Partitions

[snizzle]

Whats the need for a partition if you can seperate your different groups with folders?

 

[Nothinman]

In general there isn't a need for them any more, most of the time people still use them simply because they're used to doing it that way. When filesystems had upper limits of 2G or lower, there was no other choice. There are some cases where they make sense, for instance you might want to use different mount options or even completely different filesystems for different mount points on a unix machine. Being able to mount one filesystem read-only while others are still read-write or dedicating one partition to a seperate virtualized OS is still extremely handy as well.

 

[TGS]

link

 

[corkyg]

Partitions can be useful, especially on large drives for matters of HDD maintenance - i.e., optimization and defragging. Partitions can make those chores less of a big deal, especially if they are rotated.

It can also speed up seek times. Folders may be apparent to the user, but the computer still uses random access storage - all over the drive. Hence the need to optimize periodically.

A simple analogy - it takes a farmer less time to plow 10 acres than 100 acres.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: corkyg
Partitions can be useful, especially on large drives for matters of HDD maintenance - i.e., optimization and defragging. Partitions can make those chores less of a big deal, especially if they are rotated.

It can also speed up seek times. Folders may be apparent to the user, but the computer still uses random access storage - all over the drive. Hence the need to optimize periodically.

A simple analogy - it takes a farmer less time to plow 10 acres than 100 acres.

Your analogy is a bit flawed. Take a look at the comments on this FAQ page from Storage Review:

http://faq.storagereview.com/tiki-index.php?page=PartitionSingleDrive

Fixed Microsoft link referenced on that page

 

[Navid]

If you need to restore computers a lot (may be because people who are not very experienced with computers use them all the time), you will see one of the benefits of having partitions.
The files that get screwed up that require a reinstall are the system files.

If you put Windows on a separate partition and keep your data files on another partition, restoring windows becomes very easy. You will only have to restore the Windows partition. Your data partition (which can contain all your images, music files, video files etc.) will remain intact. But, if you only have one partition, you will need to backup all your data before you can restore windows every time.

 

[Nothinman]

If you put Windows on a separate partition and keep your data files on another partition, restoring windows becomes very easy. You will only have to restore the Windows partition. Your data partition (which can contain all your images, music files, video files etc.) will remain intact. But, if you only have one partition, you will need to backup all your data before you can restore windows every time.

You'd be much better off buying a second hard drive for that instead of relying on partitions. One small error can easily trash an entire disk, it takes more work to do it to two.

 

[Navid]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

If you put Windows on a separate partition and keep your data files on another partition, restoring windows becomes very easy. You will only have to restore the Windows partition. Your data partition (which can contain all your images, music files, video files etc.) will remain intact. But, if you only have one partition, you will need to backup all your data before you can restore windows every time.

You'd be much better off buying a second hard drive for that instead of relying on partitions. One small error can easily trash an entire disk, it takes more work to do it to two.

I aggree with you that having multiple hard drives is a good thing.
But, I would not put just Windows on a single 300GB partition for the reason I explained.

I have Windows on a small partition. The rest of the drive is used for my data. I backup my data and images of my Windows partition on my second hard drive.

 

[R3MF]

8GB = Windows + System Drivers
8GB = V-mem and Temp folder
32GB = Applications
64GB = Games
128GB = Storage

that works nicely for a 250GB drive.

 

[Nothinman]

that works nicely for a 250GB drive.

And also causes you to seek like hell I bet. Any time you start a game or load something from 'storage' you have to do a full seek which is about the slowest operation a hard disk can perform.

 

[TGS]

It should be in a slowest portion of the disk as well. Which is why it's configured for storage, and not OS files...

The only time that you would have to do a full seek would be from the outer to inner edge portions of the disk. Disks are marketed in average seek times, everything outside of storage should get half of the average seek times. Along with disk density allowing good throughput typically until about half way into the disk. So splitting the disk basically in half is probably one of the better things to do with a single device.

Edit: Check out the graph about halfway on this disk. You can see the big fall off happens just about the midway on the disk. Text

 

[corkyg]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Your analogy is a bit flawed. Take a look at the comments on this FAQ page from Storage Review:

Not at all - I was referring to the process of drive optimization. It takes less time to optimize a 50 GB partition full of files than a 100 GB partition full of files.

