Does partitioning a drive increase performance?

[anishannayya]

I just ordered a 750 GB HDD for my laptop and I was considering partitioning it so that ~80 GB is reserved for my OS and applications. The rest of the drive would mainly hold my massive music collection.

I remember past advice used to state that doing this would make the HDD faster for the OS portion, as only the fringes of the platters would be accessed (drive head has to move less).

Does this hold true? If so, is it noticeable in real-world performance, or is it something only noticed in synthetic benchmarks, such as RAID 0?

I am looking for anything to boost this HDD's performance. This is my main machine, and I need it to be as zippy as possible. I decided to forgo an SDD for now as the space I need is too expensive, and my laptop doesn't have a second drive bay. This HDD was the biggest one that would fit in my laptop, and @ $100 it was a good deal. I can't wait till I can pick up a 1TB SSD for ~$250.

For now, I am relying on 8 GB RAM to keep my system fast as Windows 7 seems to happily cache all the programs I open in "standby RAM". As long as I reboot only when I need to and keep the computer sleeping the rest of the time, I am satisfied.

 

[FishAk]

With 8Gb RAM, your system shouldn't need to do any paging, but it still might. Yes, partitioning the drive properly will give a performance boost, as well as allowing you to image your OS/program partition easily with a relatively small image file.

I would partition as follows:

First partition should be 500Mb to 1Gb for a page file. This will keep any paging out of the OS partition, and help reduce fragmentation. If you find your usage doesn't require much paging, you can shrink the partition later.

Seccond, your OS/ program partition- size sould be 10-20Gb bigger than actual used space to allow for some expansion.

Jumping to fourth partition on the very inside edge of the disk, you should have 40-50Gb used soley to store three or four images of your OS/programs partition. Make sure to set your defrag tool to exclude this partition.

And lastly, the third partition for all your documents and data should encompass all the space between your second and fourth partition.

Use something like Partition Wizard to move your partitions around. It's free, and works on both 32 and 64 bit, from within Windows.

 

[anishannayya]

I just built a Vail-beta WHS, so that will automatically back up my OS whenever my computer is at home. I really don't do any paging what-so-ever. My active RAM usage never crosses 4 GB, as I don't do anything heavy on this computer. Any gaming, video/photo editing, etc. is done on my desktop. I am a heavy Photoshop user, since photography is a hobby of mine. However, I use an SD card as a scratch disk on my laptop for the very sparse photo editing I might do on it, and my desktop has a 128 GB C300, which excellent for all my programs. My motherboard is an older Sata II, so I haven't really tested out its full capabilities.

I really only need two partitions. Actually, 3 since the restore disks will probably insist on taking ~10 GB for a recovery partition.

I well aware on how to partition a disk and drive formatting overhead (how companies report HDD sizes in GB and OSs report them in GiB. I'm fluent with linux, so I'll probably just use a live linux CD to partition the drive. After 2 years of using Mandriva I just got frustrated with having to constantly tweak everything. Since I had to use Windows to game anyways, I decided to suck it up and use Win 7 + Norton 360. Surprisingly, it is actually pretty light, not like the old Symantec I have grown to know and hate.

My real question is this: Will I actually notice a difference? If I won't, then why increase complexity and have to worry about making sure all application defaults are changed from storing data on the OS drive? The last time I messed with partitioning was on XP when creating a RAID 5 setup.

 

[FishAk]

why increase complexity and have to worry about making sure all application defaults are changed from storing data on the OS drive?

One thing you don't want is your Apps storing their data on a separate partition. When an application loads, all the files should be on the OS partition to keep the head from having to reach outside that partition to pick up the data. Just keep your personal files and data on your other partition. Weather or not you see a performance increase, this is the easiest way to set up, and maintain your system, and it has the most potential for speedy reads/writes. It does not increase comlexity, unless you seperate out the page file.

If you know you wont ever swap files, there's no reason to have a dedicated partition for it. However, if your OS does swap files, and the messy little files aren't contained on a separate partition, this will tend to fragment your OS partition unnecessarily. The reason I suggest putting the page file, if used, at the beginning of the disk, is because it's relatively tiny, and there's no empty space between it and the OS partition. Placed it after the OS partition, makes the head travel across all the empty space used as a reserve at the end of the OS partition to read/write swaps.

