Win XP in its own partition

[djmorgan]

Let's not let this get out of hand, Dealer you give me the impression that your way is the only way and sight a microsoft instruction to oem's about partitions.

I give you what MS say about partitions contained within the on board help file for XP Pro

"You can create up to four primary partitions per disk, or you can create three primary partitions and an extended partition. You can use the free space in the extended partition to create unlimited logical drives. You cannot use it to create volume sets or other kinds of fault-tolerant volumes".

Now if MS were against partitioning as you suggest perhaps this and other reference within the help file should be removed.

Perhaps in fairness to your stance you could sight the source of your claim to oem's!!

 

[Perris Calderon]

Originally posted by djmorgan


Perhaps in fairness to your stance you could sight the source of your claim to oem's!!

fair enough, but please, I'm trying to make it clear, my way is surely not the only way...I agree with everyone that finds a pervasive reason to partition...please please do so...now, as far as your querry;

the following two paragraphs;

(out of context, please read the whole article);

Disk-Layout Optimizations
Microsoft implemented certain disk-layout optimizations in Windows XP. To perform this optimization, during idle time Windows XP moves pages used for booting the system and launching frequently used applications to ensure these files are laid out contiguously on the hard disk. The contiguous disk layout of these pages results in reduced disk seeks and improved disk I/O, contributing to improved boot time and application launch time.

Windows XP does not perform these optimizations across volumes. Therefore, for this optimization to be available to users, the hard disk must be partitioned as a single volume.


"Microsoft strongly encourages system manufacturers to manufacture single NTFS volumes on all systems where a 32-bit version of Windows XP is preinstalled, using the tools described in this article."

this paragraph comes from this article

a wonderfull read, where the exact reasons partitions are couterproductive become clear...enjoy

 

[allan]

Feedback from customers and system manufacturers indicates that users want single volumes because they do not want to manage multiple volumes and do not understand multiple-volume usage scenarios.

For example, comparing performance under Windows 2000 for a 75 GB hard disk partitioned with multiple smaller volumes versus a single volume shows that disk performance drops by about five to ten percent for the single large volume.

However, when comparing disk performance for the same small versus single large volume configuration under Windows XP, performance drops by only one to two percent for the single large volume.

 

[Perris Calderon]

these qoutes allan, in context, are comparing the performance of a single ntfs, versus a partitioned in fat, not a single ntfs versus partitions in ntfs.

yes, small partitions in fat will have a small advantage to a single partition in ntfs...as twoz has often pointed out

otherwise, and out of context, the white paper does seem to contradict itself, however, the qoute that you've posted comes directly after the following;

Cluster Alignment for NTFS vs. FAT
On NTFS volumes, clusters start at sector zero; therefore, every cluster is aligned on the cluster boundary. For example, if the cluster size was 4K and the sector size was 512 bytes, clusters will always start at a sector number that is a multiple of 4096/512 — for example, 8.

However, FAT file system data clusters are located after the BIOS Parameter Blocks (BPB), reserved sectors, and two FAT structures. FAT formatting cannot guarantee that data clusters are aligned on a cluster boundary.

In Windows 2000, CONVERT handled this problem by forcing an NTFS cluster size of 512 bytes, which resulted in reduced performance and increased disk fragmentation. In Windows XP, CONVERT chooses the best cluster size (4K is the ideal).

To maximize NTFS performance, Windows XP FORMAT and the new OFORMAT tool format a new file system as FAT or FAT32, ensuring that the data clusters are aligned on at least a 4K boundary and that the FAT32 cluster size is 4K or larger.

Figure 2. FAT32 vs. NTFS cluster alignment


Click to view full-size image.
Return...
Disk Size/Partition Size Performance
Hard-disk performance benchmarks comparing Windows 2000 and Windows XP (after beta 2) show better performance under Windows XP for both large disks and large partitions.

For example, comparing performance under Windows 2000 for a 75 GB hard disk partitioned with multiple smaller volumes versus a single volume shows that disk performance drops by about five to ten percent for the single large volume.

However, when comparing disk performance for the same small versus single large volume configuration under Windows XP, performance drops by only one to two percent for the single large volume.

This improved performance results from the combination of performance improvements described earlier, plus the improved ability under Windows XP to manage large disks and large partitions.

This is why I posted that everybody needs to read the whole article, for if you take any paragraph out of context, you come with a differant meaning then the intended.

 

[djmorgan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feedback from customers and system manufacturers indicates that users want single volumes because they do not want to manage multiple volumes and do not understand multiple-volume usage scenarios.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What sought of customers did MS poll to get this advice? 1st year computer users?

Dealer I think your argument is getting weaker - not that there is a right or wrong way - we are talking micro seconds in time - as I have shown my point is based upon security and convenience of repair, not performance although I have a high end system and miss seeing a lot of hour glass cursers -grin-

Still maybe with SP1 we'll see MS delete reference to partitions in their help files and reprint the manual that comes with the CD!!! no I think that highly unlikely don't you - leaving the quandry, why say you can partition if you don't want people to partition

 

[Perris Calderon]

True, allan and djmorgan...but they also say you can delete the page file if you want to...obviously a bad idea, but microsoft gives instructions on how to do it!!!...this is why everyone should read the document from beginning to end, in context..., and draw the conclusions you can for yourselfs


and as I keep saying...for those of you that find a pervasive reason to partition...of course, partition...for those like me, no need, it's counter productive

 

[coolsurfer]

Regard to the 1st post of this thread:

If you cant be assed reinstalling all your games and stuff, why not install windows and all your games, tweaks and all that, then make images of C: and D: with Ghost 2002 or Drive Image. I did this for the first time 2 months ago and now whenever my pc F***'s up, I restore my image. I then have a workable system with all my settings programs and games install with in 12 minutes. You can also burn the images to cd-r.

