partitions counterproductive?

Discussion in 'Windows Desktop Systems' started by Perris Calderon, Mar 27, 2002.

  1. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,332
    Location:
    new york
    according to this site, partitioning your box will suffer your performance, I'm not sure I'm reading the page correctly, so tell me what you think...here is the paragraph I'm referancing;

    When performing a clean install, Microsoft recommends that NTFS be used and that the system be installed in a single partition on each disk. Under Windows XP, big partitions are better managed than in previous versions of Windows. Forcing installed software into several partitions on the disk necessitates longer seeks when running the system and software.
     
  2. Dirk Diggler

    Dirk Diggler Guest

    "that the system be installed in a single partition on each disk."

    How can you put XP on C: and D:? Is this what its saying not to do?

    "Forcing installed software into several partitions on the disk necessitates longer seeks when running the system and software."

    XP uses "Prefetch" so the above sentence is nonesense, or am I reading it wrong?
     
  3. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,332
    Location:
    new york
    all your aps are not always in pre fetch, dirk
     
  4. Dirk Diggler

    Dirk Diggler Guest

    Erm, actually all mine are in there. And if the Prefetch folder can be enlarged (I'm sure it can) then as many Apps as required can be in there.
     
  5. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,332
    Location:
    new york
    ok, you know more about this then me, but I'm under the assumption that prefetch is dynamic, and so, gives you more drive space when you need it, if you're not using aps, xp will remove it from pre fetch, and so, prefetch refreshes itself, juging from the site referanced, xp wants to put the files in the location it deems most suitable, and doesn't want to be forced into ineficient locations, so, am I wrong in any of these assumptions?
     
  6. Dirk Diggler

    Dirk Diggler Guest

    No, I reckon you know more about this than me.
    "Prefetch is dynamic", yes but how is it dynamic?
    I've just looked in the registry and it is based on "Space and Time"
    A little amendment and it can have more things in it and for longer.
    See here:-
    HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management\PrefetchParameters.

    "xp wants to put the files in the location it deems most suitable, and doesn't want to be forced into ineficient locations"

    XP isn't the perfect O.S. it doesn't know what is best for you or me, it decides what it THINKS is best for the AVERAGE user, I am not an average user, are you?
     
  7. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,332
    Location:
    new york
    ok...points taken, but what about the average user, are they better off with one partition?
     
  8. xsivforce

    xsivforce Prodigal Son Folding Team

    Messages:
    8,547
    Location:
    Texas, USA
    yes ...I'm average user what's best for me? :eek:
     
  9. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,332
    Location:
    new york
    xsivforce...cool avatar...original?

    dirk will be best to answer you.
     
  10. xsivforce

    xsivforce Prodigal Son Folding Team

    Messages:
    8,547
    Location:
    Texas, USA
    nah...I picked it up somwhere (forget where). Just had to resize it.

    still enjoy your avatars...mmmmmm good. *licks lips*
     
  11. Dirk Diggler

    Dirk Diggler Guest

    I still don't fully understand the original info:
    "that the system be installed in a single partition on each disk."

    If it means that you should only have one partition on a hard-drive for best performance of XP, and that XP and everything associated with XP should be on that partition, then I would have to totally disagree with it.

    The "Program Files" folder is an integral part of the O.S.
    The "My Pictures" folder is an integral part of the O.S.
    The "My Music" folder is an integral part of the O.S.

    If you like me have gigabytes of Programmes, music, and videos and they were on the one partition. The system would run like treacle. Or am I too old fashioned, all this new-fangled stuff is way beyond me.
     
  12. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,332
    Location:
    new york
    actually dirk, it was that exact quote..."...on each disk..." that makes me wonder if I'm reading the info correctly...I just asked relder if he would do benchmarks with and without partitions, the real problem being it would take a while for xp to "optimize" as the article seems to suggest it would do better on one drive, thenhaving to run around to differant locations...I hope he does it....what a kick, if partitions where a waiste of resources, that's always intriguing to me...when common notions are put to a test...remeber jeh on iopage lock here, up the block, that was great... maybe this is the same
     
  13. Dirk Diggler

    Dirk Diggler Guest

    Yes I was very surprised about the other tweak (that wasn't), and maybe relder with you at the head will be the men to unearth another useless tweak, we shall see.
     
