What are the advantages of partitioning a hard disk versus letting it remain as it is?
Printable View
What are the advantages of partitioning a hard disk versus letting it remain as it is?
The main reason I can think of is if you need to re-install your OS, it makes it a helluva a lot easier if you install it in its own partition, as this allows you to keep all your data etc on another partition, hence saving laborious back up type jibbling.
You don't necessarily have to format the partition to reinstall an OS.
Anyway, it was an issue with older file systems, but just use NTFS or FAT32 and you'll be grand :)
Yeah, but when I format, it's usually because the PC is buggered beyond all measure, so formatting is pretty much a given :p
I have my family PCs (5) HDs all partitioned as
System, Swap, Data, Library.
Where System is basically the OS and most installed apps,
Swap is 1/2GB just for the swap file
Data is essentially the dynamic documents etc that we're creating
i.e. the most important stuff that needs to be backed up often.
Library is the big data warehouse, e.g. for online references, music, etc. the big static stuff.
This does several things:
Each partition is a bit more manageable, esp. for backups, compare/updates, scans, defrags etc.
The System and Swap parts don't need to be shared on our net so they're a bit more secure.
Since the Swap file is isolated on its own part it doesn't interfere with defrags on the others and it won't have to fight for space.
Everything's more organized.
And, I think it's faster (not sure). DaveBo
Also, here's a brief exerpt from Partition Magic doc.
Why Use Multiple Partitions?
Many hard disks are formatted as one large partition. This setup, however, doesn’t always
provide the best possible use of your disk space or resources. The alternative is to separate
your hard disk into partitions. Using multiple partitions, you can:
• Install more than one OS on your hard disk;
• Make the most efficient use of your available disk space;
• Make your files as secure as possible;
• Physically separate data so that it is easy to find files and back up data.
Thanks for the input everyone.
One more Q though. I have a low end laptop with 20GB hard drive. (Shuttup, I'm poor), so what should be the sizes of the two partitions I create? Ideally.
1) You can install more than one OS to the same partition - provided they're using compatible file systems.Quote:
Originally posted by DaveBo
Also, here's a brief exerpt from Partition Magic doc.
Why Use Multiple Partitions?
Many hard disks are formatted as one large partition. This setup, however, doesn’t always
provide the best possible use of your disk space or resources. The alternative is to separate
your hard disk into partitions. Using multiple partitions, you can:
• Install more than one OS on your hard disk;
• Make the most efficient use of your available disk space;
• Make your files as secure as possible;
• Physically separate data so that it is easy to find files and back up data.
2) Not true. FAT32 supports drives up to 2TB in size. Very efficient.
3) Not true. Why would you share your entire drive anyway?
4) The data is not physically separated. If the drive crashes, all partitions go.
Above you mentioned that you have a swap file on another partition. I don't know why you would bother with that.
All the data is residing on the same physical drive - so there is no performance gain by putting your swapfile on another partition.
You would see a performance gain by putting the swapfile on another hard-drive.
For example, in my server I have my swapfile on a 8GB SCSI Drive - there's nothing else really on that drive.
Just one FAT32 or NTFS partition.Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
Thanks for the input everyone.
One more Q though. I have a low end laptop with 20GB hard drive. (Shuttup, I'm poor), so what should be the sizes of the two partitions I create? Ideally.
Yes, but the larger the partition size the larger the cluster size, and lots of small files end up taking up a lot of slack space. The Partition Magic docs describe this well.Quote:
2) Not true. FAT32 supports drives up to 2TB in size. Very efficient.
OK, I assume you mean you can share on a folder-by-folder basis, but, sharing by partition can be much simpler. Also, on my family's network we've virtually used up all the drive letters A-Z.Quote:
3) Not true. Why would you share your entire drive anyway?
Actually, I think it is physically separated to different sections on the same disk. That's why the repartitioning takes so long while files are being moved.Quote:
4) The data is not physically separated. If the drive crashes, all partitions go.
I explained that already: isolation/interference, fragmentation...Quote:
Above you mentioned that you have a swap file on another partition. I don't know why you would bother with that.
All the data is residing on the same physical drive - so there is no performance gain by putting your swapfile on another partition.
Agree. If you HAVE another HD. Probably not the most practical option with a laptop.Quote:
You would see a performance gain by putting the swapfile on another hard-drive.
Bottom line: by all means, partition.
2) HDD size is irrelevant - FAT32 cluster size is 4kb.Quote:
Originally posted by DaveBo
Yes, but the larger the partition size the larger the cluster size, and lots of small files end up taking up a lot of slack space. The Partition Magic docs describe this well.
OK, I assume you mean you can share on a folder-by-folder basis, but, sharing by partition can be much simpler. Also, on my family's network we've virtually used up all the drive letters A-Z.
Actually, I think it is physically separated to different sections on the same disk. That's why the repartitioning takes so long while files are being moved.
I explained that already: isolation/interference, fragmentation...
Agree. If you HAVE another HD. Probably not the most practical option with a laptop.
Bottom line: by all means, partition.
3) Bad network design's no excuse for more dodgy dealings ;)
4) Data is stored in a manner such that it is fastest to read it back from the drive. The reason defragging is faster on smaller partitions, is because its only defragging that one small part of the drive. And again, if that one drive goes, the whole thing goes.
5) No.
4 kB upto 8GB. Otherwise the FAT itself starts to become large.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
2) HDD size is irrelevant - FAT32 cluster size is 4kb.
I love puns. :)Quote:
Originally posted by DiGiTaIErRoR
Otherwise the FAT itself starts to become large.
