Separate disk or partition for OS

[CU]

Curious if people normally put the OS on a separate disk or partition. And, if so why? I did it long ago, but don't any more. The reason I moved to one partition for everything is even when you lost the OS, most programs had to be reinstalled anyway, so I didn't see the point. But, I have been considering it again for ease of making a backup of the OS. Creating a backup of 500+G can take awhile and is a lot of data to read/write even if you only do a backup once a week.

I understand having multi terabyte drives for data like music, movies, etc. Mainly just talking about OS and other software or other stuff that you would not classify as just data.

 

[smakme7757]

I use a separate partition or disk depending.

On my desktop i have a 500GB SSD which has the OS and software. Then a 2TB disk with all my data.

On my laptop I have a 500GB SSD with 300GB for OS and software and 200GB for data.

The primary reason is to separate data from the OS. So if i need to re-install the OS then i can just do it and i won't loose any data.

 

[bonehead123]

Alot of people nowadays use a small, fast ssd as a boot drive and a larger SSD/HDD for apps & storage....

I've done it this way since way, way back & neveranotta problemo 🙂

Mainly because that way if your windblows install goes wonky or the drive itself fails, you can redo it faster & easier without losing any other data/apps/files ect....

 

[CU]

Mainly because that way if your windblows install goes wonky or the drive itself fails, you can redo it faster & easier without losing any other data/apps/files ect....

Assuming you are making backups, re-imaging the one partition that held everything would still mean you wouldn't lose everything. Although re-imaging a small OS partition would be much faster.

 

[BSim500]

On my desktop i have a 500GB SSD which has the OS and software. Then a 2TB disk with all my data.

On my laptop I have a 500GB SSD with 300GB for OS and software and 200GB for data.

The primary reason is to separate data from the OS. So if i need to re-install the OS then i can just do it and i won't loose any data.

^ Exactly the same here for the same reason. I keep OS, programs & games together on the fast SSD, but separating data onto a mechanical HDD makes it 1. Easier to backup whole drive without needing to exclude certain subfolders, 2. It just looks "cleaner" and more organized in Explorer not having half a dozen "Program Files, Users, Windows", etc, system folders intermixed with data folders, 3. Gives far more capacity than an SSD alone, 4. Data can remain in place when doing a full OS reinstall (all that's needed is to redirect My Documents, Downloads, etc, folders to the data drive, and everything like web browser settings, Office templates, etc, are already in place). For laptops where only 1 drive is possible, I create a separate partition that mimics separate drives. Unlike HDD's where partitions are assigned certain sectors of disk platters, partitions on SSD's are just "flat data" on a hardware level so it makes zero difference to SSD wear levelling, etc. Reinstalling Windows is a case of formatting the System / C drive partition (and again the data on D drive stays in place).

Tried reimaging, and whilst it works well on small partitions whose data doesn't change much, on a 1TB SSD it's more of an effort to keep regular large whole system images than simply to backup a much smaller dataset + reinstall everything (given how rarely the OS needs reinstalling these days).

 

[Deders]

My SSD is only 128GB, so it makes sense to just install the OS, a few essential programs and 2 or 3 games that benefit from the SSD.

It's still better to have your programs on a separate disk even if you have 2 HDD's, it means programs don't have to fight the OS for IO.

 

[john3850]

I believe I loose some ssd speed if I partition the OS drive so I dont.
On the pc I use one ssd for the OS and another for steam or games.
I cant even put small pagefile on the ASmedia ports because for what ever reason windows 7 will remove it when it restarts etc.

 

[corkyg]

I do it to equalize transfers from Desktop to Laptop. I guess this amounts to Organization. It also keeps things tidier. I have two SSDs in my laptop - one for OS and Apps, and the other for data.

 

[crashtech]

I change OSes a lot, so I keep a lot of stuff on a separate spinner, the most significant being my Steam folder which is getting pretty large.

