If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Question about hard drive partitioning
I have a 500gb hard drive. Will it operate any more efficiently if I create
a small partition for programs, and a large partition for data? Or, several partitions for data...? I figure two seperate hard drives would be better, but if I only have one, am I better off leaving it as one partition, or chopping it up, and why? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Question about hard drive partitioning
I create a 15GB partition for the OS and applications and then make
everything else a Data drive. That way I can image the C: drive and reinstall whenever I want without touching my data. More partitions is just slower wrote in message news:bqbvg.12027$A8.8089@trnddc02... I have a 500gb hard drive. Will it operate any more efficiently if I create a small partition for programs, and a large partition for data? Or, several partitions for data...? I figure two seperate hard drives would be better, but if I only have one, am I better off leaving it as one partition, or chopping it up, and why? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Question about hard drive partitioning
Ok, so it's more for housekeeping, than efficiency?
"Tom Scales" wrote in message .. . I create a 15GB partition for the OS and applications and then make everything else a Data drive. That way I can image the C: drive and reinstall whenever I want without touching my data. More partitions is just slower wrote in message news:bqbvg.12027$A8.8089@trnddc02... I have a 500gb hard drive. Will it operate any more efficiently if I create a small partition for programs, and a large partition for data? Or, several partitions for data...? I figure two seperate hard drives would be better, but if I only have one, am I better off leaving it as one partition, or chopping it up, and why? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Question about hard drive partitioning
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:22:31 GMT, wrote:
I have a 500gb hard drive. Will it operate any more efficiently if I create a small partition for programs, and a large partition for data? Or, several partitions for data...? I figure two seperate hard drives would be better, but if I only have one, am I better off leaving it as one partition, or chopping it up, and why? i think you're better off partitioning it not only for better performance although most users probably wouldn't notice the difference but also for ease and convenience of backups and changes. my 120GB drive is partitioned into 3 logical drives...one for the operating system (abouty 20GB with 13GB used), one for programs (about 20GB with 5 GB used) and another for data files (about 15 GB with 13GB used) (the balance is unallocated). i backup each of these partitions onto a second internal hard drive on a regular schedule. that backup is an image and is done automatically. i also schedule an automatic image backup of those partitions onto an external hard drive. i do a periodic backup of each partition to DVDs and store them in my safe deposit box. with compression each of the partitions fits onto 1 or 2 DVDs. anytime i install anything be it an upgrade to an existing program or a new program i first do a manual backup of the OS and programs partition onto the second internal hard drive. if the install fails or causes problems i can revert both of those partitions back to their pre-install state. i would absolutely suggest you get a second hard drive, either internal or external. my preference would be that the second drive be at least the same size as the primary drive. also get yourself a good image backup program. file-by-file backups are better than nothing but image backups are best. hope this helps. 73, rich, n9dko |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Question about hard drive partitioning
Ditto!
"Tom Scales" wrote in message .. . I create a 15GB partition for the OS and applications and then make everything else a Data drive. That way I can image the C: drive and reinstall whenever I want without touching my data. More partitions is just slower wrote in message news:bqbvg.12027$A8.8089@trnddc02... I have a 500gb hard drive. Will it operate any more efficiently if I create a small partition for programs, and a large partition for data? Or, several partitions for data...? I figure two seperate hard drives would be better, but if I only have one, am I better off leaving it as one partition, or chopping it up, and why? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Question about hard drive partitioning
Not really. An OS on the outside of the HD is said to be faster.
http://partition.radified.com/ See page 2. wrote in message news:zbcvg.12533$A8.7394@trnddc02... Ok, so it's more for housekeeping, than efficiency? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Question about hard drive partitioning
Efficiency isn't an issue these days. With the performance of hard
drives these days, the issue is organization and protection. I will set my systems as: Drive 1 (Internal): C: 15-20GB O/S D: CD-ROM E: 15-20GB O/S F: Programs/Data (the rest of the Drive) Drive 2 (External USB): G: 150-300GB The E: drive is for an alternate OS. I use it to install XP when I need to rebuild my configuration. This allows me to keep the old one running while I'm configuring the new one. The G: drive is for storing my ghost images (and anything else that needs to be archived). I keep it turned off except when the Ghost backup is scheduled or I need to restore a file or folder.. I find absolutely no advantage these days with partioning a hard drive beyond 2 partitions, at least for the "basic" operation. First of all, you can't separate the OS and programs. Every time you install a program, Windows will install critical files on the boot drive. If the boot drive has to be rebuilt/restored, you will have to reinstall the programs. Second, with the cost of additional internal and external drives (and backup software) declining and the performance improving, the idea that backing up multiple smaller partitions is somehow faster or more efficient just doesn't cut it. also, selectively restoring files/folders is easy. Regards, Hank Arnold wrote: I have a 500gb hard drive. Will it operate any more efficiently if I create a small partition for programs, and a large partition for data? Or, several partitions for data...? I figure two seperate hard drives would be better, but if I only have one, am I better off leaving it as one partition, or chopping it up, and why? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Question about hard drive partitioning
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 05:02:25 -0400, Hank Arnold
wrote: (snip) I find absolutely no advantage these days with partioning a hard drive beyond 2 partitions, at least for the "basic" operation. First of all, you can't separate the OS and programs. Every time you install a program, Windows will install critical files on the boot drive. If the boot drive has to be rebuilt/restored, you will have to reinstall the programs. that's just not true. i have restored my C:\ partition many times and have not had to re-install any programs which reside on a different partition on the same hard drive. but this is true only with an imaged backup and not a file-by-file. using a FBF backup your statement would be valid. 73, rich, n9dko |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HDD Compatibility | Samik R | Homebuilt PC's | 11 | February 3rd 06 10:40 AM |
how to test psu and reset to cmos to default | Tanya | General | 23 | February 7th 05 09:56 AM |
Win XP doesn't like a second hard drive! | N9WOS | General | 9 | January 6th 05 01:10 AM |
Removable Drive Bays | Rod Speed | Storage (alternative) | 35 | January 3rd 04 08:31 PM |