Associate
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 586
- Location
- Cornwall
What benefit do you get from partitioning, and why do so many people put a small-ish partition on a hard drive for the o/s ?
Really basic question - what and why partition a hard drive ?
- Thread starter steveinspain
- Start date
The main reason is it logically separates the data on the disk. With a separate OS partition you can format it and reinstall the OS without touching any other partitions on the disk thereby retaining any data on them.
A side benefit is that by restricting the OS to a small partition at the start of the disk you can, assuming you don't access any data outside the OS partition, get a slight performance improvement due to the reduced HDD head movement.
A side benefit is that by restricting the OS to a small partition at the start of the disk you can, assuming you don't access any data outside the OS partition, get a slight performance improvement due to the reduced HDD head movement.
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 586
- Location
- Cornwall
What a brilliant reply - many thanks !
So, what sort of size ought I to be thinking about, and what do I call the partition. Do I keep all my programs there, or just the o/s ?
I am using vista home premium.
So, what sort of size ought I to be thinking about, and what do I call the partition. Do I keep all my programs there, or just the o/s ?
I am using vista home premium.
I have an OS partition of around 35 gigs. This is just for Windows and for small programs. Most of my software is installed on the next partition. Then at the end of the drive (the slowest part, due to the distance the disk head has to travel) I keep my least accessed stuff, or stuff where speed isn't a big issue - eg. driver files, pics, mp3 music, videos etc.
How big you make the partitions depends on the size of your drive and how much space suits your needs.
How big you make the partitions depends on the size of your drive and how much space suits your needs.
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2006
- Posts
- 375
- Location
- Chepstow, Wales
Nothin to gain from by having progs on a different drive or partition.......
Windows defaults to drive C for files when installing software.
A lot of progs do not let you install anywhere but the boot drive.
For XP, I find about 17GBs does, and for Vista, 35GBs; so once that partition is made and OS installed (Windows + Programs folders), the other partition can also have another form of "partition" ie. folders, which are basically "containers" with data in them....
I find that with the OS on a separate partition, fragmentation is also considerably reduced.
I find that with the OS on a separate partition, fragmentation is also considerably reduced.
Apart from the obvious reasons for partitioning (e.g. multi-booting different OS-es), there are benefits in restricting different types of data to different areas of the disk. One thing that is almost always overlooked (even by professional server builders, but that is a rant for another time) is that the front of the disk is typically around 2x faster than the back of the disk. Yes, you read that right - 1st cylinder is typically about 2x faster than the last cylinder on a 3.5in disk. Thus, it makes sense to put frequently used data at the front of the disk (e.g. OS, swap file/partition), while keeping bulk data that doesn't need to be read particularly fast or frequently (e.g. various media files) in the slow area of the disk.
For the benefit of those not familiar with the difference in speed between the front and the back of the disk, this is to do with the way the sectors on the disk are actually laid out. In the olden days, the sectors were just an angular slice on the disk, and the number of sectors on the inside cylinder was the same as the number of sectors on the outside cylinder. It wasn't long before the disks got advanced enough and reliable enough for the manufacturers to start taking advantage of the fact that the circumference of the outer cylinder is typically about 2x greater than the circumference of the inner cylinder. This meant that 2x more sectors could be packed onto the outer cylinder. Since the Cylinder/Head/Sector (CHS) geometry could be transparently translated from linear (what the BIOS/OS expect) to logical (variable number of sectors/cylinder depending on the cylinder) by the drive's on-board controller, this meant bigger disks through better utilization of the magnetic medium. The side-effect was that the outer cylinders have more sectors, which means that for one revolution of the disc, more heads go under the heads, which means that more data can be read/written per revolution on the outer cylinders.
On 2.5in disks the difference is typically smaller (because the difference in the circumference between the outer cylinder and the inner cylinder is smaller), so their performance tends to be more consistent across the disk. And needless to say, this in no way applies to SSDs.
For the benefit of those not familiar with the difference in speed between the front and the back of the disk, this is to do with the way the sectors on the disk are actually laid out. In the olden days, the sectors were just an angular slice on the disk, and the number of sectors on the inside cylinder was the same as the number of sectors on the outside cylinder. It wasn't long before the disks got advanced enough and reliable enough for the manufacturers to start taking advantage of the fact that the circumference of the outer cylinder is typically about 2x greater than the circumference of the inner cylinder. This meant that 2x more sectors could be packed onto the outer cylinder. Since the Cylinder/Head/Sector (CHS) geometry could be transparently translated from linear (what the BIOS/OS expect) to logical (variable number of sectors/cylinder depending on the cylinder) by the drive's on-board controller, this meant bigger disks through better utilization of the magnetic medium. The side-effect was that the outer cylinders have more sectors, which means that for one revolution of the disc, more heads go under the heads, which means that more data can be read/written per revolution on the outer cylinders.
