To partition or not partition?

Buddahpest · Mar 15, 2004, 08:15 PM

I went out over the weekend and picked up a 120 gig Western Digital hard drive wth 8mb of cache. I was thinking about partitoning the drive and setting it up as a 40gb partition for the OS, and the rest for all of my files and such. I currently have all of my files on a 80gb drive, with the OS on a seperate 40gb drive. I would just like to have everything together on one drive. I have heard some people say that you shouldn't partition a drive because it hinders performance. I have also heard some people say that it doesn't hurt anything. Is there a clear cut answer to this or is it just a matter of preference?

Vampyromaniac · Mar 15, 2004, 09:39 PM

It does not hinder performance, as far as I know. Many people recommend partitioning, to help keep things organized, for instance with your files on a separate partition, you can re-install the OS and not worry about losing your files. I don't think there are any downsides to partitioning. I have 2 HD's split into a total of 8 partitions

(but I'm not gonna keep it that way, gotta merge a couple of 'em)

Buddahpest · Mar 15, 2004, 11:31 PM

That's kind of what I figured. I just don't want to run two seperate hard drives at once. With all of the hardware I have in my pc, my power supply is already close to it's limit as far as output and I figure the less power the better. Besides, what's the purpose of having such a big drive then?

~~Crash Override~~ · Mar 16, 2004, 12:59 AM

btw you dont have to make a 40GB partition just for the OS

Heck on my system with 2 80GB HDs I make like a 6-8GB partition and put the page file on a seperate partiton was well my temp internet files and temp files, plus my documents.

All of them go other drives so XP barely takes up any room

Buddahpest · Mar 16, 2004, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Crash Override
btw you dont have to make a 40GB partition just for the OS

Heck on my system with 2 80GB HDs I make like a 6-8GB partition and put the page file on a seperate partiton was well my temp internet files and temp files, plus my documents.

All of them go other drives so XP barely takes up any room

The reason I chose the 40GB size is because I want to make sure I have plenty of room for my games, downloads, etc.... I just wanted one partition for everyday use and the other partition for storage.

mkk · Mar 16, 2004, 03:51 AM

Don't miss out on the significant advantage that Vampyromaniac mentioned. To be able to blow the system partition clean without having to worry about any other files. Defragmentation of a smaller system partition also runs much faster than if it has to mix with loads of other files, and the system partition is usually the one that benefits the most from regular defragmenting.

I would make three partitions in your case. One smaller just for the system and regular applications, one large for games and other really big applications, and then the rest for storage. Heck, I would actually make four partitions in order to have a separate one just for temporary files and downloads, but i might be taking these things maybe just a bit too far so I'd suggest simply using the middle partition for that.

Logla · Mar 16, 2004, 09:55 AM

I generally dont use more than 20Gig for my OS. I got a 240gig RAID array setup here and use 20gig for windows which is more than enough. Everything else gets installed onto the second partition - I just have to make sure I change the install path when installing and that works quite nicely for me.

**dj_stick** · Mar 16, 2004, 11:02 AM

i prefer to have windows, the page file and my audio recording partition all on separate drivesâ€¦ and if possible on separate channels.
The reason behind this is that only one drive per channel can be read at a time, and if the same drive has all 3 functions i mentioned before on it, then it will be considerably slower (i'm talking in ms, mayb 5 or so, but in low-latency audio, 5ms can be a long time, if you add that to the buffer required for the sound card).

Buddahpest · Mar 16, 2004, 05:32 PM

There was one time where I had Windows installed on the C: partition and I installed my games and such on another partition. I ended up running into problems because I would always forget that when I would install stuff I had to install it on a seperate partition and it just got messy. Maybe I'm just lazy. Actually no. I know I'm lazy.

Vampyromaniac · Mar 17, 2004, 07:27 AM

hehe

BWX · Mar 17, 2004, 08:19 AM

Yeah, putting the page file on a separate physical drive is always good- it will boost performance. I have it on a 1gig partition. I need to buy another HD.

