Partition or not to partition?

[SlingBlade]

OK I heard this rather interesting idea, and while I don't think it is correct, I lack the expertise to explain to my friend why this is wrong. I have always heard that if you have a big hard drive (say 40 GB) splitting it up into smaller hard drives is BAD. You actually lose space because during the partitioning process the drive loses space. If I remember correctly it was only done in the past because older versions of windows could not handle that much space. BUT my friend had someone tell him that you GAIN space because it decreases the size of the "blocks" on each hard drive... which his friend was saying decreases the amount of "wasted" space. By this he means when you pull up a folder (but not a drive) in explorer it will give you 2 numbers for how much that drive is using. It will say something like this: "2.88 GB (3,111,111,111), (3,222,222,222)" So what he is saying is that you are "losing" 100 MB in space due to the fact that those "blocks" on your hard drive are bigger, and that the left over part of the blocks are bigger...

So, for my and my friend's peace of mind (plus I would enjoy not being quite as ignorant as I obviously am) I would greatly appriciate it if someone would explain to me what exactly it is windows is telling you when it gives you two different file sizes. Also... which is better; partitioning large drives or not, and why.

 

[Mixxen]

Yes, you are correct. The first size shows the size of all the files not including the cluster size. The second size shows you the size of the files and folders on the disk including the cluster size. Here is a table of the cluster size

Cluster Size - Minimum Partition Size, Maximum Partition Size

FAT32 CLUSTER SIZE
4 KB - 0.5 GB, 8 GB
8 KB - 8 GB, 16 GB
16 KB - 16 GB, 32 GB
32 KB - 32 GB, 64GB


NTFS CLUSTER SIZE
0.5 KB - 0 GB, 0.5 GB
1 KB - 0.5 GB, 1 GB
2 KB - 1 GB, 2 GB
4 KB - 2 GB, 4 GB
8 KB - 4 GB, 8GB
16 KB - 8 GB, 16 GB
32 KB - 16 GB, 32 GB
64 KB - 32 GB, 64 GB

A cluster size is the minimum unit of disk space on your hard drive. For example...your file system has a cluster size of 16KB. If a file is only 1KB big, it will take up 16KB on the disk. If a file is 17KB big, then it will take up 32KB of space, and so on.

 

[SlingBlade]

So what decreases the cluster size? Is it static? IE a 4GB HDD will have a 16KB cluster... but a 40GB HDD will also have a 16KB cluster? OR the smaller the hard drive the smaller the clusters? ANd if so, does that mean that partitioning your 40 GB hard drive into 10 smaller hard drives will give you more space than if you had a 40 GB hard drive that you left at 40 GB?

 

[Vinny N]

Cluster size is set for a range of partition sizes.

However, all of this is moot if you don't mind setting a custom cluster size...

 

[madthumbs]

I think that isn't a consideration with FAT32 and was only a problem with FAT16, but I'm not sure. Also doing it to save 100megs of space seems pointless when you may end up with a few drives with 50 megs of spare space and an 60 meg program. I prefer the flexibility of using folders as opposed to partitions. I can see making a partition for the OS, but not for other things.

 

[SlingBlade]

OH DOH sorry. I am dense. Didn't see that table for what it was firs time I read it. Sorry! *sling smacks self* So (and I am using FAT32 here) I am correct in saying that you are better off breaking up your 40 GB hard drive into 5 or more smaller hard drives? Or can you (as you mentioned) just specify the cluster size? Does that degrade performance at all? And do you lose any space in the process of actually splitting up the hard drive into smaller pieces, thereby negating the effect of the space gained by making smaller cluster sizes by making smaller hard drives. Would it be better in either case just to specify the cluster size when formatting the 40 GB hard drive and not break it up into smaller hard drives?

 

[LXi]

The size of the partitions determine the cluster size, that list already showed what kind of capacity gets what cluster. Generally, smaller the partition, smaller the cluster size. But larger partitions doesnt neccessarily have a disadvantage if the stored files are large media files, I moved from an 8KB cluster to 32KB cluster, and my wasted space is still a mere 1.5%, with 8KB it was 0.4%. I dont know if that matters to you, but it didnt make any difference to me.

 

[Mixxen]

If you look at the table, a 4GB hard drive formated to FAT32 will have a cluster size of 4KB. And a 40GB hard drive will have a cluster size of 32KB! You will save more space if you partition the drive. Use the table to find the optimal partition for you.

Here is how my drive is partitioned...

C: 2.86GB (3,078,418,432) - 4KB cluster
D: 2.86GB (3,078,418,432) - 4KB cluster
E: 7.60GB (8,168,148,992) - 4KB cluster
F: 7.60GB (8,168,148,992) - 4KB cluster
G: 7.60GB (8,168,148,992) - 4KB cluster

I'm using a 30GB Maxtor. So partition your hard drive for your needs. The more files you have on the partition, the more space you save with a smaller cluster size. But too many partitions may become too confusing.

 

[Thanatopsis]

You cannot specify the cluster size, as windows uses that variable to figure out where the data is by looking at addresses on the FAT table.

I believe FAT32 uses 4 KB cluster sizes. To see this yourself, make a small text file. It will say something like Size: 916 bytes, 4,096 bytes used. This is because it has to occupy at least one cluster.

I don't think partitioning would degrade performance. I know it is sure helpful for backups, reinstalling windows, or if you ever decide you want Linux on your system. Also, I've noticed that smaller drives search faster in the windows Find box. Definitely partition. If you do lose space, I'm sure its nowhere near 100 megabytes, most likely less than 1 MB. On a 40 GB hard drive, you wouldn't notice the difference.

 

[SlingBlade]

OK Thanks a lot guys. I appriciate it! You guys are so cool. Anytime someone needs a question answered they just come here, and in like 15 min there are about as many well informed people answering your question. THANKS TONS!

 

[Mixxen]

1.5% of 40GB is about 600MB. It's not that much. I partition to keep my win2k boot, programs, games, music, and storage on separate partitions .

 

[LXi]

To me, music IS storage, so those two will be together, I use to put my games in the same storage drive too, doesnt make any difference, I like to keep partitioning schemes simple and managable.

 

[Hector13]

Well one good reason to partition is that you can cut down on a lot of file fragmenting on the partition with your OS. If you have a serpate partion(s) for downloads, mp3s, or whatever, you can also defrag those partitions without worrying about Windows making the defrag start over.

 

[chuckieland]

so i currently have 40gb i partition in 8gb each in 5 drive
that give me the best resoult right
i am also getting 61.4gb hd, how should i parition this big HD

 

[Mixxen]

Whatever floats your boat.