On 2.5in disks the difference is typically smaller (because the difference in the circumference between the outer cylinder and the inner cylinder is smaller), so their performance tends to be more consistent across the disk. And needless to say, this in no way applies to SSDs.
Last edited:
Very few programs don't let you change the install path to wherever you want. I think I can remember it happening to me once.
Also read gordan's post above - the start of the drive is the quickest so that's where you want your OS.
Easier to back-up or copy/clone & or format (when Windows starts acting up) are the main reasons I partition.
OS & programs reside in 1 (about 40GB on Vista), 'My Documents' on another, videos & music each gets its own partition. Have a 'Temp' one as the first partition on the second HD for the Pagefile.
OS & programs reside in 1 (about 40GB on Vista), 'My Documents' on another, videos & music each gets its own partition. Have a 'Temp' one as the first partition on the second HD for the Pagefile.
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 586
- Location
- Cornwall
Yet more great replies - thanks !
So, given that I have 2x 1tb hard drives plus a 160gb I might be best off using the smallest for the O/S and programs, then the ohers for my photos and my music - I don't need the utmost speed, but want to keep things simple. I currently am re-using an old copy of xp but have vista home premium coming soon, so will install the 3rd HD then, and can then leave xp untill I know all is working fine.
Next question - multi-booting and different o/s - why ?
So, given that I have 2x 1tb hard drives plus a 160gb I might be best off using the smallest for the O/S and programs, then the ohers for my photos and my music - I don't need the utmost speed, but want to keep things simple. I currently am re-using an old copy of xp but have vista home premium coming soon, so will install the 3rd HD then, and can then leave xp untill I know all is working fine.
Next question - multi-booting and different o/s - why ?
I'm not dual booting at present, but it's the first time in a while I haven't.
I used to so that I could try a new OS such as Linux without making the full move away from Windows. I've done this a few times but always come back to Windows for gaming.
Not at all. The 160 gig is probably not as fast as the two 1TB drives is it? You could run a benchmark program like HDTach (google it, it's free) to test this. (Modern drives are faster because they have greater density, meaning the drive head doesn't need to move as far) The 1TB drives probably have a read speed in the region of 100MB/sec at the start of the drive and I doubt the 160 gig one gets near that.
I question whether you even need to keep the 160gig one in your system if you have 2 x 1TB. I would put a small OS partition on one of those. I would probably also put a larger partition at the start of the second disk for my programs.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 586
- Location
- Cornwall
Hmm - good point.
As you can tell from my questions, I am very new to all this, and really do appreciate all the help I am getting !
The 160 is an older HD, so maybe I will just keep the two larger ones in with a partition for the O/S.
As you can tell from my questions, I am very new to all this, and really do appreciate all the help I am getting !
The 160 is an older HD, so maybe I will just keep the two larger ones in with a partition for the O/S.
Because Windows is only good for games, and even though a few games have Linux ports, a lot of the rest still don't work perfectly under Linux/WINE, and most of the new ones won't work with VMware's limited 3D acceleration support.
As mentioned, thanks to new technologies, etc newer (SATA) HDs are much faster. Have a look here.
Yeah those benchmarks also illustrate very well how the speed of a drive falls off during the later stages which is why the OS should be at the beginning.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12955589&postcount=897
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12955589&postcount=897
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 1,357
I have dual booted for as long as I can remember. I used to have 98/Xp combo, now its XP/XP, which will hopefully become XP/Win7 in the future.
I have never understood why more people don`t dual boot, even the same OS.
Except for a full hard drive crash, the second OS gives you an option if you mess up the first and it won`t boot. Sometimes, you may only need internet access for info to fix the problem. Virus removal is also so much easier.
I have never understood why more people don`t dual boot, even the same OS.
Except for a full hard drive crash, the second OS gives you an option if you mess up the first and it won`t boot. Sometimes, you may only need internet access for info to fix the problem. Virus removal is also so much easier.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 9,007
- Location
- Kent
I dohn't currently dual boot, but then I'm getting new HDs soon and it's not worth doing atm... It is useful, but 2x Same OS looks a bit untidy, which is why I don't do it, however it does make a lot of sense to do so. Always useful to have a spare OS. When I have my new HDs I'll dual-boot both XP and Vista.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 1,357
When I built my Dads new PC, I dual booted XP for him. In the boot menu, one was standard, and one said "Emergency Only". If he booted the emergency one, his desktop was a big red cross saying "Make any changes to this partition, and your free PC support will stop !!"
It came In handy over the weekend. He had obviously been somewhere he should not have and was badly infected (The PC that is
)
Having the second OS made removing the rogue software a breeze.
It came In handy over the weekend. He had obviously been somewhere he should not have and was badly infected (The PC that is
)Having the second OS made removing the rogue software a breeze.