PangingJr · Mar 17, 2004, 08:44 AM

Vampyromaniac,
whats is your main HDD size?
how big of your OS partition?

have you ever before install and run windows on a one big partition?
if so, have you ever noticed that the windows runs better on a smaller partition?

Vampyromaniac · Mar 17, 2004, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BWX232
Yeah, putting the page file on a separate physical drive is always good- it will boost performance.

I really wonder about that one. I've been logging my pagefile usage, and it seems my pagefile barely gets used anyway.

Quote:

Originally posted by panging
Vampyromaniac,
whats is your main HDD size?
how big of your OS partition?

have you ever before install and run windows on a one big partition?
if so, have you ever noticed that the windows runs better on a smaller partition?

Main HDD = 80 GB, OS part. = 10 GB
The last time I had one big partition was when I was stil running Win98-2nd ed. Only thing I've really noticed is my C: doesn't get fragmented much.

PangingJr · Mar 17, 2004, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vampyromaniac
Main HDD = 80 GB, OS part. = 10 GB
The last time I had one big partition was when I was stil running Win98-2nd ed. Only thing I've really noticed is my C: doesn't get fragmented much.

so you've never noticed the different then, maybe just me that noticed, not long ago i restored an image of XP on a 60gb HDD using one big partition, installed all the updates and some of my main apps and used it for 2 days.
then i resized the partition to 20gb and left the rest of space unpartition i'hv noticed on the 1st boot that windows boots to desktop faster, main apps startup faster than before...

then i restarted and created 2 more (approx 20gb) partitions, then i connected this PC to my network and put some files on the new partitions and also install some small programs, on the next reboot i've found it boots slower, apps startup time about the same, but when i ran some programs from the the 3rd partition, i dont know how fast or how slow when comparing to my others PC with same spec only those uses 2 HDDs but i just didnt feel like it, the same program ran slower on this PC.
so i deleted everytings and redo it with 2HDDs setups....
the final setup for this PC is:-
main HDD - 40gb (20gb hiden with an OS installed) - approx 20gb for OS partition, main apps.
2nd HDD - 60gb (4 partitions) - the rest of my files are using this HDD.
maybe i'm used to this setup and feel like its quite a bit better than all of my previos setups so i never buy a big HDD to use as my main HDD.

BWX · Mar 17, 2004, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vampyromaniac
I really wonder about that one. I've been logging my pagefile usage, and it seems my pagefile barely gets used anyway. Main HDD = 80 GB, OS part. = 10 GB
The last time I had one big partition was when I was stil running Win98-2nd ed. Only thing I've really noticed is my C: doesn't get fragmented much.

So you run your pagefile on the OS partition?

For proof try this, install an old small slow HD in your PC (like an old small gig 5200rpm, ATA 66 or ATA33) Or just a slower HD than you have your OS on. Then set the pagefile on the slow HD, reboot and you will see what I mean. Now if that was a fast HD, think about the difference, and the fact that it is a separate physical drive makes sense that it would be faster, because it could work at the same time as your other drive.. I guess the only way to check is to test it. I can't yet because I don't have (or need) 2 fast drives yet. But I know it gets used more (or more often, even if it's small amounts of data) than you think.. because if you put the pagefile on a slow drive, you're PC slows WAY down, I've tested that- even with plenty of system ram..

I think short of a ramdrive, the fastest way would be to get 1.5 to 2gigs of systm ram and just not run a pagefile at all. Even with 512mb ram you hardly ever need a pagefile, but you need to run it just incase you want many programs/ IE windows or run photoshop- Even games hardly ever use more than 512mb of ram by themselves. Then there's the fact that some programs won't even run w/o a pagefile present.

