Partitioning a hard-drive into a C,D, & E drive

[JTrader]

Hi

Usually when you buy a PC, everything is installed/saved on one big hard-drive/C drive partition, which is not good for optimal speed/performance.

to boost performance on a PC, it is recommended that you partition/seperate the hard-drive into segments.
eg. One segment for the operating system, one segment for all other software, and one segment for work files, music downloads etc.


If you use XP home, which when up to date currently uses around 7-8gb max, and an 78gb hard-drive, what is the best way to divide up you hard-drive?

3 equal partitions of 26gb?

or would it be better performance wise to have say 3 times 15gb partitions, and leave a 30gb segment of the hard-drive free for the future?

In particular, is it beneficial to performance to give the operating system a no bigger partition than necessary - i.e. 15gb for the OS would lead to better performance than 26gb for the OS?

Thanks.

 

[Splitlink]

I'm not a computer expert but my last one was fine, except for one thing. Memory problems. My C drive was always full and the other ones almost empty. The problem was that my data provider, Sharescope and a few others would only download onto the C drive. I was never, ever, able to get the full memory capacity of that computer. When I bought the next one I asked if the drive was divided and was told that that practice had been discontinued. I'm not worried about speed and you are, so the requirements are different. However, before you divide your drive, go into the matter of your memory because it's, really, exasperating to know that you have plenty but can't make good use of it.

Regards Split

 

[JTrader]

If this practice has been discontinued on PC's from the last year or 2, perhaps this is because it makes only marginal improvements to performance, as the PC's are so fast anyway now.

A hard-drive of today will also be much more efficient than one of 4 years ago.

Some programs will only install on C drive alongside the operating system, which is a bit annoying if you are trying to keep the OS on a seperate drive.

I think if you use 1024mb memory, your maximum amount of memory will rarely be used. 100% CPU usage is much more common.

In most ways anyway, its really not worth messing with an old PC when you can get one thats the D's B's for less than £300.

 

[Splitlink]

If this practice has been discontinued on PC's from the last year or 2, perhaps this is because it makes only marginal improvements to performance, as the PC's are so fast anyway now.

A hard-drive of today will also be much more efficient than one of 4 years ago.

Some programs will only install on C drive alongside the operating system, which is a bit annoying if you are trying to keep the OS on a seperate drive.

I think if you use 1024mb memory, your maximum amount of memory will rarely be used. 100% CPU usage is much more common.

Yes, I agree that today's disk drives have hundreds of Gigas so, perhaps, you would have on your C drive more that I had on the whole of my old disk. Still, there's a lot of stuff out there to save, these days, too, Games and stuff. I have to watch what my son is doing with his blasted music! Mine is a Compaq..perhaps it is just them that do not have divided hard drives, now, but I'm very pleased that I don't have that problem anymore

Split

 

[rossored]

I often partition drives into two segments for clients, but this is more from a maintenance perspective than anything else - easier to have to wipe only one partition and not worry about the data on the other partition if you've got to reinstall the OS at some point. The performance benefits themselves are negligible.

Paragon Partition manager is the best program I know of (cheap, good and easy to use) - your alternative of course is to simply buy an additional hard drive and put your data on that instead of partitioning the existing drive.

 

[JTrader]

I often partition drives into two segments for clients, but this is more from a maintenance perspective than anything else - easier to have to wipe only one partition and not worry about the data on the other partition if you've got to reinstall the OS at some point. The performance benefits themselves are negligible.

Paragon Partition manager is the best program I know of (cheap, good and easy to use) - your alternative of course is to simply buy an additional hard drive and put your data on that instead of partitioning the existing drive.

Yes, segmenting is a good idea so that you can wipe the OS and not have to re-install all software, or vice-versa.

7tools Partition Manager 2005 also has a good rating on download.com, though the 2005 bit is a bit worrying, seen as it is 2007.

If the performance benefits of segmenting are negligable, i won't waste any further time on it.

Thanks.

 

[JTrader]

Does having a bigger hard-drive in itself - i.e. a 200gb V's a 100gb improve speed/performance?

Or is it only the memory, CPU, graphics card, and motherboard that can improve speed/performance?

I have an 78gb drive. If i partition it to have 3 times 26gb partitions, will this result in a faster or slower PC than having 3 * 15gb and leaving 31gb of free unformatted drive space? Or won't it make much difference?

I was taught on a PC course that by eg. giving 15gb for the OS partition, this will lead to more effective performance than allocating 30gb of the hard-drive for the OS partition. Because the more unused space you leave, the longer processes take to complete, as the computer searches right to the end of the disk. Thus the smaller the OS disk partition, the less time these processes take .

