PDA

View Full Version : Optimal Partition Sizes


kiri
06-09-2004, 08:54 AM
Hi, could someone give me some advice on what the optimal sizes of HD partitions should be?

I just bought a new 120GB HDD (to use as a 2nd HD), and wondering if i should make 1 large 120gb partition, or several smaller ones... ?
Im planning to use the drive mainly for data storage, and also for project files im currently working on. (3d, video etc)

Mainly i wanted to know is there a reason (performance or otherwise) why I shouldnt just make one big 120GB partition?


thanks for any advice!
ki

PS: OS is winXP if that is important...

adityamatharu
06-09-2004, 09:54 AM
There are no real rules for creating patition sizes. It all depends on how do u use your computer. But even still I would recommend that make at least two partitions, one for windows and one for ur work becoz is someday u have to reformat windows u wont loose your work as it will be safe on the other partition.
If I were u, I would make a 50 gb partition for the 3d/video editing softwares, a 50gb partition for all the projects im working on and lastly a 20gb partition for downloads and other random stuff.
Also, the bigger the partition u have the longer it takes to defrag it.

kiri
06-09-2004, 04:53 PM
thanks adityamatharu :)
i'll take that advice into account

singularity2006
06-09-2004, 06:04 PM
My general rule based on my file sizes and applications is as follows:

C: OS Only: 5GB
D: Pagefile, temp files, internet cache: 2GB
E: Apps Only
F: Storage for all other files.

By separating files that are often accessed and/or modified from the core program files and the OS, you reduce the frequency of fragmentation. It helps keep things running efficiently.

kiri
06-10-2004, 12:10 AM
thanks singularity, thats actually a pretty similar setup to what i have now.
One question, would it be more efficent (in terms of access times etc) to have applications and project files on 2 entirely seperate disks? Not just in different partitions, but on different physical disks.

thanks

BrainFaucet
06-10-2004, 03:48 AM
I second singularity2006's advice... especially with the partition your OS is on. I also dig the pagefile and temp directory partition... wish I had thought of it.


My OS partition is 6GB... I also have a couple other apps installed on that partition, my work files partition is 80GB, Scratch disk is 200GB (I work with a lot of video,) Program files, Photos, Web archive and audio collection is 40 GB.

Happy partitioning!

singularity2006
06-10-2004, 06:39 AM
Originally posted by kiri
thanks singularity, thats actually a pretty similar setup to what i have now.
One question, would it be more efficent (in terms of access times etc) to have applications and project files on 2 entirely seperate disks? Not just in different partitions, but on different physical disks.

thanks

I'm not sure about that, but what I know is that when you have a separate physical drive that is on an ultra fast channel of its own used for scratch disk purposes, the applications fly much faster. However, I don't think separating partitions of apps and files makes much of a difference since the bulk of the speed increase or decrease is a result of the application trying to run its calculations to pump out the final result using its scratch disk. Keep in mind that a lot of apps get angry when you put their scratch/temporary folders in the same partition as the Windows pagefile. If you can afford it, get yourself a small drive to hold your Windows pagefile and a separate drive to hold your scratch disk files. It's probably extreme to do that, but i can be done. Otherwise, leave the Windows pagefile on the primary drive.

singularity2006
06-10-2004, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by BrainFaucet
I second singularity2006's advice... especially with the partition your OS is on. I also dig the pagefile and temp directory partition... wish I had thought of it.

I discovered doing things that way purely by accident. =)

I was running quite low on disk space on an old drive and just decided to dump the pagefile onto the other drive after realizing how big it was. And just by accident, I realized what implications there were for having a separate drive for the pagefile and windows temp files (which may be assigned to a particular drive and folder in the windows environment variables).

stephen2002
06-10-2004, 01:27 PM
For the different disks thing; I noticed a HUGE boost when working with oversized Photoshop files (i.e. they wanted more than the 1GB of RAM that I had; a fairly rare occurence) if I put the files on a drive separate from the "scratch disk". That way it could access the files and it's scratch information without having to seek the HD back and forth between the two.

