Partitioning schemes for high performance with XP

[MrBubba]

In addition to my PC, I have a Sun Ultra30, and its partitioning setup makes a lot of sense. Would replicating the UNIX-style partition configuration lead to increased perfomance in win2k or XP? I just ordered a 120 GB 8mb cach Western Digital hard drive and presently have an IBM 34 gig and 10k rpm u2w scsi hard drive that holds nine gigs. I also understand that one can mount different partitions as directories in windows as it is done in unix. Would it be a good idea to have separate partitions for boot, win2k, program files, swap, and data? This would also help me to defragment faster.

Thanks for any suggestions,

MrBubba

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: MrBubba
In addition to my PC, I have a Sun Ultra30, and its partitioning setup makes a lot of sense. Would replicating the UNIX-style partition configuration lead to increased perfomance in win2k or XP? I just ordered a 120 GB 8mb cach Western Digital hard drive and presently have an IBM 34 gig and 10k rpm u2w scsi hard drive that holds nine gigs. I also understand that one can mount different partitions as directories in windows as it is done in unix. Would it be a good idea to have separate partitions for boot, win2k, program files, swap, and data? This would also help me to defragment faster.

Thanks for any suggestions,

MrBubba

for apps data, and the OS, it doesnt matter. some people like to put swap on another partition so that they can never fill the drive up, and not have enough swap space. but that rarely happens. defragmenting probably could be faster, but you dont really need to defragment ntfs anyways, so that doesnt really matter.