Thanks.

 

[Trader333]

One issue to consider here is disk fragmentation. I have found that when you partition a disk after it already has the OS installed then afterwards the whole disk is hugely fragmented. I think that the Windows defragmentation tool is not good enough and so I use diskeeper which I have found to be exceptionally good.


Paul

 

[dcraig1]

Does having a bigger hard-drive in itself - i.e. a 200gb V's a 100gb improve speed/performance?

Or is it only the memory, CPU, graphics card, and motherboard that can improve speed/performance?

Thanks.

As a general rule probably not. It depends on a lot of things including size of cache, number of platters and the pattern of use by the software. If there is a difference it is not likely to be that great for similiar technology drives eg consumer type 7200 RPM Sata drives.

If you really need faster drives there are 10,000 RPM SATA drives ie Western Digital Raptor series or 10K or 15K RPM SCSI drives. All of these are much more expensive.

Possibly a better (and cheaper) alternative is multiple 7.2K RPM disks striped in a RAID configuration which will improve performance.

I doubt that slicing your disk up into several partitions will make much difference especially on a desktop PC. This is usually done for purposes of easier admin.

 

[new_trader]

Hi

Usually when you buy a PC, everything is installed/saved on one big hard-drive/C drive partition, which is not good for optimal speed/performance.

to boost performance on a PC, it is recommended that you partition/seperate the hard-drive into segments.
eg. One segment for the operating system, one segment for all other software, and one segment for work files, music downloads etc.


If you use XP home, which when up to date currently uses around 7-8gb max, and an 78gb hard-drive, what is the best way to divide up you hard-drive?

3 equal partitions of 26gb?

or would it be better performance wise to have say 3 times 15gb partitions, and leave a 30gb segment of the hard-drive free for the future?

In particular, is it beneficial to performance to give the operating system a no bigger partition than necessary - i.e. 15gb for the OS would lead to better performance than 26gb for the OS?

Thanks.

As far as I know this is a legacy of the FAT16 system where partitioning was used to reduce cluster size rather than increase performance. Windows XP is FAT32 system so partitioning doesn't really give any added benefit as it is still the same physical drive. I don't partition drives, it is a waste of time. If I need more room or want dedicated areas I add a new Physical drive, it is the best and only way to do it. You don't lose everything if you have a physical drive crash either.

 

[new_trader]

As a general rule probably not. It depends on a lot of things including size of cache, number of platters and the pattern of use by the software. If there is a difference it is not likely to be that great for similiar technology drives eg consumer type 7200 RPM Sata drives.

If you really need faster drives there are 10,000 RPM SATA drives ie Western Digital Raptor series or 10K or 15K RPM SCSI drives. All of these are much more expensive.

Possibly a better (and cheaper) alternative is multiple 7.2K RPM disks striped in a RAID configuration which will improve performance.

I doubt that slicing your disk up into several partitions will make much difference especially on a desktop PC. This is usually done for purposes of easier admin.

RPM isn't the main factor which determines speed. It is the access speed(usually quoted in ms) and data transfer rate usually quoted in MB/s.

 

[dcraig1]

RPM isn't the main factor which determines speed. It is the access speed(usually quoted in ms) and data transfer rate usually quoted in MB/s.

Yes, but there is also latency (time for the disk to spin to the sector you want) and the higher the RPM, the lower the latency and given similar recording technology, the higher the transfer rate.

 

[new_trader]

Yes, but there is also latency (time for the disk to spin to the sector you want) and the higher the RPM, the lower the latency and given similar recording technology, the higher the transfer rate.

The hard disk is continually spinning, unless you have your BIOS set to stop it after a certain time, so I don't know what you mean by "spinning to the sector you want". Information is spread across many sectors, hence the requirement of the FAT.

 

[JTrader]

What i've done is -

partition 78gb into 3 * 15gb. One partition for the XP OS, one for other software, and the 3rd for files and downloads. I have 31gb free unformatted space remaining.

If doing it again, i'd have set up 3 partitions of 25gb, and am left wondering if only having 3 * 15gb +31gb spare/unformatted, will make my PC slower than 3 * 25gb would have done.

I have all the same software installed as B4.

I have an athlonxp2800+ and 1024mb PC3200 memory.



There has been a speed increase -
1. Getting to the login screen from pressing the on button now takes the same length of time as before.
2. After logging in, being able to connect to the internet now takes around 23 seconds less than before.
3. Selecting "Turn off" PC - the PC switching off, now takes around 4 seconds less time.