As for the windows page file on a separate drive; I imagine that it could make a difference however I don't usually end up hitting the page file too heavy. And when I do the preformance is usually too bad to continue and I need to close some applications.

Other than that I just have everything in one big partition. Otherwise I find that it is a pain to manage. I like having one huge disk that I can just dump things anywhere instead of having to worry about running out of space on one partition and then spending half the day shuffling files so that I can continue working.

brudney
06-10-2004, 03:18 PM
guys, what about keeping OS, page file, all applications, etc. on one partition (20gb); all other files such as mp3s, movies and some other junk on the second partition(30gb) and have the third one for project files only... (30gb)

that's my current setup. i guess it's not the most perfect setup but i just don't feel like backuping and copying everything to some other hdd just to change the size of my partitions or to add one.... does it have such a huge impact on the performance? will having two small partitions, one for os and one for pagefile, change that much??

singularity2006
06-10-2004, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by dirty
guys, what about keeping OS, page file, all applications, etc. on one partition (20gb); all other files such as mp3s, movies and some other junk on the second partition(30gb) and have the third one for project files only... (30gb)

That works fine enough I suppose. I keep them separate myself just so that the frequent accessing of applications doesn't cause fragmentation in the same drive the OS is on.

brudney
06-10-2004, 05:22 PM
ok thanks.

would it be better to have all the application i use (so maya, pshop, etc.) together with project files on one partition? and os, pagefile, some minor apps like word, winamp, etc. on the other one. or maybe the setup i currently have is good enough...

singularity2006
06-10-2004, 05:29 PM
I would separate the project files and the programs. It's the same concept as separating the programs from the OS partition. The frequent file access and modification will lead to file fragmentation on the app partition, which may reduce performance. If ever at all possible, place project files on a separate physical drive. All other programs on another. Scratch disks can be on the same drive as the programs too, but more performance to a separate drive.... but that's a lot of drives to have... kind of excessive, even for me.

brudney
06-10-2004, 06:01 PM
isn't it better to buy some program for defragmentation, like O&O Defrag (for 50 bucks)?

anyway, i guess i'll stay with the setup i have now. so one partition for all apps, os, page file etc.; one for some different stuff (like mp3s, textures, photos) and one for projects files only... but just until i get myslef another hdd.
thx a lot.

singularity2006
06-10-2004, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by dirty
isn't it better to buy some program for defragmentation, like O&O Defrag (for 50 bucks)?

Oh, most definitely! I would highly recommend Executive Software's Diskeeper Pro! It's the best disk defragmenter I've ever used and tops most anything I've seen from Symantec, for sure! But good file management along with defragmentation programs such as Diskeeper usually means you have to defragment your files far less than you usually need to as opposed to dumping all your stuff on one big drive.

And on another note, having partitions is very helpful too because sometimes if a partition fails, you don't lose everything on the other partitions. Similarly, if you need to format your drive, you can format just the OS partition and not bother backing up your files, which makes things so much more convenient.

gmask
06-10-2004, 06:54 PM
Personally I have tried to avoid partitions.. why .. well in the past .. this was however on the Macintosh.. if a hardrive went sour and had multiple partitions you were less likely to recover files from the secondary partitions.

Anyway I prefer to have seperate harddrives.. it's a bit of a pain to keep programs seperate from the OS. Some programs just seem to not let you easily install them elsewhere but that varies actually maybe it's not thebig of a problem. I need to install a new harddrive soon so maybe I will try putting the programs on a seperate drive this time.

Now that Windows XP uses a temp directory in your user folder by default is it possible to tell the system to use a temp directory on seperate volume? In particular this is a problem with Maya because it writes alot of stuff there and it fill sup my boot drive. Maybe I can tell maya to write elsewhere..

singularity2006
06-10-2004, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by gmask
Now that Windows XP uses a temp directory in your user folder by default is it possible to tell the system to use a temp directory on seperate volume? In particular this is a problem with Maya because it writes alot of stuff there and it fill sup my boot drive. Maybe I can tell maya to write elsewhere..