Zardon · Mar 17, 2004, 12:09 PM

some interesting comments in this thread - i messed around with the pagefile in the past and the system is more responsive if you put it on your fastest drive. I have a raptor raid for the OS and I find that if the pagefile is set to this drive, its the fastest - even though it is the OS drive. 2 gigs of ram would be good but ive found for overclocking larger/more modules make for terrible overclocking. Fine if you arent pushing the system but ive found 2x256 overclocks SO much better than 1 gig, and ive ran 4x512 modules for a while and the overclocking was abysmal. Not important if you just want a nice stable system at stock speeds, just something worth mentioning for those of you who are running fast ram speeds possibly at the limits and are thinking of adding more system ram.

incidentally photoshop uses its own "paging" file independent of the OS, called the scratch disc you can set this in preferences, you can also set multiple drives for this if you run out of room with massively large files, fastest/most room free as the primary scratch disc is the best option.

BWX · Mar 17, 2004, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zardon

incidentally photoshop uses its own "paging" file independent of the OS, called the scratch disc you can set this in preferences, you can also set multiple drives for this if you run out of room with massively large files, fastest/most room free as the primary scratch disc is the best option.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that- I actually have them set to use my storage partition first, my programs partition second and what's left of my pagefile partition third. So I guess I could run without a pagefile if that was the only program I was worried about..

I was testing this one day a few months ago and forgot to enable my pagefile somehow and ran without one for quite a while. My PC did run windows very fast for that period of time, but I set it right back on after realized what I had done. Maybe I should just turn it off for a while to see what works and what doesn't
-I have 2x 256 sticks, and I agree that more ram = slower ram for OC'ing. I looked at 1gig sticks and there weren't any very fast ones.

EDIT
I am now running without a pagefile at all- my PCis much faster at regular stuff like email, IE and opening windows. We'll see what, if anything quits working.

Zardon · Mar 17, 2004, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BWX232
-I have 2x 256 sticks, and I agree that more ram = slower ram for OC'ing. I looked at 1gig sticks and there weren't any very fast ones.

Its not just the manufacturers rated speeds, the latencies due to more and/or larger modules on the sticks just affects top end overclocks. Im sure if you got the best hand picked ram - 2x512 would be fine, ive just never been very lucky with larger sized sticks - and im not the only one, if you read the overclockers boards like xtremesystems.org alot of people find the same thing. many even have a hand picked pair of 2x256 modules just for benching purposes (some even run 1x256!).

germanjulian · Mar 17, 2004, 01:38 PM

C main partition (WINDOWS) = 9GB
P programs partition (PROGRAMS = 50GB (GAMES ARE BIG)
S stuff = 10 temp files partition

Other hard drivers are for storage for different stuff

the program partition is very usefull!!! if you reinstall windows on c you do not need to reinstall half the stuff in program partition! all will works. the stuff which needs to be added to the registry (such as offcie shortcuts) you just overinstall. This will keep your program settings! very good

BWX · Mar 17, 2004, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zardon
Its not just the manufacturers rated speeds, the latencies due to more and/or larger modules on the sticks just affects top end overclocks. Im sure if you got the best hand picked ram - 2x512 would be fine, ive just never been very lucky with larger sized sticks - and im not the only one, if you read the overclockers boards like xtremesystems.org alot of people find the same thing. many even have a hand picked pair of 2x256 modules just for benching purposes (some even run 1x256!).

Yeah that does make sense.
I've often thought about pulling one stick and going for max OC with one stick because I know it should go higher that way, and run some benchies- but never did.

PangingJr · Mar 17, 2004, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by germanjulian
C main partition (WINDOWS) = 9GB
P programs partition (PROGRAMS = 50GB (GAMES ARE BIG)
S stuff = 10 temp files partition

Other hard drivers are for storage for different stuff

the program partition is very usefull!!! if you reinstall windows on c you do not need to reinstall half the stuff in program partition! all will works. the stuff which needs to be added to the registry (such as offcie shortcuts) you just overinstall. This will keep your program settings! very good

more partitions on the main HDD may/can degrade your system's performance significantly especially, when both 'boot partition' and 'program partition' have to be used in order to run some programs. if all the HDDs are same speed i'd try to move the 'program partition' and the 'temp files partition' to another HDD, then move the 'storage partition' to the main HDD since this partition will not be accessed frequently.
that's just my opinion and i could be wrong.

