Do not partition the hard drive

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

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...

Yes, but then you'd just delete Program Files, like Windows was deleted, and everything else is untouched.

Using multiple partitions is not necessary, nor have any real benefits over other methods on a single drive.

...it's not to hurt, or anything, though. For you, it may be easier, as well. That aspect I have not argued against (partly because it creates a false dilema).

 

[DasFox]

Cerb, well for a gaming box running a AMD X2 3800 with a Raptor 150 I can't see how having a small C: drive 20GB and the rest D: is going to decrease my performance on the drive, instead if I just ran one big partition as C:

I think if performance aside, one or two partitions it doesn't really matter it will be the same, then I'd take the two partitions simply for if I needed to ever reinstall and format I'd rather format a small section and not have to spend the time waiting on more to get formatted and personally people say formats don't wear the drive, but if they do I'd rather be wearing out some of it faster then all of it quicker.

THANKS

P.S. jiffylube1024 thanks for the tips, I know all of those and then some, I've been using Windows since 1986

But like my Sig says, as that goes for me, well I don't know everything, hehe

THANKS

 

[silverpig]

You bought a hard drive to increase gaming performance? dude...

 

[the Chase]

Good info-learning a lot tonight- any performance increases on seek times if you partition up a hard drive? So if you load a game or are only using windows files the "heads" won't have to travel the whole platter and just be able to search the specific partition? Or no?

 

[DasFox]

Originally posted by: silverpig
You bought a hard drive to increase gaming performance? dude...

Yes combined with all the other components of course, CPU/GPU/MEMORY, etc...

After all at times when a game may want to access the drive besides load times, the speed of a Raptor will improve overall gaming peformance, if you don't belive me then buy one and you'll soon see as I have.

Aloha

 

[jmagg]

How much space do you need for your apps and games?
I would probably split the Raptor in half (if 70g is enough for your apps and games on /C), and use the second partition for file, application installer backup only, then add another physical drive for backup redundancy.

A folder with all app installers is handy and quick, should you need to reinstall.

 

[mphartzheim]

I've been debating this same thing and finally decided to partition my drive. The first partition will be for the OS, apps, and games. The second partition will completely for documents, downloads, music, etc. My reasoning for this is that when you wipe windows, your installed programs will need to be reinstalled anyways... the only thing I don't want to lose when I format is my document files. So I'll throw those on a separate partition so I can save them between wipes.

 

[cmdrdredd]

It used to be true that smaller partitions were faster because the disk had a smaller section to seek when you were pulling up a file or loading an app. Now, I don't see the big benefit, but there may still be a very small boost for intensive I/Os

 

[Jeff7181]

Fragmentation is a good reason to partition. The partition with browser caches and temp files and crap like that will get fragmented pretty quickly. If you keep that separate from your big chunks of data that don't get modified and thus don't get fragmented, your defrag will complete faster, and your data partition will very rarely need defragmenting.

I have a 36GB Raptor with Windows and all my programs on it. I have 250 GB 7200 RPM drive with two partitions, one is 100 GB and is where all my games are, the other is 150 GB and is where all my data is stored. I defrag my Raptor every couple weeks and it takes about 10 minutes. I've probably defragged the partitions on my 250 GB drive three or four times in the past year and it never takes more than 5 minutes.

 

[Tostada]

Aren't you guys forgetting that your performance degrades the farther in you go? Say you have a Raptor 150 and partition off 40GB for Windows and game installs, that will ensure that all the important stuff stays in the fastest part of the drive.

And also, if you have a OS/app partition and a data partition, that works a lot like short-stroking your drive. When you're accessing the OS/app partition, you will always have faster seeks because there's no chance of any of that stuff getting placed way out on the other side of 50GB of MP3s.

I don't partition my drives with the exception of the primary drive. On my primary drive, I make about 30GB of it the C: drive and the rest is the D: drive. Then every other drive is just one partition.

