XP Pro Storage Array: Logical or Primary?

[Marine]

In Win XP Pro using Disk Management I installed a new IDE array for storage. Now, I now have my U320 SCSI RAID array as boot and my 1200A ATA array for storage. When I formatted and configured the new array, I partioned it into two equal 110GB partitions. Unsure of what type of partition to create, I created one logical partition and one primary partition.

Both seem to function well and I can place files on both partitions. The only difference I can see is that the primary partition can be configured with an operating system and the logical partition cannot. I just want the area in both partitions for storage and not for other OS's. So here's the question: should I make both partitions logical or primary? Is there a difference in speed in disk read/write functions between the two types of partitions? I have always made secondary partitions on one disk machines as logical partitions as the OS was always on the primary partition. Should I keep to this rule for storage RAID configuration?

As of now, I have one logical partition on my storage array and one primary partition (without an OS of course). What's best to do? Which format is most stable and responsive? Should I configure both partitions as logical or primary?

Thanks as always for the help. Best, dlk

 

[SectorZero]

According to Microsoft Dynamic Disks are more stable and reliable that Primary and logical partitions.

 

[EeyoreX]

There is absolutely no difference in performance of any kind between a primary partition and a logical partition. Zero. Nadda. The only real reason for logical partitions was to get around some limit or another of larger hard drives. 4 GB maybe, I don't recall. Search the forums, as this was asked about a week ago, and someone answered. The other thing is that Windows will assign primary partitions drive letters first, then logical partitions. This point is moot, as these assignments can be changed at any time within WIndows.

\Dan

 

[Nothinman]

According to Microsoft Dynamic Disks are more stable and reliable that Primary and logical partitions.

And according to the real world there's no difference in stability and reliability. But there are problems moving GUID partitioned disks from one Windows machine to another, so I'd stick with a 'normal' partition table.

And how many times are you going to post this question Marine? Did something in the military cause you to have memory problems?

 

[EeyoreX]

And how many times are you going to post this question Marine? Did something in the military cause you to have memory problems?

I knew this was asked once before, I didn't realize it was the same person asking it. That's what I get for being lazy and not looking.

\Dan

 

[Smilin]

The difference between primary and logical partitions:

There are only 4 entries available in your partition table. If you stick with normal partitions you can have four at most. Logical partitions simply work by placing pointers in the boot sector of a partition to the next partition in the line. This way you can use one partition in your partition table and then daisy chain a nearly limitless number of partitions off of it. It's the "old school" way of getting past the four parition table entry limit. The new way is to use dynamic disks. They simply use an LDM database to store partition/volume information.

There is no performace difference between one or the other. You should stick with Basic disks over dynamic whenever possible. Only use Dynamic disks if there is a particular feature that forces you to move to one (volume set, stripe etc..). If you do chose to use dynamic disks you should use them on two or more drives. The LDM database on each dynamic disk in a system is identical. If you blow the LDM database on one drive you can copy it over from another if it exists. If not, S.O.L.