partitions

Discussion in 'Windows Desktop Systems' started by mike09, Jun 27, 2003.

  1. mike09

    mike09 Moderator

    Messages:
    531
    Location:
    Washingtonville , New York
    i have a 40 gig hard drive and i plan to reformat soon and was wondering what size should my partitions be? what size partition should xp home have? i plan to have lots of songs and some games and a moderate amount of programs. thanks in advance.
     
  2. RogerPhillis

    RogerPhillis Guest

    XP installation files typically account for about 2 Gbs, add some space for accumulated windows files over time ......etc.

    Id allow 6-8 Gb for the system partition, and then 2 partitions@ 15 or 16 gb for progammes/ files. bearing in mind that after formatting you would have approx 37.8 Gb space.
     
  3. Petros

    Petros Thief IV

    Messages:
    3,038
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    There is little performance to be gained from chopping a hard drive into tiny bits. Plus, when a partition is ALMOST full (say, near its last 400-500 MB) there is not much room to work with and the Wasted Space Monster eats its way into your system.

    Why do you want to partition your drives? If it's just for the sake of dividing your various file types, all that is happening is trading a folder icon for a drive icon. I can see maybe partitioning off a few GB for the Windows installation (so you keep your files in the event of a fresh install), but any more divisions beyond that starts getting crazy on a 40 GB drive.

    You know who loves file system questions? Dealer! I'd PM him and ask. He's very keen on these issues. :cool:
     
  4. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,333
    Location:
    new york
    There is little performance to be gained from chopping a hard drive into tiny bits. Plus, when a partition is ALMOST full (say, near its last 400-500 MB) there is not much room to work with and the Wasted Space Monster eats its way into your system.

    your point is even more accurate then you realize;

    in point of fact, if you are using the nt file system, performance will actually take a hit with partitions.

    xp has taken a huge leap over former os philosophy,,xp has file optimization, which on a personal level, places the files in the nost optimum area on your drive....optimization does not cross volumes, and is worthless when the os has a separate partition

    Why do you want to partition your drives? If it's just for the sake of dividing your various file types, all that is happening is trading a folder icon for a drive icon.

    this point is 100 percent accurate...there is no organizational gain to be had with partitions over a good file system...a good file systrem can become what I like to call "virtual partitions"

    all the functionality of partitions with none if the performance hits associated with it.

    I can see maybe partitioning off a few GB for the Windows installation (so you keep your files in the event of a fresh install), but any more divisions beyond that starts getting crazy on a 40 GB drive.

    actually, this scenanario does the most harm as far as partitions...you should keep the apps on the same partition as the os, seek times are improved, and file optimization will gain from this set up

    You know who loves file system questions? Dealer! I'd PM him and ask. He's very keen on these issues. :cool:


    ya, I like the discussion of partitions

    I think though that anyone that wants to do it should,

    partitions has become a pleasure for many users, and it is well worth the performance hit that partitions bring for these people

    there is an added safety factor, in that your files are slightly more safe, and if you don't back up off the box, then partitions become a must for safetys sake.

    another fine idea is to put your temporary internet files on their own partition

    these files fragment the most, and giving them their own partition will fracilitate defragmenting very nicely

    anyway, if you want to partition, go right a head and do it...it's quite worth the performance hitt for many
     
  5. 2z

    2z OSNN Gamer

    Messages:
    2,439
    Location:
    England
    far as partitions...you should keep the apps on the same partition as the os

    depends on the apps
    apps that are loaded at startup need to be on the boot drive ~ if XP has to look at another partition at startup it will slow the boot process
    games & infrequenlty used apps are fine on seperate partition

    in point of fact, if you are using the nt file system, performance will actually take a hit with partitions

    depends on your files
    having gigs of media files on your boot drive is going to slow seek time as the os gets spread out over the drive

    there is no organizational gain to be had with partitions over a good file system...a good file system can become what I like to call "virtual partitions"

    pagefile is better off partitioned on fat32
    temporary internet files are better off partitioned on ntfs
    huge & numerous media files are better off partitioned on ntfs
    data backups are better off partitioned
    and so on

    actually, this scenanario does the most harm as far as partitions...you should keep the apps on the same partition as the os, seek times are improved, and file optimization will gain from this set up

    again depends on the apps I have a few apps that take up gigs of space ~ keeping these off the boot
    helps with optimizing the one program that needs optmizing ~ XP
     
  6. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,333
    Location:
    new york
    pps that are loaded at startup need to be on the boot drive ~ if XP has to look at another partition at startup it will slow the boot process

    this is correct, and this is what the file optimization will realize, and set up accordingly with no partition,

    this is exactly why with ntfs, for the most part partitions are counterproductive

    depends on the apps
    apps that are loaded at startup need to be on the boot drive ~ if XP has to look at another partition at startup it will slow the boot process


    optimization places these files where they belong on the physical area of the hardrive.