 

[jayanath]

partition is very important .

once there was something wrong with my OS and i had to format the whole drive always keep ur data away form the partition that windows is in

 

[DasFox]

I think personally it gets down to personal preferences and the individual needs. Given the heavy fragmentation that games create I don't believe this is wise to play games on the drive that the OS lives on.

But sometimes I have to admit, I'm not always staying right there on top of it all. So with something like this Raptor I just purchased, I just wanted to find out if there could really be a bigger increase in performance if I left it all as one, but I guess not.


Since this is just my gaming box only, I'll make the C: partition like 15-20GB and the rest of the Raptor 150s D: drive for placing all the games on.

THANKS

 

[elkinm]

Personally I don't partition myself and don't really like partitions that much. I have not had any problems either way.

At work my systems are partitioned with the small OS partition and a large data partition. It does help with fragmentation but I do feel the limited space and I have to use the second partition. And with the programs installed on the data drive, a Format still requires a full system reinstall, not just the OS. The systems with no partitions run just as fast if not faster with no real downside.

If you want to partition, then I recommend one large main partition and a small (1-2 GB) partition for temp files or the swap file.

If you want organization then another hard drive is much better then any partitioning.

 

[Tostada]

Originally posted by: DasFox
I think personally it gets down to personal preferences and the individual needs. Given the heavy fragmentation that games create I don't believe this is wise to play games on the drive that the OS lives on.

But sometimes I have to admit, I'm not always staying right there on top of it all. So with something like this Raptor I just purchased, I just wanted to find out if there could really be a bigger increase in performance if I left it all as one, but I guess not.


Since this is just my gaming box only, I'll make the C: partition like 15-20GB and the rest of the Raptor 150s D: drive for placing all the games on.

THANKS

In what way do games create heavy fragmentation?

Like I said, the way partitioning can increase performance is by essentially short-stroking your drive and keeping the most accessed stuff in the beginning area of the drive with the higher transfer rate. So, if you make two partitions and keep the games/apps/OS in the first one, you'll ensure that these things are all in the fastest part of the drive.

It's nice to keep your OS on its own partition to make it easier to do a total wipe and a clean install, but if you format your C: drive, you're going to need to reinstall your games anyway, so there's no reason not to keep your games on the same partition as the OS.

Keeping games on a separate partion from the OS is slower (if they still reside on the same physical drive) because the head has to travel between partitions. For example, you said you have a 15-20GB partition for the OS. XP probably takes up about 2GB of that. All the empty space on the OS partition is just sitting there, and the head has to travel across it whenever you go from acessing OS files to accessing game data.

In the end, it makes very little difference, but if you want to get technical you should keep all your stuff that you want to be able to access quickly in the first partition of the drive.

Partitioning is really mostly beneficial if you want to keep things that need performance (OS/games) on the same drive as random bulk storage (MP3s, ISOs, backups, things that don't matter). Then you keep from having the two intermingled. That is, when you install a new game, you don't want it placed on far end of a bunch of DVD images.

For the most part, though, it's really just an organizational thing that's totally personal preference.

 

[the Chase]

Thanks for the info Tostada, you just saved me a lot of time messing around with partitions when I don't have to. I'm getting a new hard drive today and was going to use partitions to reduce seek times. It's a gaming rig and I want the fastest loading times possible(and a fast windows boot never hurts). After reading your last response it is a lot clearer now. OS/APPS/GAMES on new hard drive and storage on the "old" hard drive.
For this situation would you put the page file on a small partition on the "old" HD (120GB 7200RPM 8MB cache) or keep it with the OS on the new quiker drive.(Raptor 74GB).

 

[ProviaFan]

You have enough RAM that page file placement will not factor at all into performance; thus, barring any other reason, the page file will be best suited for the drive that holds the OS, so that Windows can save debugging information from a BSOD (if the page file is placed elsewhere, this can not happen).

 

[Genx87]

I used to partition like mad under FAT 32 but with NTFS I will make a single 8-12GB parititon for the OS and then partition the rest of the drive out. The only reason I do an OS parition is for reinstall situations. He is right, partitions wont help you in a drive failure and honestly 1 big parititon is easier to manage IMO.