You bet! right mouse click on "my computer" > properties > advanced > environment variables:

change all values within instances of TMP and TEMP to your desired volume and folder. :thumbsup:

kiri
06-11-2004, 11:04 AM
wow, this thread is getting big..
thanks for the input guys.
just for interest sake, my current setup is

HD0>
C: OS only
D: programs only
E: Project files
Y: swap file partition 1 (1gb)

HD1>
H: Empty Primary partition (4gb) [incase i ever want to dual boot another OS]
Z: swap file partition 2 (1gb)
I: data storage

i put 2 dedicated swap file partitions on seperate physical disks in the hope that it would increase performance.. not sure if it actually does or not, since its kinda hard to test lol

The new HD im putting in is going to replace HD1, so i think ill just keep it roughly the same (but with more space obviously). I was thinking of making another partition just for scratch disk, temp files, internet cache, etc. But not sure how big i should make it..
Not sure if i should move the project files partition to the 2nd volume or not..

anyway, thanks for all the input
:thumbsup:

Tarrbot
06-11-2004, 11:38 AM
I've done the multi-partition thing for ages.

What I normally do after an initial setup is open up the registry editor, search for "programfiles" and change its location to what drive I want my apps installed onto. This will automagically tell apps to install there instead of the default location in Windows.

One note: Some apps are quite stupid and do not make calls to the registry to determine where to be installed. This is rare but it happens and all you have to do is change the directory in the installer to the location you desire.

Hope this helps.

singularity2006
06-11-2004, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by kiri

i put 2 dedicated swap file partitions on seperate physical disks in the hope that it would increase performance.. not sure if it actually does or not, since its kinda hard to test lol


I do believe that when you do multiple swap files, you sort of run on the concept of "the strength of a chain is in its weakest link." Depending what's being paged when, in the least, you will probably get inconsistent pagefile performance since you have them on two drives.

Do this, disable the pagefile on one of the drives and try the other, then vice-versa. Work with some project files for a while and see if you notice a difference. And remember that your pagefile need not be too big and should not always be left alone for Windows to be calculated. The formulas for calculating pagefile are as follows:

Minimum Size = Size of physical RAM x 1.5
Maximum size = Minimum x 2.

In anycase, it gets kind of ridiculous when you are running like 768MB of RAM or greater. Realistically, you won't need anything near that much in pagefile. 512MB is good... I really can't think of a good reason for having a large pagefile. In anycase, there is a very neat registry edit for people with large amounts of RAM:

Start menu > run > "regedit":: browse:: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management\

Double click on "DisablePagingExecutive" and set the value to "1."

What this does is that it disables frequent caching of certain pagefile items (I don't recall which ones) and caches them directly to RAM. This signficantly improves performance if you have either an overloaded pagefile(s) or a lot of unused RAM.

kiri
06-12-2004, 01:00 AM
hey singularity, have you changed the environment variables for the temp folders on your system?
coz i tried to do it, and it seemed to mess a lot of apps up...
ms word, norton antivirus etc... they all seem unable to access the temp folder now...

singularity2006
06-12-2004, 04:58 AM
Originally posted by kiri
hey singularity, have you changed the environment variables for the temp folders on your system?
coz i tried to do it, and it seemed to mess a lot of apps up...
ms word, norton antivirus etc... they all seem unable to access the temp folder now...

oh, lol! I forgot to tell u about that one. You may edit the environment variables but it doesn't mean the system will create the temp folder for you! You gotta create that manually. But yeah, I do that a lot to systems that the kids use at work so they can't install stuff. No temp folder means no temp space to do much of anything. It really messes up the smart alecks. =)

kiri
06-12-2004, 08:53 AM
yeah I actually thought of that and created the folder.. but it still wasent working...
We are talking about the user variables right (C:\documents and settings\username\local settings\Temp\)? not the system variables(C:\windows\temp\)?

singularity2006
06-12-2004, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by kiri
yeah I actually thought of that and created the folder.. but it still wasent working...
We are talking about the user variables right (C:\documents and settings\username\local settings\Temp\)? not the system variables(C:\windows\temp\)?

