How would you partition a 100GB hard disk?

[LintMan]

I'm planning on getting a WD 1000BB in the next month or so and was wondering how best to partition a disk that big (if it's worth partitioning at all)...

So, (assuming it's your only HD in your system), how would you partition a 100 GB hard disk ? -- Or would you just leave it as one big disk? Is there any inefficiencies or other reasons against using very large partitions nowadays?

 

[Dengar]

I would defintely get a smaller drive (20 GB or so) and use that as my system drive and use the 100 GB drive as an extra.

 

[Cosmic_Horror]

well what are you planing to use the hard drive for?

Are you going to have muliply operating systems on it? How do you wish to oraghinse they way you store your OS, apps, data, mp3, games, any other downloaded files?

personally i like to have the OS on the first partition and have all essentail apps etc there which i can back up easily and quickly..

the have a 2nd partition for data, mp3 games etc.. non essentail stuff basically that doesn't need to be backed up...

also what os are you planing on running on it? AN if nt/2000/xp(?) are you wanting to run NTFS?

 

[downhiller80]

I've always just gone for one BIG partition. There is no clear advantage to splitting your disk up into smaller ones.

- seb

 

[Tol]

I wasn't sure how I was going to partition with a 40GB...100GB is even tougher...

What I decided on with my 40 is to make it 20/20. I upgraded from 2 drives of 10GB and 13GB, and when I had those I had a hard time coming close to filling up that 10GB(I don't like keeping programs that I don't use on my harddrive, tho). I figured with 20GB for windows and programs/games, I'd be able to keep everything I might possibly use installed with plenty of room to spare.

If I had 100GB instead of 40, I'd probably keep my c: at 20GB and have a nice, big 80GB backup drive to store anything and everything.

 

[Crimson]

I hate partitions.. I would do one 100 gig partition...

 

[khtm]

<< I've always just gone for one BIG partition. There is no clear advantage to splitting your disk up into smaller ones. >>



Since I didn't want to explain it myself, this was taken from a quick search with Google:

"To partition or not? Many people don't realize the advantages of partitioning. "What is it, and what can it do for me?" they ask. Well, here's the lowdown.

Partitioning is the process of dividing your hard drive into isolated sections. You can divide memory and mass storage as well, but we're only talking about the hard drive right now.

Partitioning may sound like something only for advanced users or those with multiple operating systems, but it provides benefits to the average computer user, as well. It can improve efficiency, reduce slack space, increase system reliability, and improve overall organization.

Basically, when you partition a hard disk, it is fooled into behaving like two or more separate disks. Partitioning will redistribute the preassigned clusters that are on your hard disk. With FAT, Windows 9x's native filing system, the larger the disk is, the larger the cluster is. With larger clusters, many files will not fill entire clusters, and this results in wasted disk space. "

 

[Tol]

The main advantage of splitting the drive up is that I'm assuming he's going to use this as the only drive in the machine. With a secondary partition, he'll be able to make backup images of the primary partition if he'd like, or just store things there in case he wants to do a complete format/reinstall on the primary.

 

[The Dancing Peacock]

I have a 13 and a new 60. The 13 is split into 1 2.2 gb, 3 3.6. The 60 is spilt into 20% and 2 40% which is 11.x 22 and 22...not so bad, I might make the 2 22's back into one huge one though, if I rips some dvds.

 

[ndee]

<< I've always just gone for one BIG partition. There is no clear advantage to splitting your disk up into smaller ones.

- seb >>



I think there is a clear advantage, if you split the harddrive up into more partitions. I have a 5GB System partition, where I just keep the OS on. And on the 2nd my apps, and on the 3rd my data. If I want to re-install my computer, I just format c:, and I still have all programs with all the settings that I've made. And I also know which programs I have to re-install. I just think it's "cleaner".

My 0.02$

 

[ElFenix]

partitioning allows me to keep data separate from the OS so that when i do format over the old OS i don't have to back up all my data/mp3s/game installs (anything based on quake doesn't need the install files run for a new OS, plus all my configs/saves are there)

 

[rbaibich]

I'd stay with one partition. If you're not going to install more than one OS, the only thing you're getting for multiple partitions is easier backups.

 

[FuManStan]

I think 2 partitons would probably be nice. I have 2 hard drives so the second one i can store some backup stuff on it. The problem with multiple partitions is that its a hassle renaming program locations everytime you install something

 

[JackBurton]

I've got an 80GB hd and I only have ONE NTFS partition. I would use one FAT32 partition though. I use it for mp3 and DivX storage.

 

[downhiller80]

I know that everyone here generally swears by partitioning, but I really don't see the point. What I DO see the point in is *separate* hard disks.

- seb

 

[bonkers325]

<< I'm planning on getting a WD 1000BB in the next month or so and was wondering how best to partition a disk that big (if it's worth partitioning at all)...

So, (assuming it's your only HD in your system), how would you partition a 100 GB hard disk ? -- Or would you just leave it as one big disk? Is there any inefficiencies or other reasons against using very large partitions nowadays? >>



about 3 gig of OS
and 400mb for page or swap file
and 3gig partition for ghost images
and the rest for junk

 

[yeuemmaimai]

one last advantage is that if you loose one partition, you may still have the others left to retreive data from

 

[stingbandel]

I usually go with one big partition. It's just me though...







Darno

 

[joohang]

RAID1 100 GB storage in FAT32.

 

[Sugadaddy]

2x 50GB

 

[yeuemmaimai]

CLuster size on 100GB would be excessive 32 or 64 KB where as a NTFS partition would be either 4 or 8K

 

[Rob9874]

I vote for one big partition too. I'm currently running 3 different ones, but when my new Dell arrives, I'm keeping it as one big one. But I'm adding older HD's for data, etc.

 

[joohang]

NTFS drives can be a b*tch for backup drives, though.

 

[marat]

There are obvious benefits in having several partitions:

1. Separate OS and data for easy backups & upgrades
2. If one of your partitions fails, you still have data from others.
3. You can optimize each partition to your needs.

I have several OS's on my 40GB harddrive. And here is how it is partitioned.

1. 1GB FAT 16 with Windows 98SE. I rarely use it, but it helps in case I want to boot in emergency mode or run some old applications (like games that don't work under w2k or linux).

2. 5GB Linux Mandrake 8.1 (yeah - it's the best) . Well in fact it is not 1 partition, but 3 - one for OS, one for swap, one for data.

3. 10GB NTFS 5.0 - Windows 2000 server + major applications.

4. 24 GB FAT32 - I keep my MP3 collection and data here. I use Fat32 because I can read/write from it in linux. I can read (but not write) NTFS too.

 

[LintMan]

<< well what are you planing to use the hard drive for? >>



Everything. But seriously, pretty much lots of games, a large MP3 collection, assorted applications and digital photos/video.



<< also what os are you planing on running on it? AN if nt/2000/xp(?) are you wanting to run NTFS? >>



I'll probably allocate about 10GB for linux partitions (efs2, swap), with the rest for Windows XP. You bring up another question I had meant to ask...

I'd like to use NTFS, but I'm not too familiar with it now so... Is there any good reasons to still have some small (or large) amount of disk space partitioned as FAT32? JackBurton's response implies FAT32 is superior for bulk mp3 storage... why is that? I thought NTFS was all-around superior?