This has saved me a lot of hassle and I only regret not using the program sooner (Ghost came with my motherboard free).

 

[2z]

Originally posted by dealer
these qoutes allan, in context, are comparing the performance of a single ntfs, versus a partitioned in fat, not a single ntfs versus partitions in ntfs.

NTFS partitions
This has got to be the biggest waste of space yet
Just for the crack I converted a couple of logical partitions to NTFS
put the pagefile on one & 15gig of MP3's on the other
the page fragmented & wouldnt defragment
the MP3 partition has a huge gaping gap in it

Feedback from customers and system manufacturers indicates that users want single volumes because they do not want to manage multiple volumes and do not understand multiple-volume usage scenarios.

I sure as hell dont understand it (NTFS partitions)
It would seem NT5 cant differentiate between active & logical
and treats every partition the same by reserving 12% of each partition for MFT/MetaDataFiles/reserved system space ?????
Is there any logic in this reserved system space on a logical partition because it escapes me ???

Oh yeah one more gripe while I'm here
example
120gig hdd single ntfs partition would have reserved system space of over 12gig ????? Why ????? its never going to be fully used I'd be surprised if it reached 1% usage - that equates to a 99% waste of space. & as for this area being written to as the drive reaches capacity - what a load of rubbish before this happens 1. Defrag wont work 2. system restore will be disabled
This is how I think it should be
reserved system space should be enough to host the OS if it needs more this should be created either when an installing App needs a bit more or during defrag time.
Outladish claims
I cant find the link for this but I'm sure everbodies heard of it
XP will move files during idle time so XP can access files quicker
Yeah right !!!!!!
if you move a file it leaves a space
if you write a file its marked as fragmented
I keep a close check on my files & this just doesnt happen
Has anyone ever actually witnessed this phenomenon
& if it is true why stop there why not defrag the entire drive during idle time ????
To call XP dynamic is laughable
Although its the best windows yet, its got more bugs than the jungle.

 

[Perris Calderon]

agreed twoz, partitions in ntfs does seem to be a waste of time to me and counterproductive to boot

, however, xp does do a minor defrag during idle periods through this optimization, though ms says this is not a substitute for a proper defrag...then again, to contadict themselfs, they say defrag is not neccesary in ntfs...interesting

this is the quote you're looking for concerning file movement;

"Disk-Layout Optimizations
Microsoft implemented certain disk-layout optimizations in Windows XP. To perform this optimization, during idle time Windows XP moves pages used for booting the system and launching frequently used applications to ensure these files are laid out contiguously on the hard disk. The contiguous disk layout of these pages results in reduced disk seeks and improved disk I/O, contributing to improved boot time and application launch time.

Windows XP does not perform these optimizations across volumes. Therefore, for this optimization to be available to users, the hard disk must be partitioned as a single volume."


you twoz would never notice file optimization, as it happens not at all with fat, and hardly at all when you have partitions, as the optimization cannot cross volumes

 

[NetRyder]

The Reserved System space zone does not take up space on your hard drive.

It is just reserved so that the MFT can grow contiguously. If there is no other place on the disk where Windows can place a file you want to save, it is placed in the reserved system space zone. So, it isn't really a waste of space at all.

 

[2z]

good job as well I've got rafts of big files & to optimize these would pointless & futile. The only files that NEED optimization is XP & Apps - not my gigs of media files
This outlandish claim should still apply to the boot drive of which I have all my apps installed to
I have 77 programs on the boot drive & none of these files have ever mysteriously moved
I've not defragged in over a week & the only fragmented files are the odd temp file & the many logs that XP keeps.

 

[Perris Calderon]

sorry twoz, i've just edited my post...xp will not optimize fat, plus, as I said in the beginnig, if the apps are on the same partition as the os, the optoimization is not an issue, and there should be no penalty for the partition fetish some people have if they put their apps on the os partition.

 

[2z]

My boot drive is NTFS (for now )
;-)

 

[Perris Calderon]

if the apps are on the os partition, no optimization will notice a performance gain, plus, as I said, optimization cannot cross volumes regardless...this is the reason partitions become counterproductive in xp, but only if the apps are apart from the os, partitions are not counterproductive if they're on the same partition as the os

Don'tfprget, if this partition of your drive is contigous, there will never be a file optimization, you are keeping the files optimized by your good file management

 

[2z]

Off topic

NetRyder
Have you got Executive Software Diskeeper
If so analyze your boot drive & hit view report
scroll down to MFT
Master File Table (MFT) fragmentation
Total MFT size = 18,565 KB
MFT record count = 17,925
Percent MFT in use = 96%
Total MFT fragments = 3
what does it say in your Percent MFT in use ????
now tell me its not a waste of space

If there is no other place on the disk where Windows can place a file you want to save, it is placed in the reserved system space zone.

like I said before when your drive gets this full
1. Defrag wont work
2. System restore will be disabled
is this really what you want ?????

 

[2z]

18meg MFT & free space

Now thats more like it

 

[2z]

Originally posted by dealer
agreed twoz, partitions in ntfs does seem to be a waste of time to me and counterproductive to boot

Now were getting somewere its not because M$ customers are stupid
its because M$ XP NT5 is stupid !!!!!!!!!!