C Drive size and performance

[perdomot]

Should I limit the size of the C partition to improve performance or use the entire drive?

 

[Blain]

I've got 2 x 640GB WD SE16's, both with the first partition set to 200GB.
I've got a 1TB WD Black with the first partition set to 200GB.
I love life on the "outer edge"! :thumbsup::laugh:

 

[BlueAcolyte]

Supposedly, limiting your main partition to a limited size means it will use the outside part of the hard drive, which gives the best performance.

 

[imported_harlanpepper]

I've always used 20-30GB partitions for my C: based on the outer-part hypothesis. Though my drive is only 74GB so it may not make as much of a difference as on a larger drive. Never done any kind of testing on it...

 

[Blain]

Does anyone know of a benchmark utility that can test ONLY the partition it's installed on rather than benching the whole drive?

 

[dunkster]

Given an HD with C:\ and D:\ partitions, increasing the size the C:\ partition increases the distance (seek span) the HD read/write would have to travel to reach the first track of the D:\ partition. Doubling the C:\ partition size would approximately double the seek span time.

Since we're talking about differences in seek spans in milliseconds, you may not even perceive the difference.

 

[j0j081]

interesting I just wondering about this the other day.

 

[Old Hippie]

Originally posted by: Blain
Does anyone know of a benchmark utility that can test ONLY the partition it's installed on rather than benching the whole drive?

I've used Passmark Performance Test when I partitioned my 300GB VR to 60GB.

 

[heymrdj]

The only reason i separate the OS is to make it easy to reinstall the OS when necessary. I redirect all the windows folders to the main partition so that my files ect remain intact.

 

[Nothinman]

Should I limit the size of the C partition to improve performance or use the entire drive?

Any performance difference should be negligable and making one big partition will make your life easier.

 

[j0j081]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Should I limit the size of the C partition to improve performance or use the entire drive?

Any performance difference should be negligable and making one big partition will make your life easier.

I don't see how one big partition will make it easier because what if you have to reinstall.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: j0j081

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Should I limit the size of the C partition to improve performance or use the entire drive?

Any performance difference should be negligable and making one big partition will make your life easier.

I don't see how one big partition will make it easier because what if you have to reinstall.

and? if you have to reinstall and your programs are somewhere else 99% of them will not work without reinstallation - because most of stuff users registry that will be gone

 

[nordloewelabs]

Originally posted by: j0j081

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Should I limit the size of the C partition to improve performance or use the entire drive?

Any performance difference should be negligable and making one big partition will make your life easier.

I don't see how one big partition will make it easier because what if you have to reinstall.

i fail to understand his logic too.

 

[dunkster]

Never mind - brain fart!

 

[j0j081]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: j0j081

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Should I limit the size of the C partition to improve performance or use the entire drive?

Any performance difference should be negligable and making one big partition will make your life easier.

I don't see how one big partition will make it easier because what if you have to reinstall.

and? if you have to reinstall and your programs are somewhere else 99% of them will not work without reinstallation - because most of stuff users registry that will be gone

Yes I know most software will need reinstalling anyway but all your data/media/etc will be safe because it won't matter if you have to kill the windows partition. If all that crap is with Windows and you can't boot into the OS period or some other annoyance occurs you have to retrieve your stuff before you can reinstall.

 

[LokutusofBorg]

I've always partitioned my drive for the ease of reinstalling. If you have one drive with a single partition it's quite a pain to save your data somewhere else in order to format before the reinstall.

My next build will include two hard drives so that I can retain this ease/flexibility, but get some better performance. Reading this thread, I'm thinking about continuing to partition my main drive, and use C: for Windows, and D: for programs, and then the second physical hard drive for all my data. Any thoughts on that approach?

 

[Nothinman]

I don't see how one big partition will make it easier because what if you have to reinstall.

Just fix the problem instead of reinstalling.

Yes I know most software will need reinstalling anyway but all your data/media/etc will be safe because it won't matter if you have to kill the windows partition. If all that crap is with Windows and you can't boot into the OS period or some other annoyance occurs you have to retrieve your stuff before you can reinstall.