I'm actually talking about both. For convenience, I changed both to the same folder to keep myself sane. Make sure you have either the right spelling or the right drive letter and all other syntax.

Ice Czar
06-12-2004, 09:23 PM
alot of this has already been covered (especially by singularity2006) but Im kind of busy and a simple cut and paste is alot easier, and contains alot of links to additional info

Ive been working on this for my FAQ and its still a work in progress (any elaborations or corrections are more than welcome ;)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Optimizing Tutorial


Optimizing Introduction
To realize the full potential of your data storage, you need to understand not only the strengths and weakness of your own components, but also how your applications employ them,
where one application requires a certain access to the HDD for best performance, another may do better with the opposite

"The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth
may well be another profound truth." -- Niels Bohr (http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/95oct/nbohr.html)




Optimizing through Partitioning

1st Click Here (http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/geom/tracksZBR-c.html)

That is a representation of Zoned Bit Recording (http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/geom/tracksZBR-c.html), your Partition order starts at the outer edge and works inward, for the purposes of this tutorial we will say each color represents a partition (unless specifically described differently)
the concentric circles represent tracks, and the scetions within a track would be sectors

Since the drive spins at the same speed constantly there are some basic access attributes that would occur if the head\arm (http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/op/act.htm) doesnt jump partitions to access a different part of the disk

Dark Blue, this area will have the highest density of data passing under the head for the given speed, and thus will have the best sustained transfer rate (STR), so the largest files benefit from this placement

Whereas the Innner zone (Red Section) has the fewest sectors and since the rotation is fixed, less data will be passing under the head, so it has the lowest STR
So smaller files, will do relatively well here. or files that the reduced transfer rate doesnt impact the application, like music or media that is just being read, not written in realtime.

<actively working on this descriptor >
Also the file "Density" itself can be an advantage with small files, in comparison to larger files on the outside zones, if they are truely smaller files, the number of files passing under the head could be comparible to the tracks further out, while in the representation the outer tracks have 16 sector (in reality many many more, varies with the capacity of the HDD) in the Red zone that is reduced to nine sectors, this optimization can offset the actual seek time for a given file, since that many more files would be passing under the head for the same rotation <end, >

Now if each color band was a partition any data on that partition would have to be contained to a much smaller area, so regardless of how fragmented it was, the arm and head only have to move through a few degrees of arc to seek it (the access latency), whereas a larger partition (say dark blue through green) might have a part of single file on the outside track (dark blue) and more of it located in towards the green, several degrees more the arm has to move to seek the track(s) and of course any miss with the latency of waiting for it to come around again.

If you picture those basic factors and match the type file being accessed to it you have optimized your disk (seek, latency, sustained transfer rate) that also goes along way towards explaining why keeping a HDD defragmented helps so much
and of course partitions specialized to contain different types of data fragment differently, some barely at all, others (like P2P) alot, but if they are contained, defragmenting them goes faster
Fragmentation and Defragmentation (http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/ntfs/relFrag-c.html)

big contigious files that just need to be accessed once and transfered will do best on the outside edge (or as close to that as possibel) having the highest sustained transfer rate

Swapfiles truely come into their own in a workstation where typically large files are being manipulated in realtime (graphics)
and they are generally located at the outside edge of the disk
review Virtual Memory in XP (http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php)

so far all my links have been to the PCGuide HardDrive Section (its the one repeated as Storagereview's reference section (http://storagereview.com/guide/guide_index.html))
But Id also highly recommend you read As the Disk Spins (http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=699246) @ LostCircuits as it covers all of this much more comprehensively and additional nuances (like queing, command overhead ect)

also review these basic terms of performance metrics
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/perf/spec/pos.htm

Access Time = Command Overhead Time (http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/perf/spec/posOverhead-c.html) + Seek Time (http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/perf/spec/posSeek-c.html) + Settle Time (http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/perf/spec/posSettle-c.html) + Latency (http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/perf/spec/posLatency-c.html)


