Large drive partitioning

When partitioning a large drive (80 gigabyte) are there any principles
to apply to ensure optimum performance for a general file system (i.e.
not a file system consisting of large A/V files)? In particular, I'm
thinking about partition sizes that are regular multiples of standard
base units.

Becky.

You sound like you have some idea of what you're talking about. But, I
could not fathom what you're asking.
Dave
"B Hillmann" wrote in message
om...
When partitioning a large drive (80 gigabyte) are there any principles
to apply to ensure optimum performance for a general file system (i.e.
not a file system consisting of large A/V files)? In particular, I'm
thinking about partition sizes that are regular multiples of standard
base units.

Becky.

Nope. You get larger clusters with larger FAT32 partitions, but you can also
adjust them with format's /z option.

"B Hillmann" wrote in message
om...
When partitioning a large drive (80 gigabyte) are there any principles
to apply to ensure optimum performance for a general file system (i.e.
not a file system consisting of large A/V files)? In particular, I'm
thinking about partition sizes that are regular multiples of standard
base units.

Becky.

B Hillmann wrote:

When partitioning a large drive (80 gigabyte) are there any principles
to apply to ensure optimum performance for a general file system (i.e.
not a file system consisting of large A/V files)? In particular, I'm
thinking about partition sizes that are regular multiples of standard
base units.

Becky.

For ease of management, a single part. is best, since you never need
to move files from part. to part. to free up space. So, if you use
an OS which supports NTFS (NT/2K/XP), I suggest a single NTFS part.
for your 80GB HD.

Note that this PC has 9 parts spread over 3 HDs, so I do waste some
time moving files. But, I'm trapped by stupid restrictions of the
stupid backup apps I stupidly use.
--
Cheers, Bob

Bob Willard wrote:

B Hillmann wrote:

When partitioning a large drive (80 gigabyte) are there any principles
to apply to ensure optimum performance for a general file system (i.e.
not a file system consisting of large A/V files)? In particular, I'm
thinking about partition sizes that are regular multiples of standard
base units.

Becky.


For ease of management, a single part. is best, since you never need
to move files from part. to part. to free up space. So, if you use
an OS which supports NTFS (NT/2K/XP), I suggest a single NTFS part.
for your 80GB HD.

Note that this PC has 9 parts spread over 3 HDs, so I do waste some
time moving files. But, I'm trapped by stupid restrictions of the
stupid backup apps I stupidly use.

Since this group is not specific to Windows, I think it should be
pointed out that the answer _might_ be different under other OSs
(e.g. Linux).

--
After being targeted with gigabytes of trash by the "SWEN" worm, I have
concluded we must conceal our e-mail address. Our true address is the
mirror image of what you see before the "@" symbol. It's a shame such
steps are necessary. ...Charlie

B Hillmann wrote in message
om...

When partitioning a large drive (80 gigabyte) are there
any principles to apply to ensure optimum performance
for a general file system (i.e. not a file system consisting
of large A/V files)? In particular, I'm thinking about partition
sizes that are regular multiples of standard base units.

The short story is that you are wasting your time with
modern hard drives and OSs. You wont be able to pick
between the alternatives in a proper double blind trial.

CJT wrote:

Bob Willard wrote:

B Hillmann wrote:

When partitioning a large drive (80 gigabyte) are there any principles
to apply to ensure optimum performance for a general file system (i.e.
not a file system consisting of large A/V files)? In particular, I'm
thinking about partition sizes that are regular multiples of standard
base units.

Becky.



For ease of management, a single part. is best, since you never need
to move files from part. to part. to free up space. So, if you use
an OS which supports NTFS (NT/2K/XP), I suggest a single NTFS part.
for your 80GB HD.

Note that this PC has 9 parts spread over 3 HDs, so I do waste some
time moving files. But, I'm trapped by stupid restrictions of the
stupid backup apps I stupidly use.


Since this group is not specific to Windows, I think it should be
pointed out that the answer _might_ be different under other OSs
(e.g. Linux).


You're kinda right, Charlie, although it matters little in this case.
Nevertheless, I'll re-write my answer a bit, and augment some as well:

1. If your OS is Win3.x or Win95a, then return that 80GB HD, since you
can't really use more than a 48GB HD -- and you'll hate managing those
24 itty-bitty 2GB parts of that 48GB HD. If your OS is DOS, then you
should fix that before you buy any HD; the Jurassic period is over.

2. For ease of management *regardless of the OS involved*, a single part.
is best, since you never need to move files from part. to part. to
free up space.