Therefore i save around 27 seconds per time of using my PC. Hardly spectacular results, and maybe more effort than it was worth. But at least i know!

 

[new_trader]

What i've done is -

partition 78gb into 3 * 15gb. One partition for the XP OS, one for other software, and the 3rd for files and downloads. I have 31gb free unformatted space remaining.

If doing it again, i'd have set up 3 partitions of 25gb, and am left wondering if only having 3 * 15gb will make my PC slower than 3 * 25gb would have done.

I have all the same software installed as B4.

I have an athlonxp2800+ and 1024mb PC3200 memory.



There has been a speed increase -
1. Getting to the login screen from pressing the on button now takes the same length of time as before.
2. After logging in, being able to connect to the internet now takes around 23 seconds less than before.
3. Selecting "Turn off" PC - the PC switching off, now takes around 4 seconds less time.

Therefore i save around 27 seconds per time of using my PC. Hardly spectacular results, and maybe more effort than it was worth. But at least i know!

I would say it's because the disk has been defragmented in the process. See what it's like in 3 months time.

 

[JTrader]

I would say it's because the disk has been defragmented in the process. See what it's like in 3 months time.

I have also defragmented the 3 partitions after creating the new partitions, as this needed doing.

I think I will probably buy a new PC in a few months time, as a fresh quicker system, can also provide a boost to my enthusiasm etc.

I partitioned the 3 segments using NTFS BTW.

 

[dcraig1]

The hard disk is continually spinning, unless you have your BIOS set to stop it after a certain time, so I don't know what you mean by "spinning to the sector you want". Information is spread across many sectors, hence the requirement of the FAT.

A disk has a file system on it. (Hopefully not a FAT filesystem). If you want to (for example) open a file and read the first 1K bytes, the file system code has to find where the sector where that 1K bytes is. To do this it has to look up some sort of "index" and to do that it must cause the disk heads to seek to the track (or cylinder in a multi platter disk) where that index is. It must them wait for the disk to rotate until the head(s) are over the required sectors. This is latency.

You might say the "index" or FAT is cached in memory. Perhaps, but it's got to write through to the disk sometime to update it and you will have latency. At all stages of file access, read or write, you have potential latency waiting for the disk to rotate so that that requisite sectors are under the read/write head(s).

 

[JTrader]

A disk has a file system on it. (Hopefully not a FAT filesystem). If you want to (for example) open a file and read the first 1K bytes, the file system code has to find where the sector where that 1K bytes is. To do this it has to look up some sort of "index" and to do that it must cause the disk heads to seek to the track (or cylinder in a multi platter disk) where that index is. It must them wait for the disk to rotate until the head(s) are over the required sectors. This is latency.

You might say the "index" or FAT is cached in memory. Perhaps, but it's got to write through to the disk sometime to update it and you will have latency. At all stages of file access, read or write, you have potential latency waiting for the disk to rotate so that that requisite sectors are under the read/write head(s).

Slightly over my head, but you seem to know your stuff when it comes to PC's! .

 

[new_trader]

A disk has a file system on it. (Hopefully not a FAT filesystem). If you want to (for example) open a file and read the first 1K bytes, the file system code has to find where the sector where that 1K bytes is. To do this it has to look up some sort of "index" and to do that it must cause the disk heads to seek to the track (or cylinder in a multi platter disk) where that index is. It must them wait for the disk to rotate until the head(s) are over the required sectors. This is latency.

You might say the "index" or FAT is cached in memory. Perhaps, but it's got to write through to the disk sometime to update it and you will have latency. At all stages of file access, read or write, you have potential latency waiting for the disk to rotate so that that requisite sectors are under the read/write head(s).

Fair enough, all you have described in detail is one minor part of "Access time/speed".

"Access time is the metric that represents the composite of all the other specifications reflecting random performance positioning in the hard disk. As such, it is the best figure for assessing overall positioning performance, and you'd expect it to be the specification most used by hard disk manufacturers and enthusiasts alike."

I'm fairly certain my system is running FAT32, I didn't convert to NTFS.

 

[rossored]

XP installs as default to NTFS although I think pre-SP1 versions installed as FAT32.

Jtrader, new_trader is right on the money, too as regards the improved performance. Any new, fresh install of XP seemingly flies. Six months down the road (or less), it'll be the same old crusty crust it was before; get used to routine OS installs if you want the best from your PC - or go to another OS entirely. Vista isn't any better in my experience.