Use folders to partitions your information out instead of partitions. It is more efficient to do this and you can cut and paste large files between folders if need be instead of copying like you would between partititons.

For your situation I would make it a single partition.
It is a gaming rig, so nothing mission critical.

 

[Zepper]

Only the lazy (or those few that really need large, contiguous storage volumes) don't partition large hard drives. As the storage space on a volume increases, the overhead for the file location tables increases and accesses can become slower. Besides it is a good pracice to isolate OS files, program files, and data files into their own logical drives as much as possible. I have logical drives C thru O with opticals out at Y and Z in case I want to put more hard drive volumes in between...

If nothing else, good practices in drive organizaton make backups and recovery from most disk errors easier.

.bh.

 

[aka1nas]

I find that it still is beneficial to partition with NTFS as on some of my machines I do mess around frequently with large files when video editing or capturing as well as filesharing. These usage patterns tend to fragment your file system badly and it seems to work better overall if your OS and maybe applications are seperated from that. It certainly makes defragging faster as you don't need to defrag your OS partition as often as the others.

 

[Tostada]

Originally posted by: Zepper
Only the lazy (or those few that really need large, contiguous storage volumes) don't partition large hard drives. As the storage space on a volume increases, the overhead for the file location tables increases and accesses can become slower. Besides it is a good pracice to isolate OS files, program files, and data files into their own logical drives as much as possible. I have logical drives C thru O with opticals out at Y and Z in case I want to put more hard drive volumes in between...

If nothing else, good practices in drive organizaton make backups and recovery from most disk errors easier.

.bh.

You're wrong, but I suppose that should be obvious since you failed to back up anything you said.

Common sense will tell most people that it's ridiculous to have drive partitions going up to O: on a home PC, and there is absolutely no doubt that you are slowing your system down by making your drives always seek from one end of the patter to the other for common operations between your copious number of partitions.

About the overhead: NTFS uses 4KB clusters for all partitions between 2GB and 16TB. Changing the number of partitions will not change the overhead at all (if anything there is slightly more overhead from multiple partitions because of inherent per-partition data). The MFT for a single large partition will be about the same as the total size of all the little MFTs if you make several partitions.

If you're really concerned about overhead and getting the most performance you can, you should probably be bumping up your cluster size.

 

[jdkick]

Example... a decent Athlon 64 system w/ 1GB DDR400 and a single 200GB SATA HDD. I seriously doubt anyone is going to notice a difference in performance if the drive is formatted as a single 200GB NTFS partition or four 50GB NTFS partitions.

Personally, I prefer having dedicated partitions. I like organization and find seperate partitions more to my liking then one giant directory structure...

 

[imported_burningrave101]

I've done research into the performance aspects of multiple partitions vs a single large partition in the past and personally i prefer a single large partition at this point. If you are dual booting then you'll have to set up multiple partitions but if your only running a single OS then one large partition is fine. The reason why splitting up the hard drive into multiple partitions seems to provide better disk performance is because the fastest portion of the hard drive is the outermost region at the beginning of the drive so if you install your OS onto the first small partition all by itself then theoretically it will achieve the highest possible disk performance and you dont have yoru core system files moving across the drive and slowing performance. If you've ever run a hard drive benchmark like HDTach you will notice that the disk performance is around twice that at the beginning of the drive than it is at the innermost region or end of the drive and thats because at the beginning of the drive the heads are moving the shortest distance. Larger hard drives offer better sequential read/write performance then smaller drives because of the increased arial density. The problem with partitioning though is the latency involved with accessing from one partition to the next. If you install your OS in one partition and then your applications and games in another partition then your constantly going to have the latency of accessing across partitions. I'm not sure if this negates the performance aspect of keeping your OS on the fastest portition of the drive completely but i would say that for the most part you aren't going to notice the difference and its easier to just install everything onto a single large partition. If you want better hard drive performance then quite simply buy yourself a faster hard drive because thats about the only way your going to get any noticeable improvement.

