TO partition or not to partition HDD

[falcon23]

I have not partitioned my windows xp on my HD, and am wondering what the general concensus is on this,and why.

                                       Thanks,    

[MrRiplEy[H]]

If you partition your HD in two parts - one for operating system and one for programs and other data - you can easily reformat or reinstall your operating system without having to resort to extensive data migrations between backups and hd (most people have no media to back up to in the first place).

So if you reserve 50 gigs for OS and rest 100-1950 gigs for your daily stuff, you can fix this 10x easyer if disaster strikes and your OS goes bad or you get a virus.

So, partition in two sections and save all your data / games etc. on D: drive instead of C:.

You will still need to take backups from all your sensitive data though. But after this you can recover from OS booboo much easyer.

[BaldEagl]

I agree with Ripley but I install the OS and all my programs on one drive or partition and store all of my data on another.  Not sure how Ripleys method would work as a new OS install wouldn't have the registry entries to run the applications.  Maybe he can explain.

Beyond system recovery the OS and applications are relatively static while the data is in a constant state of additions, deletions, revisions, etc. so this also reduces both the need, and the time it takes to defragment each drive.  I also like to save my Outlook pst file and my Explorer temp files on the storage/data drive/partition due to the constant flux.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

I agree with Ripley but I install the OS and all my programs on one drive or partition and store all of my data on another.  Not sure how Ripleys method would work as a new OS install wouldn't have the registry entries to run the applications.  Maybe he can explain.

Beyond system recovery the OS and applications are relatively static while the data is in a constant state of additions, deletions, revisions, etc. so this also reduces both the need, and the time it takes to defragment each drive.  I also like to save my Outlook pst file and my Explorer temp files on the storage/data drive/partition due to the constant flux.

Some games do not need any registry markings to fully work after a format - AH is a good example. Some games will require a reinstall - but even then chances are that your savegames etc. have been saved in the previous install location and you can keep things as they were. Too bad more games are following the trend to save stuff to user profile - absolutely horrible idea made a necessity by Vista's dumber than dumb UAC.

So while it's not a 'save all' solution it's heck of a lot easyer when you can just format wham bam thank you Mam and reinstall a couple badly made applications again if necessary.

Oh and those who use e-mail programs, very good idea to store the mails to D: as suggested.

I also like to extend this to having several harddrives, sometimes even raid setup. But good raid cards are expensive so it's not everyone's cup of tea. Built in solutions are fake raids and more trouble than anything else.

[Skuzzy]

Many games and applications are just migrating outside the "Program Files" folder so everything will be kept where it should be.

The alternative is a support nightmare, as we have discovered.

Back on topic.  I too put programs and data outside of the OS partition.  Why?  Most applications default to saving data wherever they are installed.  My Wife never pays attention to where data is being saved.  This insures her data files are not installed in the OS partition.

The stupid ones which default to saving in the "Documents and Settings" folder will ask where to save, as I mark that stupid directory as read-only after everything is installed and then hack the registry to point that folder to the other partition.  It is surprising how many things get hidden in that folder.

[falcon23]

does a partition with the OS and all other programs help the apps to run more efficent?

[llama]

does a partition with the OS and all other programs help the apps to run more efficent?

I assume you mean ONE partition for the OS and ANOTHER partition to store your programs.

In that case, the answer is NO, it isn't more efficient.

Here's why I partition my drive:

1. Multiple OSes. My main HD has the following OSes: DOS, Windows XP for general use (has lots of background applications running), Windows XP for Games (just has bare minimum drivers for my gaming hardware and almost no background programs running), Windows 7, and Linux.

2. To separate personal data from the OS. My "MY Documents" folder is on a data partition, as my my iTunes folder and my mailstore folder. I can boot into any of my OSes and still have direct access to my mail, my bookmarks, my music, my videos, my personal data, and so forth.

3. To make taking backup images easier. I regularly use Ghost to make a disk image of my OSes, usually before installing something big or that I'm trying out. If I don't like the program, I can Ghost it back from one partition image (stored on the data partition) to the OS partition itself. People who say they "reinstall their OS every 6 months are totally nuts" as far as I'm concerned - they need a good partition imaging program and setup to easily roll back the OS after trying something.

4. The beauty of keeping the personal data off the OS partitions when I ghost one back, none of my data changes - it's all on the partition that doesn't get ghosted.

5. A lot of games can happily live outside the Program Files folder. I have a folder on my data drive called Steam Games and all the steam games live there. Even when that drive letter changes, all the exes in the Steam Games folder work directly by double-clicking the EXE. It's very slick.

-Llama

[BaldEagl]

does a partition with the OS and all other programs help the apps to run more efficent?

Here's another take on that question:

If the OS is on a partition and the applications are on the same partition then that would be somewhat more efficient than having the OS on one partition and the applications on another partition on the same drive.

The reason for this is hard drive head movement and seek time.

On the other hand, if the OS is on one partition and the programs are on another partiton on a completely seperate hard drive then that would be the most efficient as both drives heads could be in use simultanelously.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[Chalenge]

I agree and its the scheme I use as well as additional drives for emergency recovery images and I also have a home server setup to backup everything.

[Getback]

Here's another take on that question:

If the OS is on a partition and the applications are on the same partition then that would be somewhat more efficient than having the OS on one partition and the applications on another partition on the same drive.

The reason for this is hard drive head movement and seek time.

On the other hand, if the OS is on one partition and the programs are on another partiton on a completely seperate hard drive then that would be the most efficient as both drives heads could be in use simultanelously.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Would you use a small drive? Seems like a waste for a large drive.

[BaldEagl]

Would you use a small drive? Seems like a waste for a large drive.

You'd use a small partition on one drive for the OS and whatever you need on the other drive for applications.  The rest could all be converted to data storage partitions.

For the most efficient use of the drive you'd also want the OS and apps to only utilize 50-80% of the available space on thier partitions.  This allows the smoothest operation of defrag.

[Getback]

You'd use a small partition on one drive for the OS and whatever you need on the other drive for applications.  The rest could all be converted to data storage partitions.

For the most efficient use of the drive you'd also want the OS and apps to only utilize 50-80% of the available space on thier partitions.  This allows the smoothest operation of defrag.

It gets complicated.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

There's no performance benefit through partitioning a single drive. There _is_ a performance benefit however when using two separate drives. This is because now you have two SATA buses in use instead of one, two hd's seeking separately instead of one. So if you keep your OS on one drive and your data and swapfile on another, this can give some performance gain. However it's very marginal and probably not worth the trouble / cost.

[Chalenge]

So if you keep your OS on one drive and your data and swapfile on another, ...

This doesnt make sense to me. Shouldnt every drive that is accessed from a Windows based OS have a swapfile associated with it?

[Getback]

There's no performance benefit through partitioning a single drive. There _is_ a performance benefit however when using two separate drives. This is because now you have two SATA buses in use instead of one, two hd's seeking separately instead of one. So if you keep your OS on one drive and your data and swapfile on another, this can give some performance gain. However it's very marginal and probably not worth the trouble / cost.

I will probably google this however let me ask, How do you load an OS and make sure the program files are on another drive? That is if you go to start and chose programs you will see the loaded applications.