Virtual Memory in Windows XP (http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php) @ aumha
Multiple Pagefiles (http://www.storagereview.com/php/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=MultiplePagefiles) @ Storagereview FAQ
all in all, the mantra more RAM still applies :p


Optimizing Physical Configuration
being on the same channel there are a few considerations

IDE\ATA\ATAPI is sequential
meaning first the HDD reads a part of the file until the HDD's Cache is full then writes it to the Second HDD,
then that repeats each taking its own turn
then its unlikely its reading the file from a single location, its probably fragmented, and when it writing it, its also writing it to multiple locations, that introduces the latency and access times of both drives into it

if your going to be transfering alot of data inbetween two HDDs on a regular basis, its best if they are on their own channels, writing from a HDD to a Optical drive is alot better, the optical can only deal with a maximum of 33MB/s Burst (UDMA mode2) whereas the HDD is probably at UDMA mode5 100MB/s burst (50>30MB/s Sustained), in short the sequential issues arent enought to effect the burn speed with modern software (and reads arent really an issue either) both cant saturate the bus

of course those are just interface speeds and are not the sole consideration of HDD performance > As the Disc Spins (http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=699246) @ Lost Circuits

there is a myth about putting optical drives on the same channel as HDDs, it is just that a myth, but it keeps getting reinforced by the way Windows deals with ATA\ATAPI issues
basically with Independent Device Timing (http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/if/ide/confTiming.html) two devices (master\slave) both transfer their data at their own highest speed, but, they both either have to be PIO (which is glacially slow) or UDMA, if one defaults to PIO because of some issue, Windows will default the other as well. There was a time when CDROMs where only PIO, and HDDs where DMA, for that period of history you didnt want to share a channel, but modern opticals are UDMA mode2 so there is rarely any issue

some of the reasons a device might default to PIO
DMA Mode for ATA/ATAPI Devices in Windows XP (http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hwdev/tech/storage/ide-dma.mspx)

however if possible it is ideal
(for data integrity if nothing else)
to have each device as a master on its own channel

whenever possible consider from what source to what target the large files are being transfer on a regular basis,
and try to adapt your physical configuration to accommodate that ;)

Optimizing the File System

Optimizing RAID

Optimizing for Specific Applications
Desktops \ Games
Servers \ Database
Servers \ FTP
Workstations \ Graphics

gmask
06-12-2004, 09:35 PM
So when you create partitions are they allways written from the ide out or from the outside in? I'm assuming that if it was from the outside in that perhaps the first partitions should be OS then programs and lastly on the outside Swap Space. I woudl allways want my project fiels on a seperate HD alltogether.

Ice Czar
06-12-2004, 10:00 PM
always from the outside in
so if you want a swapfile on the outside (in a dedicated partition)
you need to use Partition Magic or another 3rd party ap to relocate the partitions (If youve already installed the OS)



the main thing Norton Speed Disk used to do was move the swapfile to the outer edge of the HDD (back in the Win9X days) but still in the OS partition

a link not included in the above Inside Memory Management Part 1 (http://www.winntmag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=3686&pg=1) & 2 (http://www.winntmag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?IssueID=58&ArticleID=3774)

singularity2006
06-13-2004, 05:54 PM
That's an incredibly refreshing post, Ice! Love the technical detail; gives me a much better understanding of what's going on in the hardware. :thumbsup:

singularity2006
06-14-2004, 07:16 PM
Hey Ice, along the same lines.... what would the hard drive do in this situation?:

Installing Win2K Pro and the initial partitions are not present. The partitions are created as follows:

2GB: unformatted
5GB: (OS)
XGB: unformatted

Windows never assigns the drive letters until the drive is formatted. So what if I force 2K to format the 5GB partition and install it on the second partition. Will that be created on the outside ring of the platter or the inner ring? I was thinking why not format it like the above to create a pagefile and then the OS and apps and files each flow inward on the platter. Kind of get the idea? Probably strict marginal performance there, but would it work?