So finally, is the consensus that a partition should be done, or shouldn't be done? And what size? Because after re(and re)ading the thread, I'm confused. :)
Ever since DOS 5 or 6, when it started becoming normal to go over 33mb, I have never felt it worthwhile to split disks into multiple partitions. DISKS ARE TOO CHEAP to futz around with multi partitions. The only reason given in this thread that I think is worth a damn is that if you blow up your OS and wish to reformat, you can save a little time by putting your data on something other than the boot disk.
Gosh, small files will "waste" disk space - who cares??. I have an 80gb drive and a 20gb drive (used for hot backups, see above) and 70,000 of files on my boot disk - I have managed enterprise servers with HUNDREDS of thousands of files on a single disk. Never once in many years of system administration have I seen this truly be a concern.
Giving a page file its own separate partition is not noticeably faster in my experience (this is with extensive performance monitoring in an enterprise environment).
If you want your data to be recoverable, back it up on separate physical media. If you want it to be truly reliable, use RAID (a great many motherboards have IDE RAID built in now). The chances you're going to recover from a seriously hosed partition table are pretty low anyhow, and splitting your stuff in separate partitions will not make this any easier. When the disk dies, you're pretty much hammered in my experience.
The security argument above is bogus; if you share files off your machine, putting them on partition X instead of the boot partition is in no way more or less secure. If you do not want network users poking around in your system or app directories, do not share them. Share from a directory below the root.
Also I have to strongly recommend you go with NTFS instead of FAT32. A good feature comparison is here. More discussion is here.
mendhak, Looks like the bottom line here for your "low end laptop" is that you hang a RAID system off it and attach a separate drive for the swap file, but partitioning is apparently a big NO NO. Sorry.
I was talking in more general terms, as really ought to have been obvious. ESPECIALLY when dealing with a laptop, if you want your data to be recoverable, back it up on separate physical media. Putting your data on a separate partition on the same physical disk will not make it especially more recoverable, in the typical I-dropped-my-laptop crash recovery. Use a ZIP drive or some crap.
Splitting your disk up into separate partitions isn't particularly BAD, it just doesn't do anything good.
I agree completely that a proper backup has to be on a separate media. I don't think anyone suggested here that backups be done to just another partition (although there probably are some benefits to that).
On my own systems, I don't want to backup most of the stuff, it's already "backed up" on the original CDs. e.g. Windows and lots of installed apps.
The advantage to "backup" that I was trying to describe is that you can isolate the critical stuff into a smaller, more manageable area. I have stuff that changes daily, I don't want to wrestle with a 20 or 80GB disk, so the critical, dynamic stuff is all by itself on its own partition. Works for me!
E.g. my laptop comes home with me each Friday with a week's worth of whatever on it. At home I plug it into the LAN and run a homegrown program that scans/compares laptop and desktop systems and automatically updates both systems, but all I care about is a 5GB partition, so it takes a 1/2 hr instead of all night.
Seems like a simple matter of improved organization to me.
Shrug, it's six of one and half dozen of the other. Good luck Mendhak.
I would think the only way a swap file on a seperate partition may be quicker is due to fragmentation.
I have a 120 GB hd, as a single partition, and a 15 GB split into 2 partitions.
The reason I split them is for different OS's, as they seem to be far less problematic on their own drive, with unique systems folders for only that particular OS, and depending on the OS, a different FAT.
My setup:
(15 gB HD):
C is FAT32, has win98
D is NTFS, has win2k/XP
(120GB)
G: is NTFS, and is used for media storage, and also contains a 1GB page file(as this drive is UDMA 100, while the 15 is UDMA 66).
My system flies.
:bigyello: :D :bigyello: :D
lol@crunch.
Thanks for the input, everyone. Maybe someday when I'm not poor and destitute anymore, I'll buy a nice, high-end laptop, and won't even need to ask whether I should partition or not. :)
my 2 cents
primary master 60 GB
win 98 40 GB (games :))
win xp 20 GB
i like to think that at any time i could format the first hdd and not lose anything
secondary master 120 GB
100 GB storage
20 GB temp - downloads, backing up dvds etc
anyone could benefit from a small partition at least for downloads as this accounts for a lot of fragmentation
Just curious
What is your cluster size for the 120GB under NTFS?
FWIW I used to have a lot of trouble defragging whatever partition had the swap file on it. Every time anything touched that file the defrag process would throw up its hands and start from the beginning. I'd have to disable the screen saver and stop as many processes as possible, then leave the thing alone and cross my fingers. I don't recall what OS was the most problematic, maybe it's been fixed. But I still have 3 PCs using Win98 and keeping the swap file alone seemed to solve that problem.
//Every time anything touched that file the defrag process would throw up its hands and start from the beginning. I'd have to disable the screen saver and stop as many processes as possible, then leave the thing alone and cross my fingers.
Never have had this problem on Win2k or WinXP. That includes for example a live defrag of Win2k running Exchange Server 2k.
2) what if you are using a 20gig hard drive on a p133? you can only use some where around 7-8gigs... and on 486's *cringes* you could only use 1 or 2gig hd'sQuote:
Originally posted by plenderj
2) HDD size is irrelevant - FAT32 cluster size is 4kb.
3) Bad network design's no excuse for more dodgy dealings ;)
4) Data is stored in a manner such that it is fastest to read it back from the drive. The reason defragging is faster on smaller partitions, is because its only defragging that one small part of the drive. And again, if that one drive goes, the whole thing goes.
5) No.