Vampyromaniac · Mar 17, 2004, 08:56 PM

As far as putting it on the fastest drive, or testing with a slow drive to see the effects . . .
Both my drives are about the same speed, so it don't matter to that theory. And I can't test.

As far as seperate disk from the OS . . .
I did have my pagfile solely on the OS partition before,
then later moved it to the beginning of the 2nd drive,
and there was no noticeable difference in anything.

So, I dunno, perhaps those theories don't apply to everyone.

Quote:

Originally posted by BWX232
So you run your pagefile on the OS partition?

Currently it's on:
C: &nbsp 128-128 &nbsp (OS part'n)
P: &nbsp 128-384 &nbsp (1st part'n on 2nd disk, part'n = 400MB)
And again, noticed no difference from this and the other two setups.

But like I said, my pagefile gets used so little, maybe that's why it doesn't matter.
My last few sessions have had peak usage of: 74MB, 25, 10, 52, 45, 24, 24. And never gone above 80 since logging started.
Maybe those theories are for people who regularly do pagefile-intensive tasks

BWX · Mar 17, 2004, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vampyromaniac
.
Maybe those theories are for people who regularly do pagefile-intensive tasks

Yeah probably- when I get new HD I'll have to check it out.

UT2k4 ran fine without page file- mem usage went up to about 356mb, still plenty left. But I noticed some stuttering going back and forth between between some of the setup screens while a game was running in background, but if I paused the game before going into the settings screen it didn't stutter when going back to the game. Maybe those are the kinds of things games use the pagefile for even if there is plenty of system ram left..

It seems smoother in games with pagefile on, but windows is definitely faster, snappier w/o it off...
O well, it's staying on.

germanjulian · Mar 17, 2004, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by panging
more partitions on the main HDD may/can degrade your system's performance significantly especially, when both 'boot partition' and 'program partition' have to be used in order to run some programs. if all the HDDs are same speed i'd try to move the 'program partition' and the 'temp files partition' to another HDD, then move the 'storage partition' to the main HDD since this partition will not be accessed frequently.
that's just my opinion and i could be wrong.

OH! didnt know makes sense will do it next time I do a total reinstall. thanks for the tip

PangingJr · Mar 18, 2004, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by germanjulian
OH! didnt know makes sense will do it next time I do a total reinstall. thanks for the tip

No Prob.

anyway it can be done now if you have an image of each partition, and all the image files are stored on a spare HDDs or maybe over network PCs or CDs/DVDs or even it's on the same computer..

then you can reset/redo all of the partitions for testing..

you dont have to worry about windows registry there will be no change in there. the 'drive letter' is the key for this kind of setup.
if you like to make an image of the OS partition too just make sure that before making the image you'll set pagefile to use default location and you'll disable all 3rd party startup programs.
once the images have been restored and windows is up and running, the 1st thing you'll do is to reset all the drive letter and you should be all set.

we will have our system well organized but we don't want to throw away some of our system's performance.. gain back some of it...
this's all just an idea. i hope it helps you in someway..

Mar 15, 2004, 08:15 PM	#1
Buddahpest DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 218 Rep Power: 0	To partition or not partition? I went out over the weekend and picked up a 120 gig Western Digital hard drive wth 8mb of cache. I was thinking about partitoning the drive and setting it up as a 40gb partition for the OS, and the rest for all of my files and such. I currently have all of my files on a 80gb drive, with the OS on a seperate 40gb drive. I would just like to have everything together on one drive. I have heard some people say that you shouldn't partition a drive because it hinders performance. I have also heard some people say that it doesn't hurt anything. Is there a clear cut answer to this or is it just a matter of preference? __________________ Intel Core2 Quad Q9650 @ 4GHz / Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3R / 8 GB (2GB x 4) G.Skill PC2 8500 / eVGA GTX 280 / Soundblaster Audigy 2 / 2x74GB Western Digital Raptor 10000 rpm in Raid 0 / 250GB Western Digital 7200 rpm / Plextor PX-716A DVD-RW / 1100W BFG PSU / Klipsch 4.1 Promedia / HP w2408h LCD / Windows Vista Ultimate x64