Another good use for a partition is for the page file. A dynamic page file constantly creates fragmentation all over the place - and putting that in a separate compartment keeps that file from shoving OS files around constantly.

 

[Nothinman]

Not at all - I was referring to the process of drive optimization. It takes less time to optimize a 50 GB partition full of files than a 100 GB partition full of files.

Only if you're sure that you have to move more data on the 100G volume to get it 'optimized', which isn't always true.

A dynamic page file constantly creates fragmentation all over the place - and putting that in a separate compartment keeps that file from shoving OS files around constantly.

Also not true, the pagefile only grows at runtime so it may cause some fragmentation if it can't be grown contiguously. But it's growth won't shove anything around, OS files will stay put wherever they are unless you do something that causes them to be written to like install a SP or something.

 

[TGS]

All of these topics were discussed in depth in the link I posted.

 

[T40T]

I've read that putting the OS on a seperate partition than programs and other data is more efficient in terms of performance (access times, less corruption, etc.) and convenience (in case you need to reinstal Windows or something).

I've also read that, even better than putting the OS on a seperate partition, is to load it on to an entirely seperate dedicated hard drive, preferably one that's small and fast.

I might have read those things about Windows 9X and FAT32, but I'm not sure.

Based on that, I've been hunting around online and found some good reviews of a 72 or 36 gig 10,000 RPM WD Raptor drive.

And I surfed over here knowing that this is one of the most intelligent, informed hardware forums around to see if that's true or not.

So, are either of the two things I mentioned above correct?

I've read this thread, and the one TGS linked to, and have tried to puzzle through some of Microsoft's garbled technobabble, but haven't found definitve answers yet.



I'm also thinking of dual 300 or 400 gig drives for RAID 1 mirroring, or at least the occasional backing up, if not that immediate. I got an ASUS A8N SLI-Deluxe a year ago and decided to wait for SATA and SATA II drives to mature a bit before switching from ATA/PATA/Ultra ATA/whatever you want to call it. So now seems like a good time. If I'll be fine getting just two rather than three drives, that's great.

 

[TGS]

The fact will always exist that more drives per application will lead to better performance. The clamor always seems to be on how to configure single disk setups, to generate the best performance.

I think the confusion really sets in when people mix the documents up. Those who point to the MS documents, on MS recommending single partition configurations. Though if you fully read the document that is meant purely to avoid end user confusion. IE. It's easier to understand my harddrive is represented as C, opposed to C for the OS, D for Applications, E for the Page File, F for storage, G for the CD-Rom, etc.

For a 3-400GB setup RAID 1 is a good idea. Unless you have a decent tape backup system, getting a backup period will become a hassle. It's doesn't give you a real backup, but will give you the availability if one drive fails.

Edit: Welcome to AT as well

 

[T40T]

Somehow I ended up with C being 90 GB for applications like Office and games and data like document files and music, and D being 24 GB for my OS, and an empty 3 GB F that I created for the page file but have been too lazy and/or absent minded to move it there again. I think this is the third system I've built that I've used this drive in. Plus I have a few other hard drives that I don't currently have hooked up because they don't contain much of anything essential, and trying to figure out how to properly hook up master and slave is a chore I'd rather not have to undertake. Not only do pretty much all manufacturers have different pin configurations, but the configurations can differ from model to model, and the little pin configuration diagrams on the drives aren't exactly clearly explained. So I'm thinking of having 2 400 GB SATA drives in RAID 1, and hooking up the IDEs just to get the data I want off of them and then toss them aside. I may have a dedicated partition for the OS, and maybe one for the Page File, and a third for applications and data, or just one partition for everything, but haven't decided yet. As my current system is close to your example already, it wouldn't be a matter of trying to keep it from being confusing. It's a matter of what's most efficient, and what I just feel like doing. So I guess I'll just go ahead and order the drives, and parse out how best to arrange them before they arrive *EDIT* Or, since my board has two RAID controllers, I might end up with 2 OS HDs in RAID 1 and 2 Data and application HDs in RAID 1 as well. But, as I'm not sure how much of a benefit that would be, I might just skip that option.

Thanks for the reply and the welcome, although I've been reading the AnandTech main site off and on for years.