Have a separate physical drive for that, it's safer that way anyway.

 

[Old Hippie]

Reading this thread, I'm thinking about continuing to partition my main drive, and use C: for Windows, and D: for programs, and then the second physical hard drive for all my data. Any thoughts on that approach?

Put your programs on the Windows partition. You're going to have to reinstall them anyway even with a repair install. Just as Nothinman mentions, it makes no sense to put the programs on another partition because they must be reinstalled anyway.

The second physical drive should hold all your data and an Acronis back-up image.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: nordloewelabs
i fail to understand his logic too.

Overall, there's a LOT more time spent (wasted) on folks trying to expand an "undersized" system partition than spent on restoring some extra data to their hard drive. The problem is especially severe on servers, where it's a BIG DEAL to expand a system partition.

 

[kajko]

I also like partitioning for the OS but I'm always torn on what to do with the extra space. Because the drives are so large today, I have a 500GB drive for my media and a 640GB drive for my OS. When I partition 100 of the 640GB for the OS and programs, I have a huge partition left for possible storage. This makes me wonder....

1. Does using the second partition of the OS drive for storage slow down OS performance in any way (since it's the same physical drive)?
2. Is it better to have a smaller capacity drive for the OS/programs and not load it with data even if partitioned?

 

[LokutusofBorg]

Originally posted by: Old Hippie
Put your programs on the Windows partition. You're going to have to reinstall them anyway even with a repair install. Just as Nothinman mentions, it makes no sense to put the programs on another partition because they must be reinstalled anyway.

The second physical drive should hold all your data and an Acronis back-up image.

To elaborate, what I've gotten from this thread (that I didn't know before) is that putting Windows on a partition lets it run from the faster part of the disk. If I have two physical hard drives, and I want Windows to be a bit faster, then I would partition the 1st hard drive, but what to do with the second partition on that drive?

I'm thinking the better overall approach is to get a boatload of RAM and make a RAMDisk and move the page file there, and then don't muck with partitions on the two drives at all. Which is what I've been thinking of doing for quite a while.

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
Overall, there's a LOT more time spent (wasted) on folks trying to expand an "undersized" system partition than spent on restoring some extra data to their hard drive. The problem is especially severe on servers, where it's a BIG DEAL to expand a system partition.

It's been my experience that it's a much bigger deal to have hard drive problems or Windows problems that present a real need to format the drive before you reinstall, but have nowhere to move your data... when/if that happens, you're screwed.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: LokutusofBorg
It's been my experience that it's a much bigger deal to have hard drive problems or Windows problems that present a real need to format the drive before you reinstall, but have nowhere to move your data... when/if that happens, you're screwed.

Well, all my data (in fact my entire PCs) are automatically backed up to my Windows Home Server each night. So it's no big deal to do a full restore of any PC. Other than taking longer for the restore to finish, it's no more work to just restore the whole drive. If you don't already have backups of your data somewhere already, THAT's a problem. Unless your data isn't important to you.

 

[postmortemIA]

Data != program files
Data = My documents and such

changing location of my documents is one of easiest things to do.

Yes, I agree that it is useful to put your stuff somewhere else, but you don't need to put program files anywhere else because they can't be reused.

 

[Nothinman]

To elaborate, what I've gotten from this thread (that I didn't know before) is that putting Windows on a partition lets it run from the faster part of the disk. If I have two physical hard drives, and I want Windows to be a bit faster, then I would partition the 1st hard drive, but what to do with the second partition on that drive?

Even if the outter edge of the platters are faster you're not going to notice. You've already spent more time thinking about the situation then you'll ever save with that partition.

I'm thinking the better overall approach is to get a boatload of RAM and make a RAMDisk and move the page file there, and then don't muck with partitions on the two drives at all. Which is what I've been thinking of doing for quite a while.

The latter is right but the former is completely wrong. Putting the pagefile on RAM disk is a terrible idea, just get a boatload of memory and let the OS do it's thing like it should.