Specialty Forums
Security and Virus
General Hardware
CPUs/Overclocking
Networking
Digital Photo/Video
Office Software
PC Gaming
Console Gaming
Programming
Database
Web Development
Digital Home

General Forums
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows 95/98
Windows Me
Windows NT
Windows 2000
Win Server 2008
Win Server 2003
Windows 3.1
Linux
PDAs
BeOS
Novell Netware
OpenVMS
Solaris
Disk Op. System
Unix
Mac
OS/2

Drivers
Driver Scan
Driver Forum

Software
Automatic Updates

BIOS Updates

My Computing.Net

Solution Center

Free IT eBook

Howtos

Site Search

Message Find

RSS Feeds

Install Guides

Data Recovery

About

Home
Reply to Message Icon Go to Main Page Icon

Smaller HD space = faster?

Original Message
Name: Greatgamer
Date: April 4, 2008 at 06:24:53 Pacific
Subject: Smaller HD space = faster?
OS: XP
CPU/Ram: AMd 5600 2GB
Comment:
Hello, over the years I have noticed that when I upgraded to a new harddrive that had better specs such as more cache but nearly double the HD capacity, the seek times seem longer. I went from a WD 72GB SATA with 8MB cache to a 300 GB WD SATA with 16 MB cache and the newer 300GB model seems to take a lot longer for defragmenting, virus scans, and transferring files.

I am thinking about going back to my 72GB. Plus I play a lot of games and even with every program I have installed on my drive I barely use no more than 30GB of space. I guess all of the guys who need big harddrives just thrown all HD movies and songs on their HD? Thanks.


Report Offensive Message For Removal


Response Number 1
Name: OtheHill
Date: April 4, 2008 at 08:04:43 Pacific
Subject: Smaller HD space = faster?
Reply: (edit)
The main reason for using multiple partitions IMO is that you have more flexible options for backups and restorations. If the need to re-image your OS partition arises you can do that without a need to touch any other partitions and the image is much smaller. That is not to say you shouldn't also create images of the other partitions. You just may not need to use those images.

Of course when performing disk maintenence a smaller partition will take less time to scan and defrag. Your other partitions will require disk maintenence less frequently.


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 2
Name: jam
Date: April 4, 2008 at 08:34:55 Pacific
Subject: Smaller HD space = faster?
Reply: (edit)
You didn't state how you have either of your drives partitioned. IMO, you should have a minimum of 3...a relatively small one for the OS, one for programs & one for storage. If the 300GB HDD is setup as one huge partition, of course it's gonna take longer to run maintenance utilities.

http://partition.radified.com/


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 3
Name: jefro
Date: April 4, 2008 at 09:17:28 Pacific
Subject: Smaller HD space = faster?
Reply: (edit)
What sort of test did you use to find this data?

I read it wrong and answer it wrong too. So get off my case you peanut.


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 4
Name: Greatgamer
Date: April 4, 2008 at 09:18:36 Pacific
Subject: Smaller HD space = faster?
Reply: (edit)
Hmm yes I use two hardddrives and the second is used for storage while my main drive is for the OS and programs. So only OS on the small drive, programs on the second drive, and storage for the third would be a large performance increase? Would this help with load time as well or just scans/defragging? Thanks!

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 5
Name: Greatgamer
Date: April 4, 2008 at 09:28:59 Pacific
Subject: Smaller HD space = faster?
Reply: (edit)
"What sort of test did you use to find this data?"

Just a visual inspection so that is why I created this topic to confirm this. It seems like the larger the HD space the slower it is when performing certain tasks.


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal


Response Number 6
Name: Greatgamer
Date: April 4, 2008 at 10:19:19 Pacific
Subject: Smaller HD space = faster?
Reply: (edit)
Hello Jam I see what you are referring to yeah i only have one main partition. I always thought partitions were only for multiple operation systems but I see from your tutorial link that you can separate different things into partitions. I will have to learn how to do this. I guess this is good for in case I get a virus or PC acts weird I can just format the partition that contains all of the programs and keep the OS in tact eh?

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 7
Name: aegis
Date: April 4, 2008 at 10:30:27 Pacific
Subject: Smaller HD space = faster?
Reply: (edit)
Usually it's the OS partition that needs formatting and reinstalling. So you want to keep it small and keep it backed up (imaged).

Not that you don't need your other data backed up.


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 8
Name: Greatgamer
Date: April 4, 2008 at 10:38:21 Pacific
Subject: Smaller HD space = faster?
Reply: (edit)
Ok thanks. Man it is going to take me a while to read all of this and know which approach to take. Do I have to reinstall windows and create separate partitions there? Because I do not see unallocated space in the Windows Disk Management page.

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 9
Name: JackDog
Date: April 4, 2008 at 14:29:55 Pacific
Subject: Smaller HD space = faster?
Reply: (edit)
hi mate,
"Do I have to reinstall windows and create separate partitions there?"
IMHO prob the best way to go. allow 20Gb for the XP System partition C: and BACKUP your present personal data FIRST. then boot from XP CD

you wont regret partitioning. as Jam mentioned, your maintenance tasks such as defraging will be lightening quicker to perform overall compared to one big C: partition. some partitions will not need defraging as much as others (if at all !)

Jam is spot on >>>> set up 3 partitions eg 1. OS Systems 2. your installed programs and data 3. Backup. try to avoid over-partitioning....keep it simple.

read >>>> http://partition.radified.com/parti...

