; the WD Raptor series all have 2 platters so the 36GB drive has 18GB platters, the 74GB drive has 37GB platters and the 150GB Raptor has 75GB platters. Of course the increased rotation speed on Raptors more than makes up for the smaller platter size.

---------

More than 512MB of RAM is nice but 256 > 512MB is the real boost for basic PC users. After that you need to be using several applications at once to see the benefit.

--------

NTFS over FAT32: no question there - NTFS is much better in all respects.

---

Update BIOS: definitely, and this one is often overlooked. Very nice recommendation.

------

Upgrade cabling? Shouldn't be an issue really. Use 80-wire ATA/66/100/133 cables on any hard drives you're planning to use. It's that simple.

------

Remove unnecessary programs via MSConfig: definitely!!! This is one of the best ways to ensure faster bootup, less crap running and less RAM usage. It's also why you can get by with 512MB of RAM if you only use your PC for surfing and typing.

----

Do not partition the HD? Totally misguided. Sure partitioning is dumb if you still think it's the FAT16 days and anything over 2GB wastes space due to large cluster size, but otherwise partitioning is a smart way to organize data. When I build PC's with a single drive, I make two hard drive partitions.

--------

Disabling unnecessary services? Was very important in Windows XP and SP1, but less important with SP2 (Microsoft disabled most of the wasteful ones: Messenger, Alerter, etc).

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Cerb
Partitioning just moves junk around, though.
Let's say you have OS, apps, and users.
Re-install: clear OS partition. You've still got apps and users with a bunch of crap.

How is that better than deleting \Windows (which the WIndows installer will do for you, no less)? New user folders are made, as well, so your data is still there, too (FI, I've got a cerbie, and cerbie.[domainname]).

Using multiple partitions isn't wrong, but is just more trouble, IMO. If you start using multiple OSes...then think about multiple partitions.

Typically, I find that when I need to reinstall Windows (maybe once a year), I want to blow away Windows, drivers, program files, and everything except data, so there's no point to keep apps separate, and there are many reasons not to have much data (everything except user profiles, basically) in the os/apps partition.

I agree that using separate partitions for apps and OS is much more trouble than it is worth, but you're exaggerating the supposed trouble that keeping os & apps on a separate partition from data actually is. I have used this setup for years with many gigabytes of data; now everything is spread over two drives in the same fashion, but of course the level of inconvenience (basically none) remains the same.

 

[DasFox]

Yes data, basic software applications, music mp3s and movies are one thing and games are another. In my experience there is nothing that fragments the drive as bad as games.

So for this reason I still belive they should not live on the same partition as the OS.

Any other Pros, Cons on this?

THANKS

 

[jiffylube1024]

See my tips above, DasFox.

Originally posted by: DasFox

I mean why would you want to constantly format 150GB if you need to reinstall, sounds like a lot of extra wear and tear, when you could be just formatting a 15GB partition is all and spare the rest to just removing everything to the trash to clear it all out.
THANKS

I'd use a boot partition bigger than 15GB; 20GB at the least. Even if you're just going to be putting on the OS and applications (MS Office, etc etc.) I find my boot partition always gets up to 5-10GB, so I'd rather be safe and have over 5GB free too keep room for windows' virtual memory, etc. Ever since I had a WD Raptor 36GB, I've stuck to a 36GB boot partition for my computer; I used it with my 74GB Raptor (36GB boot partition) and my current 250GB Maxtor. If I'm reinstalling Windows, I want to blow away my 36GB boot partition and reinstall my applications and not have to worry about moving 200GB of other stuff around.

Originally posted by: Cerb
Partitioning just moves junk around, though.
Let's say you have OS, apps, and users.
Re-install: clear OS partition. You've still got apps and users with a bunch of crap.

How is that better than deleting \Windows (which the WIndows installer will do for you, no less)? New user folders are made, as well, so your data is still there, too (FI, I've got a cerbie, and cerbie.[domainname]).

Using multiple partitions isn't wrong, but is just more trouble, IMO. If you start using multiple OSes...then think about multiple partitions.

So many applications don't work properly unless you install them on the current install of Windows since Windows is so picky with registry keys that I find it's actually less of a hassle to reinstall all programs on a reformat then just put on a fresh Windows and 'pretend everything is ok' so to speak. Problems ensue...

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: DasFox
Well one thing you haven't mentioned that I had always thought was the best reason for a second partition for gaming is the amount at which games fragment the hard drive and because of this I have always considered it not to be a good thing to keep and play games on the same partition as the OS, because of this.

THANKS

NTFS does a good job with fragmentation (compared to FAT, FAT32, ETX2/3), HDDs get better and better at hiding it, performance-wise...and you can always just run the defragger. With FAT32, that typically meant using up sometimes a hundred MB or more, just from fragmented files, since the size of blocks had to be huge for the drives.

FI, I have a 21GB FAT32 partition on my HD. 16k blocks vs. 4k. I'll copy my LS themes to it:
134MB of files.
NTFS: 152MB of disk space (13% waste).
FAT32: 225MB of disk space (68% waste).
That's w/ no fragmented files in there.

Typically, I find that when I need to reinstall Windows (maybe once a year), I want to blow away Windows, drivers, program files, and everything except data, so there's no point to keep apps separate, and there are many reasons not to have much data (everything except user profiles, basically) in the os/apps partition.

Regardless of how it is done, there should always be some degree of redundancy (I use nother PC on the network, and if I know I'm going to blow everything away, just use up some DVDs). With just data saved elsewhere, it's not any inconvenience, and makes it easy to just ruin the OS w/o much worry (like a separate or shared /home partition, if you run several OSes on the same box). On this forum and others, you'll find folks doing OS on one, applications on another, and even swap on another, FI. These types of cases are really pointless for a desktop Windows box (with a single HDD, anyway).

I also think his idea that you don't have to reformat to reinstall Windows is bogus - it's just plain better to reformat when you put on Windows. No more fragmentation, Windows is at the very beginning (ie the fastest reading) part of the disc, and any crap that is potentially still there (viruses, etc) will be gone after a reformat. Plus the user can back up applications and whatnot to a second partition.

Fragmentation is easy to deal with. If the files aren't too fragmented, reading won't be a problem. If one can remember to put things on another partition, they can remember to move them to separate media, too.

HDD problems do sometimes not show up (actually, the last three dying HDDs I've run into--two old, one 'new' refurb WD) until you try to do things like large backups, get complete directory listings, etc.. When it starts clicking, the other partition is likely just as bad off (the HDD decides where data goes, and shouldn't be physically separating the platters based on partitions). A real backup is definitely more inconvenient than a separate partition. I've seen too many problem cases (once even hosing the PC up due to the OEM restore partition being messed up) to trust another partition any more than another directory on the drive.

Originally posted by: DasFox
Yes data, basic software applications, music mp3s and movies are one thing and games are another. In my experience there is nothing that fragments the drive as bad as games.

So for this reason I still belive they should not live on the same partition as the OS.

Any other Pros, Cons on this?

THANKS

There is no doubt that games fragment more. Just do the analysis from the included defragger . On my HDD, right now, only files from games have more than 3 fragments--and they're all over 50! (2 and 3 fragments are even hard to measure in benchmarks, with modern drives)

However, if I defrag them now, that can be taken care of (might as well go ahead and do it now, too...). I generally do it once I notice the load times getting really long. Except for doing the defrag itself faster, though, what does the extra partition for them do? Only the sections those files are under should have any issues from that fragmentation.

Except for ProviaFan's scenario, it seems like added complexity without purpose.