Mar 15, 2004, 09:39 PM	#2
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 74 System Specs	It does not hinder performance, as far as I know. Many people recommend partitioning, to help keep things organized, for instance with your files on a separate partition, you can re-install the OS and not worry about losing your files. I don't think there are any downsides to partitioning. I have 2 HD's split into a total of 8 partitions (but I'm not gonna keep it that way, gotta merge a couple of 'em) __________________ *Digitalis 3.3* Athlon 64 3000 // ASUS K8V SE Deluxe // 1024MB PC3200 (2-2-2-10 1T) ATI All-In-Wonder 9700 Pro // 20" Dell 2005FPW (DVI) M-Audio Revo 7.1 + Philips Acoustic Edge // Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 320/16 Western Digital WD3200KS + 120/8 Seagate 7200.7 NEC ND-3550A 16x DVD±RW + Lite-On 52x24x CD-RW Antec Sonata case // 480W Antec TruePower personal bests \|\| Aq'3: 46796 \| 3D'01: 20461 \| 3D'03: 6336 \| 3D'05: 2677 \| PC'04: 4605 \| PC'02: 7691,9092,1250

Mar 15, 2004, 11:31 PM	Thread Starter #3
Buddahpest DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 218 Rep Power: 0	That's kind of what I figured. I just don't want to run two seperate hard drives at once. With all of the hardware I have in my pc, my power supply is already close to it's limit as far as output and I figure the less power the better. Besides, what's the purpose of having such a big drive then? __________________ Intel Core2 Quad Q9650 @ 4GHz / Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3R / 8 GB (2GB x 4) G.Skill PC2 8500 / eVGA GTX 280 / Soundblaster Audigy 2 / 2x74GB Western Digital Raptor 10000 rpm in Raid 0 / 250GB Western Digital 7200 rpm / Plextor PX-716A DVD-RW / 1100W BFG PSU / Klipsch 4.1 Promedia / HP w2408h LCD / Windows Vista Ultimate x64

Mar 16, 2004, 05:32 PM	Thread Starter #9
Buddahpest DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 218 Rep Power: 0	There was one time where I had Windows installed on the C: partition and I installed my games and such on another partition. I ended up running into problems because I would always forget that when I would install stuff I had to install it on a seperate partition and it just got messy. Maybe I'm just lazy. Actually no. I know I'm lazy. __________________ Intel Core2 Quad Q9650 @ 4GHz / Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3R / 8 GB (2GB x 4) G.Skill PC2 8500 / eVGA GTX 280 / Soundblaster Audigy 2 / 2x74GB Western Digital Raptor 10000 rpm in Raid 0 / 250GB Western Digital 7200 rpm / Plextor PX-716A DVD-RW / 1100W BFG PSU / Klipsch 4.1 Promedia / HP w2408h LCD / Windows Vista Ultimate x64

Mar 17, 2004, 07:27 AM	#10
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 74 System Specs	hehe __________________ *Digitalis 3.3* Athlon 64 3000 // ASUS K8V SE Deluxe // 1024MB PC3200 (2-2-2-10 1T) ATI All-In-Wonder 9700 Pro // 20" Dell 2005FPW (DVI) M-Audio Revo 7.1 + Philips Acoustic Edge // Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 320/16 Western Digital WD3200KS + 120/8 Seagate 7200.7 NEC ND-3550A 16x DVD±RW + Lite-On 52x24x CD-RW Antec Sonata case // 480W Antec TruePower personal bests \|\| Aq'3: 46796 \| 3D'01: 20461 \| 3D'03: 6336 \| 3D'05: 2677 \| PC'04: 4605 \| PC'02: 7691,9092,1250

