Partition hard drive (efficiency)

November 7, 2006 at 06:51:47
Specs: win xp pro, 1.6/512 DDR2
Hello,

My hard disk is 120gb.

I am wondering what is the best way to partition for the best performance and security.

Currently I have a C drive for my windows o/s, D for my data, and E for my programs.

I have been told to add another small partition for the page file, as this will improve performance.

However, someone told me that having your o/s and programs on the same partition is better performance and the o/s can use these programs better if they are on the same parition. And also when removing the programs it will remove everything if they are on the same partition.

Can anyone give any views on which is the best method. I think everyone has their own idea on what is best. However, nice to get some second ideas from you guys.

Thank in advance,

Steve


See More: Partition hard drive (efficiency)

Report •


#1
November 7, 2006 at 07:20:51
here's a guide about sizing:

http://www.theeldergeek.com/sizing_...

in addition to that, yes it makes sense to have a separate partition for the pagefile, however, a small pagefile should still be left on the system partition.

"However, someone told me that having your o/s and programs on the same partition is better performance and the o/s can use these programs better if they are on the same parition." maybe so ... but that's marginal

"And also when removing the programs it will remove everything if they are on the same partition." NO ... the uninstaller will work with the same (in)efficiency regardless of the program location.

but having system and programs on separate partitions doesn't really make sense, in case of a destructive system restore, you'll have to re-install them again.

my suggestion: first a small partition for the bootfiles and the main pagefile (4gb should be sufficient (this will put the pagefile at the beginning of the drive which will improve performance), then a partition for your OS and software and last but not leqast the storage partition(s) sized to your likings.

Today's subliminal thought is: 'Calm down ... it's only ones and zeros.'

icq 10183575


Report •

#2
November 7, 2006 at 07:36:31
I have been told to add another small partition for the page file, as this will improve performance

It's a myth. Quoted:

In reality, moving the Pagefile to a different partition on the same physical hard disk drive does not improve performance. Simply using a different partition on the same drive will result in lots more head-seeking activity, as the drive jumps between the Windows and page file partitions.

i_XpUser


Report •

#3
November 7, 2006 at 07:44:06
I think everyone has their own idea on what is best

Why bother ask us for our idea?

i_XpUser


Report •

Related Solutions

#4
November 7, 2006 at 08:21:31
"I think everyone has their own idea on what is best

Why bother ask us for our idea?"

The reason I asked this was to see what other peoples ideas where, to share some knowledge.

Steve


Report •

#5
November 7, 2006 at 09:27:34
my suggestion: first a small partition for the bootfiles and the main pagefile (4gb should be sufficient (this will put the pagefile at the beginning of the drive which will improve performance)

Mattie: Making a separate partition for boot files is not worth the effort. Back in the old days we did that when multibooting DOS with NT. This way all boot files for all OS's could share one FAT partition and changes could be made with regard to OS's without wrecking the bootup for any other resident OS's.

Ok having said that, the only way I know of improving performance by moving the pagefile is to move it to another partition on another hardrive that is on another controller.

Moving the pagefile to another partition on the same drive will not improve performance as others have stated above.

If you have another HDD, on another controller and plan on moving the pagefile to that drive, you will want that pagefile partition to be the first partition on that drive.

I always partition my drives. My previous system had multiple HDD's. I had my pagefile moved to a separate HDD on a separate controller from the OS HDD. The HDD with my OS on it was partitioned with 10 GB's for my OS and the rest for data and applications.

My Present system has a single 250 GB SATA HDD. I have the first 50 GB's set for my OS and the rest for data and app's. My reason for doing it this way in either case is, when defragging it takes a lot less time to defrag a smaller partition than a big one (ie: 50 GB's vs 250 GB's). Since the OS has a lot of changes on a day-to-day basis, it requires more regular defragging than the data/app partition. In fact, once I've installed everything and done a defrag, the data/app partition rarely requires defragging.

As to backup/restore....well, if your system pukes and you have to reinstall it's not a big issue as I backup regularly. I reinstall the OS, restore with my most recent backup (at most, 1 week old) and voila, everything is back and I don't have to reinstall all my app's.


Report •

#6
November 7, 2006 at 11:26:49
""I have been told to add another small partition for the page file, as this will improve performance""
"It's a myth."

XP installs a swap file on every hard drive partition, so for that reason alone using a designated partition for a swap file if you have more than one partition otherwise is not effective for XP because it has more than one swap file.

As far as Win ME and below to Win 95 is concerned, designating a specific partition for the swap file can be very effective because there is only one swap file no matter how many partitions you have. While you do lose a tiny bit of time accessing the designated partition for the swap file all the time, your C drive gets fragmented at a much slower rate, the swap file on the designated partition is never fragmented while a default swap file on C usually is, and I have found your overall performance over time isn't impacted all that much by having the swap file on a designated partition.

I have tried Win 98SE with and without a designated partition for the swap file, and if anything the overall performance of the system over time is a little better with the designated partition, and you certianly don't need to Defrag C as often.
I currently using 98SE with a 200mb designated partition for the swap file - it could be a little bigger, say 300mb, for some purposes, but most of the time the swap file is much less than 200mb in size.


Report •

#7
November 7, 2006 at 12:11:48
'Making a separate partition for boot files is not worth the effort.' what effort? i create a partition in no time! :-)

the reason for that is to place your pagefile at the very beginning of the hard drive where you can expect maximum performance (the laws of physics).

Today's subliminal thought is: 'Calm down ... it's only ones and zeros.'

icq 10183575


Report •

#8
November 7, 2006 at 12:30:24
"the reason for that is to place your pagefile at the very beginning of the hard drive where you can expect maximum performance (the laws of physics)."

You could do that if you like but it would only make a tiny bit of difference.
The major reason is so that the swap file is in one piece (it is never fragmented) and to slow down the accumulation of fragmentaion on the partition(s).



Report •

#9
November 7, 2006 at 14:12:20
As security improves speed slows down.

Consider a single partition formatted in NTFS.

Use a good backup plan or an image plan as well as other best practices to avoid data loss.

That is my best advice.


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


Report •

#10
November 7, 2006 at 15:32:38
I recommend at least a small second partition to back up what you don't want to lose if you need to wipe the Windows partition in future.

Report •


Ask Question