 

[nomadh]

Drive letters up to O: seems overkill but I always part my drives. I was just looking at my old 20gig w98 system. Its partitioned as c:=4 gig and D:=16g dir data misc. It paid off then and it still pays off now. My newer system still has a c:=12gig out of 120 gig. Even when I added another 200gigger I made a 12gig 1st partition. I wasn't even likely to use it for anything special except that it would become my c: in an emergency if my current drive failed. I keep my windows patrition backed up as a ghost image. Usually with a copy to my d: or other drive and periodically burn it to a dvd. A few times I've totally hosed windows and the best answer was a simple 5 min ghost restore.
I actually play fairly dangerously with my pc because I have this safety net. I have a few drives connected for media and some of my partitions are pretty specific. For my beyond tv capture partition I made an ntfs with 32k cluster (8 times the normal 4k default) because almost all the files are 1.5+ gigs. It cut my fragmentation by many magnitudes. I couldn't have done that just a directory. It takes a partition. Recently, because of bittorrent and p2p, I have had fragmentation so bad its incurable by any normal means. I have 200k size files with 1000+ fragments. The only cure is to stop the p2p programs and move the data to another partition then back. Windows , norton, dirms, diskeeper etc can't make a dent in it, even when its half empty. Perhaps my new use for that unused 12 gig partition may become my torrent incoming dir. Then move finished data to a big data vol when the torrent ic complete.
These are just some of the reasons to partition data. Even if you don't use ghost just keep that windows partition away from bulk data. It really helps in organizing but don't overdo it. You don't need to seperate your mp3s from your mpg from your avis. Seperate dirs are fine they can all size dynamically without repartitioning but if you do alot (like work) of editing of these files then a sperate part could be a good idea.
It's 50/50 about seperating your programs from windows. In fact I do both. I install core applications and utils to c: and other apps to the d: So much of this is dependant on what you mainly do. I don't do alot of gaming but my guess is that the gaming installs could be on your c: but maybe there is a way to set your temp directories to another vol, specially if they cause fragmentation. I doubt measurable performance will change either way. If you think keeping your game program near the beginning of the HD really helps then the only way to make that happen is to make sure you keep a small c: and put it there. With a monolithic volume it could end up anywhere or at worst everywhere. If you think its slow reading from the end of a hd try alternating reading half in the front and half at the end.
The main reason not to partition is if someday you make a 146gig file and your biggest partition is 145. Now that would suck

 

[gsellis]

Unless you install every distro or beta OS as they come along, One partition. Drives are cheap. You want another partition, for less than $100, you can add a 250GB partition without using Partition Magic.

Multiple partitions usually do not help when partitions go bad (why does it always seem to hit the partition table? - Oh yeah, IBM drives that destroy track 0) or at all when hardware fails.

And do NOT make the OS partition 1-5GB! With your memory (remember, you are going to let the system manage your pagefile, right? ) and a possibly hibernation file, that is already about 5GB. Vista comes on a DVD, so that is another hint.

 

[Tostada]

Yeah, Ghosting your C: drive is always a good idea. I don't know that it justifies having a separate partition on your other drive, though. For example, if your C: drive is the first 12G of a 120G drive, your D: drive is the rest of the 120G drive, and your E: drive is a new 200G drive ... You're really not getting any benefit out of partitioning off the beginning of the 200G drive when you can just put the Ghost image anywhere on there.

If you really want to get picky, everybody would probably benefit from having 64KB clusters on all their drives. Drives are large enough that you would have to have truly massive numbers of tiny files for the slack to become the slightest bit of a problem (and I think if files are under 4K they just reside in the MFT). I was just looking at my C: analysis report and was surprised that my average filesize is 630KB with 34,983 files, my D: drive average filesize is 5MB for 39,694 files, and my E: drive average filesize is 26MB for 2,001 files. So switching to 64KB clusters would be reducing overhead by 16X and not use much more space. I think most RAID0s use 64KB stripes, and other things get unhappy if you try to actually use the max 256KB clusters, so you might not want to go over 64KB.