    though it takes time to accomplish

    as I have said in the past, if you are as diligent as two z, and know exactly where to put your files physically on the disc, you can accomplish this feat faster with partitions then xp will do, as xp will take time and not be as efficient as you can be manually if you put your mind to it


    however, if your partitions are there for the sake of organization, then your partitions are not placed as well on the disc as xp will place them and partitions will prevent optimum placement that xp will try to perform, as optimization cannot cross volumes



    having gigs of media files on your boot drive is going to slow seek time as the OS gets spread out over the drive


    no, this depends on what portion of the boot drive these apps are...if they are apart from the boot files, which is where xp will put them, then this is the same thing as having the files off the boot drive, and this is what partitioning prevents

    pagefile is better off partitioned on fat32

    we're talking about ntfs...if you like fat, there is a clear performance boost with partitions with fat

    temporary internet files are better off partitioned on ntfs

    as I already noted

    huge & numerous media files are better off partitioned on ntfs

    no, they are bettor off away from the boot files, as xp will do through file optimization, and achieve the same affect of a separate partition...there is no gain here in a partition

    these files are better off on a single volume, as for moving and organizing, they don't have to be hard written and erased, with a single volume the pointer needs to be adjusted, and that;s it

    with partitions, a hard read and write needs to occur, and this is a huge....huge slow down

    data backups are better off partitioned

    there is false security with your hardrive as your backup, and in the long run, this is a huge mistake.

    if you can't backup off the box, as I said, you need to partition for the little backup security this offers.

    if you can backup off the box, you shouldn't use a partition as your backup
     
  7. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,333
    Location:
    new york
    to put an actual case study, here goes;

    everyone knows I just picked up a new box

    this thing smokes compared to my oild box

    amd 2400 vs amd 950

    512 mbs ram versus 256,

    hardrivew twice as fast as my old hard drive

    in addition, this box, the chp is always running at full clock, until there is a battery shortage, or no work for the computer to do.

    my old chip was always running at 450, unless it was best case scenario, ie, super cool, on ac, etc.

    now, this new box is partitioned.

    LET ME TELL YOU AS A FACT!!!!

    my new box IS A MUCH SLOWER MACHINE IN PRACTICAL USE THEN MY OLD ONE.

    at the end of the day, this box is about 15 minutes slower then my old one.

    THESE PARTITIONS ARE LEAVING THIS HARDDRIVE AS SOON AS i HAVE THE TIME TO DO IT

    FOR EXAMPLE;

    oe used to load almost immediately

    now, the wait for oe is sickening

    my most used files used to pop open

    now, I have to wait for the computer to go get them

    moving my files from one area to another, say from or away from my desktop, used to take a click of my mouse

    now the same activity takes a bunch of grinding and churning

    THE ONLY THING THAT IS FASTER ON THIS BOX is when I open an app that I hardly ever open, or a document that is only rarely accessed.

    in this case, this computer is faster.

    in every other regard, my 2 year old, half as powerful in every regard compute,r is a faster piece of equiptment

    I used to laugh at my customers when they came in to my office with state of the art equiptment, and my very old computer did everything noticeably faster and more smooth.

    my year old laptop is faster at work then any new desktop here

    now however, I'm the one with chagrin

    believe me, as soon as possible, these partitions are gone
     
  8. So you recommend not to partition at all?
     
  9. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,333
    Location:
    new york
    this is what I recommend

    partitions are one of the favorite things for people that like to play with their box to do.

    and this is the most important thing...to enjoy your box, and set it up the way that will give you the most pleasure

    I will never tell anyone that partitions are a bad practice.

    if you are used to them, and they make computing more convenient, then please partition.

    but if you want the fastest computer, and you are using the nt files system on your box, then partitioning will not give you any gain in performance, and for the majority of partition strategies, partitions will slow you down.

    the slow down for some is a big one

    the slow down for others is far outweighed by the extra convenience they seem to enjoy with their partition strategy

    to make a long story short

    it's really what you like, and that's the only thing that should govern your decision

    take everyones advice here for aprtition strategy, give the ideas that make the most sense to you personally the most weght.

    if you try the strategy, be prepared to change it until you've customized what works best for you.

    when that happens, do me a favor;

    then try the same set up on a single volume, with file names that associate to the same things your partitions did.

    give xp a chance to optimize, say a month or two

    then make your decision after that.

    or once you get a partition strategy that you like, just stick with it if you don't have the gumption to experiment further
     
  10. ok, thanks for the advice, I guess I wont use partitions after all.
     