Obviously this doesn't hold true with an SSD, or with a second drive.

 

[Sahakiel]

Be careful with Vail. The latest beta (and the one before) have data loss bugs.

Partitioning will boost your performance, though probably not by any noticeable amount. The boost comes mainly from data consolidation and nothing special with the drive itself since it's still accessing the entire drive. It's like a permanent macro defragment on your drive. You're far less likely to fragment program files if you're not creating/deleting other files on the same partition and your large data files are far less likely to get split by a small program file a few kB large. If you want to get a noticeable performance boost, you have to short stroke, but that means you cannot use most of your drive space.
Also, splitting your drive into partitions like that makes it easier to organize data for migrations or backups. You don't have to go hunting in multiple directories or pray your backup program doesn't miss a file. Just back up the entire partition. I split my system in a similar manner, but with multiple hard drives rather than partitions for other reasons.


If you want to proceed with multiple partitions for convenience, do note that Windows 7 by default will set aside the first 100MB of your drive into a separate partition for OS boot files. Factor that into your organization.


Personally, I've never bothered with restore partitions. After initial install, add a few basic programs like AV or third party drivers, then image the entire drive onto backup discs. Use a disc partition tool to wipe out the recovery partition so you can actually put something useful in its space.

 

[anishannayya]

Thanks for the help and replies. From what I get: yes, there is a performance increase, but it is negligible if you are planning to use the entire drive. With that said, I am thinking that I am better off not partitioning. I'm not too worried about fragmentation, as I typically do a fresh install at least once a year. My system is also set up to do idle defragmentation. Again, Win 7 is a great improvement as it seems to try to cut down on that on an OS level.

When I said application data, I meant, for example having to tell Microsoft Onenote to save audio recording notes on the separate partition, instead of its default to save in My Documents, or whatever.

In regards to the recovery partition, I have a Thinkpad x201 tablet. If I don't keep the recovery partition, then I will loose the ThinkVantage tools, which are surprisingly good. I bought this laptop for durability and the tablet feature, but the software support is pretty good. The battery life is especially good.

 

[FishAk]

Personally, I've never bothered with restore partitions. After initial install, add a few basic programs like AV or third party drivers, then image the entire drive onto backup discs. .

The reason I recommend a dedicated partition for images, is that image files tend to be rather fragile. They loose their reliability if they get defragmented, or moved. Also, since images are relatively seldom used, keeping them on the slowest part of the drive isn't much of a hit.

I never understood the attraction to short stroking, since by sectioning off portions of the disk with partitions, and then loading files that need faster access on the faster part of the drive, but still being able to use the slower portion for music, or movies, has the same effect as short stroking- but you still get the use of the whole disk. Am I missing something?

 

[FishAk]

When I said application data, I meant, for example having to tell Microsoft Onenote to save audio recording notes on the separate partition, instead of its default to save in My Documents, or whatever.

One of the nice things about W7, is that Documents, and Onenote can be re-directed, so that when something is saved, it actually goes to the directory outside of the OS partition.

Please note that I'm not trying to convince you as to how you should set up your machine, it looks like you have already decided. But there are other people who read these posts looking for answers. I've received a lot of help, and I like to pass that on some of what I've learned.

 

[anishannayya]

Okay, if that's the case then I might as well create 3 partitions: one for the OS, one for programs, and a third for data. Like I said, I'm new to Win 7, so I'm still getting used to things. I remember that XP could do this too, but it was finicky (tried it with a Raptor + slower data drive). The benefit of this wouldn't really be any speed, but rather the ability to quickly reinstall Windows. I would simply have to reinstall the OS, and then do a recovery install of all my programs to get the registry keys installed.

 

[kalniel]

Partitioning itself doesn't give you a performance boost. Having your data in the right part of the drive is what gives you a (minor) performance boost, and partitioning is just one way of helping you do that. A defragmention routine is another.

But partitioning can make things easier when it comes to organisation and re-installing/wiping parts of the system.