 

[mikeymikec]

On my 2010 build I only had a single 500GB HDD. I partitioned it into what was my usual layout, which dates back to a time when I wanted to be able to wipe the OS partition and reinstall without having to back up the data first, in the days when I would screw around with Windows and end up screwing something up 🙂

Another advantage to the dual partition approach in this context was to have a tidy view on the root of another partition to access my own data. However, since XP, Windows has become less friendly to dual partition layouts (for example, I would junction and redirect the Program Files folder to the other partition so that I wouldn't have to back up a handful of apps that don't require reinstallation), so this is less of a priority for me (as well as me not screwing up Windows anywhere as often as I did around the turn of the century).

However, I had to replace that HDD and I went for an SSD and HDD, I did single partitions for both yet ended up with an OS partition and a data partition.

On servers I have installed I always went for a dual partition layout, again because it makes looking at file system views a bit easier (ie. 75% of the time I've spent admin'ing servers probably hasn't been spent in the Windows folder), and partly because I think that having separate partitions puts another line of defence in place against say directory traversal type exploits.

 

[Valantar]

At first, I upgraded my desktop to a 120GB SSD, which was pretty much OS only. When this failed (it was really DOA, it just took me about a year to figure out where my BSODs came from), I switched it out with a 256GB 840 PRO for the same money. Right now this holds both my W7 partition as well as my W10 Preview partition. Applications are mostly installed on an HDD, the same goes for most games (but some on the SSD). I'll be adding a ~500GB SSD for games soon, but I'll still keep the OS on the 840 PRO. Having my Steam library on a separate drive is a godsend for whenever I feel like reinstalling Windows - add the directory to Steam, and the games are installed, no re-downloads needed.

 

[smakme7757]

At first, I upgraded my desktop to a 120GB SSD, which was pretty much OS only. When this failed (it was really DOA, it just took me about a year to figure out where my BSODs came from), I switched it out with a 256GB 840 PRO for the same money. Right now this holds both my W7 partition as well as my W10 Preview partition. Applications are mostly installed on an HDD, the same goes for most games (but some on the SSD). I'll be adding a ~500GB SSD for games soon, but I'll still keep the OS on the 840 PRO. Having my Steam library on a separate drive is a godsend for whenever I feel like reinstalling Windows - add the directory to Steam, and the games are installed, no re-downloads needed.

Yea, it saves quite a decent amount of downloading.

Although, Norway has pretty decent internet, so It's not like we have to wait a day for a game to download, unlike some places.

 

[ArisVer]

I usually make a partition for the OS (50-100GB is adequate for me). Makes it easier to reinstall if needed.

 

[.vodka]

HDD only, I partition it to 75-100GB for the OS/programs depending on disk size.

On a SSD + HDD, the OS/programs go to the SSD and the HDD is dedicated to storage.


On both layouts I redirect the downloads/videos/documents/etc folders to the big partition/HDD as to make the most of the available space on the OS partition/SSD. If there's ever the need to wipe the OS and start over, it's much easier this way. Single, big partitions are a *huge* headache.

 

[MongGrel]

Alot of people nowadays use a small, fast ssd as a boot drive and a larger SSD/HDD for apps & storage....

I've done it this way since way, way back & neveranotta problemo 🙂

Mainly because that way if your windblows install goes wonky or the drive itself fails, you can redo it faster & easier without losing any other data/apps/files ect....

This is what I do also.

Need to get the wife a SSD sometime on hers as they've dropped so much in price, just installed two on other computers this week.

Actually have two small SSD's in RAID0 and a Hardware HDD array for storage on the main.

 

[yinan]

Separate vDisk on the array.

 

[Data-Medics]

Here was my last setup in my HP DV7 laptop with two drive bays:

Cloned the original small HDD onto an SSD, then added in a nice big 2Tb secondary drive. Created a small partition on the 2Tb HDD to keep a clone of the SSD which I synced every few weeks (also was set up to be a boot option should the SSD fail). Then I set up a large partition for all my media (most of which I either had backed up on my NAS or wouldn't mind losing anyway).