  11. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,333
    Location:
    new york
    make sure you have a competant file strategy.

    for instance, if you once put all of your installers on "e" or "i"

    now, create a virtual partition called "programs" or "installers"

    or even " e drive"
    or "i drive"

    and do the same things with your vidio, and then your music files.

    and again for your text files

    I even have a "virtual partition" for all of my downloads, and so, everything downloaded off the net goes to this hub first, and then sent to it's respective area.

    if you'd like to keep all of your files on a similar portion of the disc, you can even move the data to the file, and then it will ahrd write if you want it to

    in other words, create for yourself "virtual partitions" which are really just umbrella files, with sub files and folders, but will give you all the functionality of a true partition.

    for instance, when I used to want top back up my installers, I would just go to my "installers" virtual partition, and write straight off the box.

    very nice, very convenient, very fast.
    have fun with this "virtual partition" concept
     
  12. What do u mean by "virtual partitions"? How do I make one of those?
     
  13. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,333
    Location:
    new york
    ha...it's just a term I use for a file

    gives partition users the allusion of having a partition.

    it's nothing but a file, named accordingly as a parttiion would be named.

    silly me
     
  14. file?? how do u make a file that contains other files/folders?

    Do you mean this: one partition (C) and divide it to lets say..3 parts (windows, apps, everything else). Every section will be a different folder?
     
  15. damnyank

    damnyank I WILL NOT FORGET 911

    Messages:
    2,359
    Location:
    Petal, Mississippi
    Good post dealer and of course 2 Z got his points in also.

    I have one of those nasty HP hidden partitions and have heard that I can not partition as it will mess up the recovery capablilty and of course HP does not provide an XP cd - so I have learned - well, I am still refining my folder/file system - to compensate.

    I think I am at the point now where I only wished for separate partitions so I could do an image and have it on a separate partition from the OS and apps. But since I can't - I have a bunch of cds holding my images!

    I guess to partition or not partition depends not only on what you feel is right/best for you - but in my case alos depends on your system's limitations!
     
  16. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,333
    Location:
    new york
    yes, sorry for being inprecise
     
  17. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,333
    Location:
    new york
    this is a great function of an actual partittion.

    imaging a favorite configuration.

    however, in the braod sense, what you have is a single volume for each image.

    and that is the same thing as a multiple boot, and the only way to accomplish this is with partitions.

    I will also dual boot, and obviously have a single volume for my xp image, and depending on the other os, decide how to partition that respectivelyt
     
  18. 2z

    2z OSNN Gamer

    Messages:
    2,439
    Location:
    England
    thanxs DY :D
    I also spent twelve months with a HP hidden partition
    I never used it though
    first thing I did was create 3 partitions & make an image of the boot drive ~ the first image backed up to CD all the rest on the last partition & updated once a month ~ or whenever I managed to fubar XP

    there is another way to backup without using the destructive restore or partitions
    fit another hard drive ~ ide or even easier an external drive

    ..............................

    dealer LOL file optimization should happen every 3 days ~ not months M$ releases patches & updates more regular than that ~ so in that case full optimization would never happen ~ doh

    when I first joined these forums I was sucked in by your advice & kept everything on a single partition ~ that lasted about a week ~ everything was noticeably slower :(

    sorry to hear your new box is slower than your previous box
    dont tell me ~ you've got an athlonXP

    I followed the advice of the many & bought athlonXP 1800 to replace a pentium4 1600
    benchmark's are better on the athlon but in real world computing
    asking the athlon to multitask is a real disappointment
    never again will I buy amd

    2z
     
  19. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,333
    Location:
    new york
    yep...athlon.

    however 2z, you use fat, and fat is faster partitioned...I have always said that.

    optimization on an ntfs volume is performed but not completed every three days

    it does not happen at all on a fat volume

    and as always, I agree, a fat, properly partitioned box, maintaned, (constant defrag), is faster then an ntfs box in any configuration.

    in addition, I also agree that if you are partitioning your ntfs with ideal file placement as your partition strategy, instead of convenience as your partition strategy, this will be faster then a single volume ntfs as well
     
  20. 2z

    2z OSNN Gamer

    Messages:
    2,439
    Location:
    England
    yeah my boot drive is fat
    of all the extra benefits nt5 offers I make use none of them
    so the cost of the extra over heads just isnt worth it
    small nt partitions can work well
    I keep my TIF's on a 1 gig nt partition which is far superior than using fat
    also keep my media files on 54 gig nt partition ~ taking advantage of large file & large volume support

    2z