 

[FishAk]

Do not make the mistake of putting your programs on a separate partition from your OS. I made that mistake following advice I found on the internet, and there was no advantage I could see. If you need to reload windows due to a virus or malware, or you installed an uncooperative program you can't completely remove, you must also reload all your programs, and you loose all settings. Additionally, the drive head will have to travel from the OS partition to the programs partition many times when loading an application- not to mention the added complexity of installing everything to the program partition instead of the default. There is no advantage, and only disadvantage to separating programs from the OS.

Additionally, you need to only image one partition if everything is together. It's easy to revert to an image of the OS partition, and have everything exactly like it was when you took the snapshot of the drive. I only recommend separating out all your personal files and data, which can easily be backed up, so there is no reason for an image file. This keeps the OS/programs partition to a relatively small size, so image files can be stored without using too much space.

 

[anishannayya]

I think that the idea behind that is to essentially get rid of orphaned registry keys. If you created a separate partition, then to reinstall Windows you would only have to wipe the C Drive. When reinstalling your applications, you would point them towards the program partition. The installer should recognize that those files already exist, and it would only need to install the registry keys. Instead of choosing the full install option, you would chose the repair install option. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If that isn't possible, I see no discernible benefit to partitioning, then I see no benefit in doing so besides data management. Even that, however, is a moot point as you can simply create folders to arrange your data.

I'm glad that some smartass hasn't come along and reminded me that all drives are technically partitioned with at least one partition for the space to become usable by the OS.

 

[FishAk]

If you know how to fix the registry to get back to a working state with your programs, than do that. I don't know how, and don't want to spend the time to learn. With an image, I can wipe my OS/programs partition, and be up and running again within about 12 minutes, with all my settings, activations, licenses, updates, and tweaks exactly the way the computer was when I made the image. I keep 3 images. One, of my fresh install with most of my programs, and settings. The other two are rotated to the most recent time, so I can test my newest image before I remove the slightly older one, without only having the newest and oldest to chose from. If you can do the same by going through the registry in 20 minutes or less, just do that.

 

[mrblotto]

In regards to the recovery partition, I have a Thinkpad x201 tablet. If I don't keep the recovery partition, then I will loose the ThinkVantage tools

Unless you have something extra, the tools should be located here.

Edit: You probably have the entire vanilla OS restore there too. Sorry, didn't read into it enough.

 

[Echo147]

First partition should be 500Mb to 1Gb for a page file. This will keep any paging out of the OS partition, and help reduce fragmentation. If you find your usage doesn't require much paging, you can shrink the partition later.

Really don't need a pagefile period with 8GB ram - not caused me any compatibility issues in the last 12 months (6gb system ram).

 

[postmortemIA]

making 3 partitions is actually decreasing your performance, as disk head has to jump across lots of sectors when reading data from different partitions. or in other words, it does more random reads than sequential reads. what smart people have told you is that you want as much data on beginning of disk as possible, that is where sequential read is highest.

as for whole thing of restoring programs and registry, sorry but most installers will copy over existing items.

 

[corkyg]

One thing you don't want is your Apps storing their data on a separate partition.... Obviously this doesn't hold true with an SSD, or with a second drive.

Since I rotate my OS drive weekly, it is essential that app data files are kept on a common second drive. Otherwise, the weekly OS drive change would require extensive updates and re-entering data.

I keep all my essential data files in a RAID 1 array that is common to both OS drives. That works perfectly on all of my systems, floortops and laptops. (I have no desktops! )

 

[poohbear]

partitioning a hdd is gonna, if anything, decrease performance. when u partition the hdd has to go through each partition and work harder searching for data. this increases the workload and ultimately decreases the lifespan of ur hdd. surprised no one mentioned that. i mentioned, "if anything" though, as the performance decrease is very tangible.

making 3 partitions is actually decreasing your performance, as disk head has to jump across lots of sectors when reading data from different partitions. or in other words, it does more random reads than sequential reads. what smart people have told you is that you want as much data on beginning of disk as possible, that is where sequential read is highest.

as for whole thing of restoring programs and registry, sorry but most installers will copy over existing items.

er, nevermind, it was mentioned as per above quote.

 

[fuzzymath10]

I don't think it makes a big practical difference. I do tend to make a smaller partition for my OS (the first 200GB of a 1.5TB drive) but then I experimented with an extra OS and put it on the second 1.3TB partition and they were both equally slow. I say equally slow vs equally fast because now I have an X25-M as my OS drive--that will make a much bigger difference than any sort of optimal partitioning will achieve.