Mar 16, 2004, 12:59 AM	#4
~~Crash Override~~ Banned Join Date: May 2002 Location: Olympia, WA Posts: 2,448 Rep Power: 0	btw you dont have to make a 40GB partition just for the OS Heck on my system with 2 80GB HDs I make like a 6-8GB partition and put the page file on a seperate partiton was well my temp internet files and temp files, plus my documents. All of them go other drives so XP barely takes up any room

Mar 16, 2004, 03:51 AM	#6
mkk Cthulhu/Dagon 2012 Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Gefle, Sweden Posts: 4,384 Rep Power: 120 System Specs	Don't miss out on the significant advantage that Vampyromaniac mentioned. To be able to blow the system partition clean without having to worry about any other files. Defragmentation of a smaller system partition also runs much faster than if it has to mix with loads of other files, and the system partition is usually the one that benefits the most from regular defragmenting. I would make three partitions in your case. One smaller just for the system and regular applications, one large for games and other really big applications, and then the rest for storage. Heck, I would actually make four partitions in order to have a separate one just for temporary files and downloads, but i might be taking these things maybe just a bit too far so I'd suggest simply using the middle partition for that.

Mar 16, 2004, 09:55 AM	#7
Logla HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 3,311 Rep Power: 62	I generally dont use more than 20Gig for my OS. I got a 240gig RAID array setup here and use 20gig for windows which is more than enough. Everything else gets installed onto the second partition - I just have to make sure I change the install path when installing and that works quite nicely for me.

Mar 17, 2004, 08:19 AM	#11
BWX unplugged Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: USNY Posts: 19,665 Rep Power: 109 System Specs	Yeah, putting the page file on a separate physical drive is always good- it will boost performance. I have it on a 1gig partition. I need to buy another HD. __________________

Mar 17, 2004, 08:44 AM	#12
PangingJr Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,989 Rep Power: 69	Vampyromaniac, whats is your main HDD size? how big of your OS partition? have you ever before install and run windows on a one big partition? if so, have you ever noticed that the windows runs better on a smaller partition?

Mar 17, 2004, 12:09 PM	#16
Zardon DriverHeaven Founder Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 32,480 Rep Power: 177	some interesting comments in this thread - i messed around with the pagefile in the past and the system is more responsive if you put it on your fastest drive. I have a raptor raid for the OS and I find that if the pagefile is set to this drive, its the fastest - even though it is the OS drive. 2 gigs of ram would be good but ive found for overclocking larger/more modules make for terrible overclocking. Fine if you arent pushing the system but ive found 2x256 overclocks SO much better than 1 gig, and ive ran 4x512 modules for a while and the overclocking was abysmal. Not important if you just want a nice stable system at stock speeds, just something worth mentioning for those of you who are running fast ram speeds possibly at the limits and are thinking of adding more system ram. incidentally photoshop uses its own "paging" file independent of the OS, called the scratch disc you can set this in preferences, you can also set multiple drives for this if you run out of room with massively large files, fastest/most room free as the primary scratch disc is the best option.

Mar 17, 2004, 01:38 PM	#19
germanjulian Back in London Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: London Posts: 1,797 Rep Power: 0	C main partition (WINDOWS) = 9GB P programs partition (PROGRAMS = 50GB (GAMES ARE BIG) S stuff = 10 temp files partition Other hard drivers are for storage for different stuff the program partition is very usefull!!! if you reinstall windows on c you do not need to reinstall half the stuff in program partition! all will works. the stuff which needs to be added to the registry (such as offcie shortcuts) you just overinstall. This will keep your program settings! very good __________________ /\|\ Asus P5W DH Deluxe, Intel C2D E6600, 2GB Corsair XMS2-6400C4 DDR2, E-VGA GeForce 7800 GT, Creative X-Fi Extreme Music, 500GB Seagate 7200.10 SATA, Lian Li PC-V1100 Aluminum Case Black, etc. http://germanjulian.com /\|\