 

[PliotronX]

When I couldn't really afford more than one decent disk, partitioning was the route I'd take but there is nothing like a dedicated SSD for managing the speed sensitive stuff that is not so critical if it goes poof like SSDs can do without warning while general storage is on giant spinners.

 

[Bearmann]

^... Unlike HDD's where partitions are assigned certain sectors of disk platters, partitions on SSD's are just "flat data" on a hardware level so it makes zero difference to SSD wear levelling, etc. Reinstalling Windows is a case of formatting the System / C drive partition (and again the data on D drive stays in place).

I read that it does make a difference in wear leveling, but I really don't know. I presumed it was because it would assign a greater number of cells to two small partitions than it would one large partition.

 

[BSim500]

I read that it does make a difference in wear leveling, but I really don't know. I presumed it was because it would assign a greater number of cells to two small partitions than it would one large partition.

That's what I originally thought (that it worked like HDD's), but it turns out the entire partition structure appears "flat" on a NAND level. ie, if you took a 512GB SSD, partitioned it in half C = 256GB & D = 256GB, then burned through 200TB of data on the C drive whilst the D drive remained barely used, that "C load" would be spread over the NAND cells on a hardware level. It wouldn't burn up 800x cycles of only the first half of the NAND cells (as would happen with sectors / platters being physically assigned to a partition on a mechanical HDD). Wear leveling algorithms are generally intelligent enough to cope with partitioning (just as they are if you have 400GB of static data on a 500GB single partition SSD and the rest gets heavily wiped & rewritten - it would soon start moving the static data around to spread the NAND load).

 

[Bearmann]

That's what I originally thought (that it worked like HDD's), but it turns out the entire partition structure appears "flat" on a NAND level. ie, if you took a 512GB SSD, partitioned it in half C = 256GB & D = 256GB, then burned through 200TB of data on the C drive whilst the D drive remained barely used, that "C load" would be spread over the NAND cells on a hardware level. It wouldn't burn up 800x cycles of only the first half of the NAND cells (as would happen with sectors / platters being physically assigned to a partition on a mechanical HDD). Wear leveling algorithms are generally intelligent enough to cope with partitioning (just as they are if you have 400GB of static data on a 500GB single partition SSD and the rest gets heavily wiped & rewritten - it would soon start moving the static data around to spread the NAND load).

Interesting! It makes sense that the SSD/operating system is intelligent enough to cope with that. So that stuff that I previously read on the internet wasn't true. Darn! I'll bet that's never happened before!

 

[sxr7171]

That's what I originally thought (that it worked like HDD's), but it turns out the entire partition structure appears "flat" on a NAND level. ie, if you took a 512GB SSD, partitioned it in half C = 256GB & D = 256GB, then burned through 200TB of data on the C drive whilst the D drive remained barely used, that "C load" would be spread over the NAND cells on a hardware level. It wouldn't burn up 800x cycles of only the first half of the NAND cells (as would happen with sectors / platters being physically assigned to a partition on a mechanical HDD). Wear leveling algorithms are generally intelligent enough to cope with partitioning (just as they are if you have 400GB of static data on a 500GB single partition SSD and the rest gets heavily wiped & rewritten - it would soon start moving the static data around to spread the NAND load).

Exactly why I don't partition SSDs. I used to do it all the time with HDDs. Also I don't bother restoring Windows installations so the easier restore argument doesn't apply to me. I always do a clean installation and use the same key. Stuff always builds up in Windows installations.

EDIT: I do partition when I am dual booting only.

 

[Charlie98]

Naaa... I just load everything on one SSD and be done with it, including media... except for the HTPC, of course. It makes backup images much simpler.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I have moved from partitioning my disks, to having separate SSDs for separate OSes. That way, there is less chance of one OS hosing the other.