EDIT: if you can imagine 3 HDD partitions as being 3 drawers ina cabinet in an office with each drawer having similar type files in their manilla folders. its quicker to access and retrieve a file in that cabinet than having one big drawer in that cabinet. its more efficient.

partitioning a HDD and the no. of partitions is a personal thing. what is correct/efficient for one system maybe incorrect to another user and his/her system.

.
Central Coast NSW Aussie

There are 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary and those who don't.


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 10
Name: Greatgamer
Date: April 4, 2008 at 15:37:12 Pacific
Subject: Smaller HD space = faster?
Reply: (edit)
Great thanks :) Actually I feel better using my second harddrive as a backup since years ago my HD failed and I lost everything so I plan to have it as 1. OS 2. Programs 3. Gaming and then use second HD as backups and other misc storage. Thanks!

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 11
Name: OtheHill
Date: April 4, 2008 at 15:45:01 Pacific
Subject: Smaller HD space = faster?
Reply: (edit)
IMO the safest backups are to optical disk. They can't fail. only get damaged. As long as you maintain at least two copies of everything. Should make copies of your software install CDs too.

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 12
Name: Greatgamer
Date: April 4, 2008 at 16:26:49 Pacific
Subject: Smaller HD space = faster?
Reply: (edit)
Just so I make sure I understand... Following this manual:

http://www.theeldergeek.com/hard_dr...

Once I install Windows XP when I go to Disk Management I will then automatically see the additional partitions there and when I install new programs or games I make sure to choose that partition letter to install the game correct? Just making sure I do not go through everything and leave out an important part. Thanks!


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 13
Name: OtheHill
Date: April 4, 2008 at 16:50:39 Pacific
Subject: Smaller HD space = faster?
Reply: (edit)
The easiest method is to simply create ONE boot partition and install WinXP to that partition leaving the remaining space unallocated. Then after WinXP is up and running you go to Disk Management and create any additional partitions there and then format them. I recommend that you use all primary partitions. That allows more flexibility in the future. You may even want 4 or more partitions with a 300GB. Depends on wheather you have any interest in other OSes. I am not sure if WinXP will allow you to have more than 4 primary partitions on one physical drive. That used to be the maximum under the old DOS rules.

You can re-assign any drive letter other than the boot partition. So if you wish to change letters you should perform that action prior to installing any additional software. To re-assign a letter currently in use you simply temporarily assign an unused letter to the drive you need to free up. Then assign that letter to the drive you want to have that letter. Hope that is clear.

Just be sure to think about that prior to installing programs. Changing a drive letter will render any installed program unusable and will require a reinstall of that program.

I recommend C: for the OS, D: for your programs, E: for whatever. F: for your optical drive. Should you have more than one optical drive then continue the lettering using the next available letter. Be sure not to have any external or flash drives connected during this process. Your removable drives will automatically use the first available letter. If you have them connected while configuring you will change the fixed drive letter assignment when you disconnect them.


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 14
Name: Greatgamer
Date: April 4, 2008 at 17:00:27 Pacific
Subject: Smaller HD space = faster?
Reply: (edit)
Thanks a lot. People say to use 20GB of space for the OS but considering that my whole HD usage with programs and all is only using 18GB, I assume it is ok to set OS to 10GB instead?

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 15
Name: JackDog
Date: April 4, 2008 at 18:16:05 Pacific
Subject: Smaller HD space = faster?
Reply: (edit)
"Thanks a lot. People say to use 20GB of space for the OS but considering that my whole HD usage with programs and all is only using 18GB, I assume it is ok to set OS to 10GB instead?"

once again its a personal thing about the size of C: Systems partition. 10Gb nothing wrong with that. Heck, i used to run XPHSP2 with all updates, security, progams, games, data ona one partition only 15Gb capacity HDD. and it ran brilliant.

you have to remember that after your initial install of XP ona 10Gb C: it will bloat a bit with the XP updates and files >>> files from other programs on other partitions that are mandatorily installed to C:

.
Central Coast NSW Aussie

There are 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary and those who don't.


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 16
Name: OtheHill
Date: April 4, 2008 at 19:16:11 Pacific
Subject: Smaller HD space = faster?
Reply: (edit)
And then there is the swap file.

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 17
Name: Greatgamer
Date: April 4, 2008 at 19:21:36 Pacific
Subject: Smaller HD space = faster?
Reply: (edit)
Sorry for the bother but could anyone please respond to my other topic:

http://www.computing.net/hardware/w...

I have two harddrives and when I tried to setup a partition it disabled my ability to boot windows. So I reinstalled windows temporarily on another HD and am trying to recover my files from the original HD but I get a "Hd is not formatted" message when trying to access it. Please tell me how I can copy those files from the other HD or I will lose 7 years worth of data :(


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal



Use following form to reply to current message:

   Name: From My Computing.Net Settings
 E-Mail: From My Computing.Net Settings

Subject: Smaller HD space = faster?

Comments:

 
  Homepage URL (*): 
Homepage Title (*): 
         Image URL: 
 


Data Recovery Software




Slow boot time

Trasnferring Documents from old HD

My k8T Neo-v usb's aren't working!

Date Modified = Date Created Time

system files on removable harddrive


The information on Computing.Net is the opinions of its users. Such opinions may not be accurate and they are to be used at your own risk. Computing.Net cannot verify the validity of the statements made on this site. Computing.Net and Computing.Net, LLC hereby disclaim all responsibility and liability for the content of Computing.Net and its accuracy.
PLEASE READ THE FULL DISCLAIMER AND LEGAL TERMS BY CLICKING HERE

All content ©1996-2007 Computing.Net, LLC