3. So, if you use any OS which supports NTFS (NT/2K/XP), I suggest a
single NTFS part. for your 80GB HD. {I *am* assuming that only NT-based
OSs support NTFS. If any *ux OS directly supports NTFS, then I'm wrong.}

4. I feel a single NTFS part. would serve you best, but if you want to
whack it into smaller parts under NTFS, then don't bother thinking about
making the parts the same size, since you can't really achieve that with
standard HDs made in the last few years due to ZBR and the resulting
odd cylinder boundaries, coupled with M$'s insistence (I think they
still do) on starting parts on cylinder boundaries. And, I never heard
of any justification for having parts be equal-sized under an M$ OS.

Some folks argue for two parts under M$'s OSs -- one for the system and
one for the data -- to make it easier to recover from a trashed system
part. without touching the data. With the increased robustness of 2K
and XP OSs, I think that is no longer valid (if it ever was), so I'm
not a fan of part'ing any NTFS HD -- and I certainly would not part any
NTFS HD unless it were *really* big (say, 120GB).

Note that part'ing a HD usually results in lowering the performance, due
to the increased seek distances. But, hey, if you want to lower your
PC's performance *and* increase the disk management pain, go ahead.
--
Cheers, Bob

"Bob Willard" wrote in message
newszQZb.371316$xy6.1928510@attbi_s02...
Some folks argue for two parts under M$'s OSs -- one for the system
and
one for the data -- to make it easier to recover from a trashed system
part. without touching the data. With the increased robustness of 2K
and XP OSs, I think that is no longer valid (if it ever was),

XP is not *that* robust and having a second partition for data allows one to
format and reisntall the OS without destroying the data on the second
partition. Having two partitions is the smart way to play the game IMO.

"B Hillmann" wrote in message
om...
In particular, I'm
thinking about partition sizes that are regular multiples of standard
base units.

Becky.

There is no standard base unit.

Bob Willard wrote:

CJT wrote:

Bob Willard wrote:

B Hillmann wrote:

When partitioning a large drive (80 gigabyte) are there any principles
to apply to ensure optimum performance for a general file system (i.e.
not a file system consisting of large A/V files)? In particular, I'm
thinking about partition sizes that are regular multiples of standard
base units.

Becky.



For ease of management, a single part. is best, since you never need
to move files from part. to part. to free up space. So, if you use
an OS which supports NTFS (NT/2K/XP), I suggest a single NTFS part.
for your 80GB HD.

Note that this PC has 9 parts spread over 3 HDs, so I do waste some
time moving files. But, I'm trapped by stupid restrictions of the
stupid backup apps I stupidly use.


Since this group is not specific to Windows, I think it should be
pointed out that the answer _might_ be different under other OSs
(e.g. Linux).


You're kinda right, Charlie, although it matters little in this case.
Nevertheless, I'll re-write my answer a bit, and augment some as well:

1. If your OS is Win3.x or Win95a, then return that 80GB HD, since you
can't really use more than a 48GB HD -- and you'll hate managing those
24 itty-bitty 2GB parts of that 48GB HD. If your OS is DOS, then you
should fix that before you buy any HD; the Jurassic period is over.

2. For ease of management *regardless of the OS involved*, a single part.
is best, since you never need to move files from part. to part. to
free up space.

No, instead you have to install another drive in order to get more space.
If you are "moving files from part to part to free up space" then you need
more storage.

3. So, if you use any OS which supports NTFS (NT/2K/XP), I suggest a
single NTFS part. for your 80GB HD. {I *am* assuming that only
NT-based
OSs support NTFS. If any *ux OS directly supports NTFS, then I'm
wrong.}

4. I feel a single NTFS part. would serve you best, but if you want to
whack it into smaller parts under NTFS, then don't bother thinking
about making the parts the same size, since you can't really achieve
that with standard HDs made in the last few years due to ZBR and the
resulting odd cylinder boundaries, coupled with M$'s insistence (I
think they
still do) on starting parts on cylinder boundaries. And, I never
heard of any justification for having parts be equal-sized under an M$
OS.

Some folks argue for two parts under M$'s OSs -- one for the system
and one for the data -- to make it easier to recover from a trashed
system
part. without touching the data. With the increased robustness of 2K
and XP OSs, I think that is no longer valid (if it ever was), so I'm
not a fan of part'ing any NTFS HD -- and I certainly would not part
any NTFS HD unless it were *really* big (say, 120GB).

Not only is it still valid but it has nothing to do with Microsoft. The
same consideration applies to just about any operating system, no matter
how "robust" it might be. And it's not just "to recover from a trashed
system part", it makes the system easier to manage overall.

Note that part'ing a HD usually results in lowering the performance,
due
to the increased seek distances. But, hey, if you want to lower your
PC's performance *and* increase the disk management pain, go ahead.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)