Ice Czar
06-17-2004, 07:09 AM
not sure Ive never done it that way
worth a shot though ;)

also worth a read > Optimizing Disks (http://www.windowsitlibrary.com/Content/435/07/1.html) @ Windows IT Library (Windows & .NET)

you did say you loved technical detail

Im attempting to internalize it, cross reference it to potential changes since it was written (XP) balance it against 3rd party aps (like advanced defragmentors that will organize daata by various parameters) and translate it into laymans terms understandable to a 14 year old gamer :p
(while not exactly a median member in my forum, would be close to the lowest common denominator)

PS at that level, NT refers to all things NTFS, (NT\W2K\XP)
and while there has been a slight change in NTFS since that was written its more slight optimizations of memory management \ the pagefile, and alot of that is covered in the Virtual Memory in XP link above

singularity2006
06-17-2004, 07:47 AM
nice... I'm gonna have fun chewing on this one for a while... :thumbsup:

lukx
06-20-2004, 05:23 PM
this is interesting thread.
I have 2048 MB of RAM. so my pagefile should be
minimum= 3072 MB
maximum= 6144 MB
And now HD
I got one 120GB SATA
and second 40GB
so is this conf. good?
1)HD part
C: OS - 5GB
D: Programs - 20GB
E: Project Files - 88GB
F: Swap file - 7GB
2)HD part
G: Data storage - 40GB

I think that this pagefile thing is quite big. Sould I leave it that way?

singularity2006
06-21-2004, 04:58 AM
I think that this pagefile thing is quite big. Sould I leave it that way?y0ikes. That is clearly too huge..... what I would recommend is that since u have such a huge amount of RAM, you can force certain pages to RAM instead of to the pagefile. There is a registry edit u can apply to this. HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CURRENTCONTROLSET\CONTROL\SESSION MANAGER\MEMORY MANAGEMENT

"DisablePagingExecutive." Set the value to 1.

Your pagefile is supposed to be a spillover for your RAM if the system cannot entirely page stuff to RAM. I would definitely say that you can most likely set your pagefile as low as 64MB or even 128MB just for use to store the data addresses for the paging data that is on RAM. Remember that you CANNOT set your pagefile to 0 because even if you have lotsa RAM, the system must in the least, be able to store the address tables of data paged to RAM in the pagefile on the hard disk. For windows, that's why it sets a minimum pagefile of 2MB if you do try to set it to 0.

BUT YEAH... dude, that's a HUGE freaking pagfile... lol. U really don't need it THAT big....

lukx
06-21-2004, 05:23 AM
Thank you singularity2006 for the tip.
So I also don't need F partition right?

singularity2006
06-21-2004, 09:00 AM
Thank you singularity2006 for the tip.
So I also don't need F partition right?
doing that pagefile tweak above, that's entirely up to u. I still recommend my following 4 partition setup:

c: OS
d: pagefile
e: apps
f: files

lukx
06-21-2004, 09:05 AM
so how big should be my pagefile partition?
1gb? or less. I did your registry tweak and now set minimum pagefile to 64MB
and maximum to 128.

lukx
06-21-2004, 09:06 AM
oh! and is it important that my pagfile is on partition d just after my os partition?

singularity2006
06-21-2004, 04:39 PM
oh! and is it important that my pagfile is on partition d just after my os partition?
yep, that's why that partition was created in the first place. ^^

By mixing the pagefile w/ the OS, fragmentation will occur on the same volume as the OS, which may degrade performance.

lukx
06-21-2004, 05:06 PM
and what about the size of pagefile partition in my case? this 1GB is enough or too big if I'm using only 64 to 128 pagefile?

singularity2006
06-21-2004, 05:22 PM
and what about the size of pagefile partition in my case? this 1GB is enough or too big if I'm using only 64 to 128 pagefile?
yeah, 1GB is more than enough RAM for paging use. And the small pagefile works too.

lukx
06-21-2004, 05:37 PM
oki doki so to sum up:

HD1 (120GB)
c: OS 5GB
d: Pagefile 1GB
e: Apps 20GB
f: Files 94GB

HD2 (40GB)
g: Files 40GB

singularity2006
06-21-2004, 09:56 PM
oki doki so to sum up:

HD1 (120GB)
c: OS 5GB
d: Pagefile 1GB
e: Apps 20GB
f: Files 94GB

HD2 (40GB)
g: Files 40GB
hmmm.. since u have a second hard drive, i would recommend doing this:

HD1:
c: OS
d: pagefile
e: apps

HD2: files

I would do it this way just because it makes it easier to manage files. HAving stuff all over the place gets kind of ... difficult to manage. In my own situation, by keeping all the files separate from everything else, I can safely just format C: without having to backup everything on F. I rarely ever re-partition a drive after I'm done w/ it. Just format and re-install and gooooooo....

lukx
06-21-2004, 10:02 PM
well I thought about it but... my 120GB drive is SATA and I don't want to loose all it's place for apps cause true is that I don't have so many of them. And I don't think that putting my OS and Apps on slower drive (40GB) is good idea.

rabidtongue
06-22-2004, 08:52 AM
is partitioning advisable if you use a RAID 0 (2 80GB SATA drives) setup? if it is, does these partition configuration

HD1:
c: OS
d: pagefile
e: apps

HD2: files

also apply or would you recommend another partition configuration..

Tarrbot
06-22-2004, 01:36 PM
I would never EVER advise using a RAID 0 configuration for an OS partition. Not even an app partition.

RAID 0 is not advisable for any data which you ever want to keep long-term.

RAID 0 is a much less reliable component than any single hard drive. You have (minimum) of three components which can die on you at any given time vs one component dying.

RAID 0 is aptly named because it has zero redundancy.

lukx
06-22-2004, 01:47 PM
I also don't trust RAID.

Tarrbot
06-22-2004, 02:10 PM
RAID in and of itself is fine. RAID (Redundant Array of Independent Disks ... some say Inexpensive Disks but whatever) is designed for multiple purposes. RAID 0 is only designes for speed... nothing else. There is no redundancy of data so any time a drive dies, a stripe breaks or a stray beam from God hits your computer... data... dies... most... horribly.

Unless backup measures are taken, RAID 0 is absolutely playing with fire when used as a system drive (apps, OS, long-term data storage). RAID 0 is designed for video production. To enable higher transfer rates on video streams with no dropped frames.

With drives becoming faster and faster, RAID 0 is becoming pointless. Unless you're dealing with high definition video (which most people aren't), RAID 0 is pointless.

Now, RAID 1, 5, 10, 01 and 50 are useful for data redundancy. But again, that's another story. :)

Just be very aware that RAID 0 is not designed for data storage and that even RAID 5 arrays aren't true backup solutions and things will be very fine.

lukx
06-22-2004, 03:27 PM
I'm wondering how should partition look like if I would like to have to OS.
Can it be something like this?:
HD1 (120GB)
c: OS (WinXP) 5GB
d: Pagefile 1GB
e: OS (Linux) 5GB (I think that I don't need so much space for liniux(I'm new to this OS so tell me if I'm worng)
f: Apps 20GB
g: Files 94GB

HD2 (40GB)
h: Files 40GB

Do I need pagefile partition for Linux also?
Do I need another partiton for Linux apps?
Maybe it should look like that:

HD1 (120GB)
c: OS (WinXP) 5GB
d: Pagefile 1GB
e: OS (Linux) 5GB (I think that I don't need so much space for liniux(I'm new to this OS so tell me if I'm worng)
f: Apps (WinXP) 20GB
g: Apps (Linux) 5GB
h: Files 84GB

HD2 (40GB)
i: Files 40GB

rabidtongue
06-23-2004, 02:34 AM
thanks for the warning...good thing i haven't setup a RAID 0 array yet but i was planning to because i am into a little bit video editing myself...

CGTalk Moderation
01-18-2006, 10:00 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.