  14. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,332
    Location:
    new york
    couldn't use the term "unearth", as ms is already saying it, I'm just finding out if they're right or wrong...as for "useless", that's not correct either, pagelock tweak was useless, as it did no harm, ms is saying partitions actually do a bit of performance harm, so the correct term would be "counter productive"
     
  15. Dirk Diggler

    Dirk Diggler Guest

    Well excuuuuuuuuuuuuse me:D

    Microsoft doesn't have a legal claim on the word "Unearth" so we can still use it (for now).

    Microsoft new long ago that their O.S. would????? work better on one partition, just as they new long ago that the "PageLock" tweak didn't work. So the word "unearth" is still valid for you.

    I cannot believe that what they suggest will be of significant benefit, if at all, it just goes against logic.

    I used the word "useless" to describe a tweak that doesn't do what we wanted it to do. Maybe it was the wrong word but I'm not a wordsmith, so I don't care:p :p :p :p
     
  16. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,332
    Location:
    new york
  17. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,332
    Location:
    new york
  18. Binary

    Binary Guest

    May some extra info from Windows XP InsideOut can help:


    Advanced System Tweaks
    A handful of advanced features in Windows XP allow you to tune performance settings to match your computing needs. In some cases, these options happen automatically, and knowing how to tune them can be useful.

    Multiple instances of Svchost.exe appear in Task Manager.
    That's perfectly normal. Service Host (Svchost.exe) is a core piece of Windows XP code that collects a number of lower-level system-critical services and runs them in a common environment. By gathering multiple functions together, this arrangement reduces boot time and system overhead and eliminates the need to run dozens of separate low-level services. Because different groups of services have different requirements in terms of system access and security, Windows XP creates a number of different groups. If you're running Windows XP Home Edition, you should see four instances of Svchost.exe; Windows XP Professional uses four or five.

    Several interesting ways to adjust performance characteristics appear when you open System in Control Panel, click the Advanced tab, click Settings in the Performance section, and then select the Advanced tab. In the resulting Performance Options dialog box, shown in Figure 7-13, the two top options let you tune CPU and memory usage.


    Figure 7-13. By default, the two options highlighted here are optimized to help you run programs most effectively under Windows XP.
    In the Processor Scheduling section, Programs is selected by default. If you multitask heavily and you're willing to sacrifice some zip in foreground program execution in exchange for faster background processing, select the Background Services option.

    In the Memory Usage section, you can also shift the default settings, which are optimized for running programs. Choosing the System Cache option reserves a much larger percentage of available physical memory for use in the cache. This option is most useful if you use extremely data-intensive applications, such as video editing programs or large databases.

    To improve the speed of starting applications, Windows XP continually monitors files that are used when the computer starts and when you start applications. It then creates an index (in the %SystemRoot%\Prefetch folder) that lists segments of frequently used programs and the order they're loaded in. This prefetching process improves performance by allowing the operating system to quickly grab program files.

    The prefetching code is even more effective when used in conjunction with the built-in defragmenting tool. Every three days, during idle times, this utility rearranges program code, moving it to the outside of the disk to make it more efficient when loading. To force Windows to perform this optimization without having to do a full defragmentation, use the Defrag.exe command with the -b switch. For instance: defrag c: -b.

    This command forces the command-line version of Defrag.exe to run, optimizing boot files and applications while leaving the rest of the drive undisturbed.
     
  19. Mubbers

    Mubbers Shoot! Political User

    Messages:
    1,087
    Wow, dealer that running dog is a real grind!!
     
  20. Mubbers

    Mubbers Shoot! Political User

    Messages:
    1,087
    Actually what I meant to say is...

    'Partitioning down' my 40 GB hdd has been very useful as a great deal of time is saved doing tasks like defrag etc... I'm using Partition Magic 7.0 and at the moment I only have one 7.0 GB partition. I'll add more drives or increase size as and when needed.

    TTFN