 

[FishAk]

That works perfectly on all of my systems, floortops and laptops. (I have no desktops! )

I bet your laptop sits on the desk, no?:sneaky:

Seriously though, most of us don't change out our OS drive on a regular basis. I know why you do, and it makes great sense. But obviously, it's more complex than many are willing to do.

I regularly reset my OS to an earlier image. Before I do, I copy both the Users and ProgramData folders to another partition that isn't erased- than copy the files I want to keep back to the OS partition after the image reset.

 

[anishannayya]

Seriously though, most of us don't change out our OS drive on a regular basis. I know why you do, and it makes great sense. But obviously, it's more complex than many are willing to do.

No, it really doesn't make any sense. To me, it seems like a whole waste of time and effort. My time is better spent doing other things

Personally, I only reinstall Windows when I actually need to, if something isn't working right, or got corrupted. I've found that in general, a PC never NEEDS a reinstall of Windows. Generally, for me it ends up being every year or so, because I upgrade the HDD, get a new version of Windows, etc.

One thing I do, however, is try out all programs I am interested in a sandbox first, so that my install isn't crapped up.

 

[FishAk]

No, it really doesn't make any sense.

One thing I do, however, is try out all programs I am interested in a sandbox first, so that my install isn't crapped up.

Corkyg doesn't change out his drives to keep the OS from getting "crapped up", he does it to be sure of always having a replacement for a broken drive.

Having his system down due to a drive failure is aparently not an option for corkyg, so he maintaines a backup drive- and brings it on the road with him- in the event he should need to replace a bricked drive. He runs both drives to be sure they are always ready. A sandbox won't help in his situation.

I have a program I like, but am too cheep to buy. Shameful, really, but I just reset my machine instead of buying the program. I'll probably end up buying it in the end, but I only use a small portion, and it's expensive. It won't do it's job in a sandbox.

Not all solutions work in every situation.

 

[tcsenter]

making 3 partitions is actually decreasing your performance, as disk head has to jump across lots of sectors when reading data from different partitions. or in other words, it does more random reads than sequential reads. what smart people have told you is that you want as much data on beginning of disk as possible, that is where sequential read is highest.

As well, putting the pagefile on a separate partition that resides on the same physical disk as the OS has no benefits at all (except maybe for fragmentation) and probably has even worse performance, since the read/write heads now have to jump back and forth between two different partitions. It takes longer to seek and position the head than to perform the kind of small reads/writes that constitute the majority of pagefile access.

If you want some partition scheme for I/O access and fragmentation benefits, use a second physical disk for a pagefile in its own exclusive partition. For example:

Physical Disk 1
Partition 1 = OS boot/system (with or without pagefile)
Partition 2 = Installed programs

Physical Disk 2
Partition 1 = pagefile (nothing else)
Partition 2 = LRU stuff/archived/backups

If you want successful kernel memory dumps, there must be a nominal pagefile on the boot partition as well (2GB + 24MB will be the max for 32-bit kernel memory dumps). Windows will most utilize the pagefile located on the partition/disk with the least I/O activity, which we want to be the second disk. If using IDE drives, configure each drive as master on separate IDE channels (SATA won't matter).

This configuration has the best chance of paying any benefits, and even in the best case scenario, its not going to change your life.

 

[evilspoons]

1. Don't put your pagefile on a separate partition. Your hard drive will constantly have to seek from wherever it was to the physical location of the page file, wasting time. Putting it on the same partition as your program files allows the defragmenter to locate it in the optimal average location.

2. My laptop at work has two partitions due to backup reasons (all working data goes on one partition and is backed up daily, the programs go on the other partition and that's backed up weekly.) I notice a sizable performance hit as the computer decides it needs to access both "drives" simultaneously and you can hear the heads buzzing back and forth.

Short story:

Don't friggin' bother. If you REALLY want to segregate your stuff, just buy a second physical drive. It's like $80 for a fast 1.5 TB drive now.

The advice about putting the page file on both physical drives is good though.

 

[corkyg]

The evidence is pretty clear in all of the above responses - partitioning a drive does not really do anything positive for the system performance, However . . . there is another consideration. That is, after many years of experience, it does improve MY performance.