XP Pro partitioning recommendations request

[conlan]

I'll be soon reloading XP Pro on a Seagate 160GB HDD. I was thinking of using 3 partitions. One each for the swap file, OS and storage.
The first Partition would be 2GB for the swap file
The second Partition would be for XP, What partition size would be suitable?

Has anyone realized any real world performance gains from similar partions? Or should i just continue using one large partition?
Thanks for any and all opinions

 

[hater2win]

I would give the OS partition about 30-40 gigs.

Use the storage partition to store everything (obviously) should keep you from having to use alot of space on the C: that you would use for software, etc.But, i guess it also depends on hwo many progs you want to isntall. I just lost my C: yesterday but gladly formatted because I already had everything backed up on a diff partition.

Edit: And if you're like me, you have tons of movies, music, tv shows, everything and need a truck load of space.

 

[P0ldy]

Giving anything more than 20 to an OS partition is complete overkill. I've got a lot of programs installed, and I'm only using ~6GB of a 15GB OS partition.

The rest of the disk for the rest (important files).

Don't give a partition to swap unless you're using Linux. There's no benefit and could result in worse performance. Moving it to a separate disk is the only method to improve performance.

 

[Hough NutZ]

I'm all about the one large partition.

But I've got two seperate hard drives though:

Raptor - Windows and Programs
Seagate 160gb - Data (mp3s/docs/movies/etc)

 

[Ryoga]

IMX, a paging file partition just doesn't work very well. Typically, Windows writes random information to the middle of the partition when it formats it (Sys Vol Info) and the paging file gets to straddle that and be forever fragmented.

 

[conlan]

Thanks for the opinions.
I'm leaning towards one partition now, but how do i get XP to recognize all 160 GBs of the HDD?

 

[ProviaFan]

I would still recommend two partitions: one for OS and programs, and one for storage. It makes things a lot easier if/when you need to reinstall.

BTW, I wasn't aware that XP had trouble recognizing 160GB, assuming the rest of one's hardware was reasonably up to date?

 

[conlan]

Yeah, i've seen elsewhere that some folks are having the same problem, XP only recognizes 127 or 128 GBs of a HDD.

System:
Asus A8V deluxe
A64 3000+ Venice
3 X 512 PC-3200
Seagate 160GB IDE HDD
PNY 6800NU

 

[htne]

XP (at least SP1 and SP2, not sure about original) has no problems with a 160 gig partition IF the BIOS properly supports 48 bit LBA (Logical Block Addressing). If the BIOS does not properly support 48 bit LBA, you need to boot from a partition that is less than 137 gigs in size. After XP is booted, it can easily access a 300 gig partition regardless of whether the BIOS supports it.

On the other hand, I agree with the posters above who recommended a smaller OS partition. I like to use about 25 gigs (which leaves plenty of slack) for the OS, and the rest as a data disk. Then use Acronis True Image on a regular basis to create images of your C: drive onto your D: drive. Very, very handy.

 

[conlan]

XP (at least SP1 and SP2, not sure about original) has no problems with a 160 gig partition

We have the original XP Pro (pre-sp1, sp2) We usually load SP2 right after Windows XP.

Then use Acronis True Image on a regular basis to create images of your C: drive onto your D: drive. Very, very handy.

Thanks, what would be the benifit?

So, if i create a 20-30Gb partition for the OS, would you install your most used programs (games) there? or on the larger partition.
We're trying to find a way to cut down on load times for games, so i would think you'd want the most used programs (games) on the smaller partition w/ the OS, correct?

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: conlan

Then use Acronis True Image on a regular basis to create images of your C: drive onto your D: drive. Very, very handy.

Thanks, what would be the benifit?

The reason that others do this - and the reason that I am going to do it very soon - is that if you somehow FUBAR your OS, you can reload in short order from the image and be left with a fully working OS with drivers and programs already "installed." Not absolutely necessary as such, but a big time saver if you need it.

So, if i create a 20-30Gb partition for the OS, would you install your most used programs (games) there? or on the larger partition.
We're trying to find a way to cut down on load times for games, so i would think you'd want the most used programs (games) on the smaller partition w/ the OS, correct?

I always put the OS and programs on one partition, and data on the other. The most commonly stated reason for putting programs on another partition is that they would not be affected by a reinstall of the OS. Unfortunately, programs tie in so much with the registry that I can't imagine very many programs that would continue working without major hassles and/or reinstallation after the fresh OS install anyway.

Putting the OS and programs on separate drives for performance reasons may have a small degree of merit in theory, but in practice I would suspect that one would see zero benefit to that procedure. In real world usage, if you don't have enough RAM to cache the majority of the files that your OS needs to run, then you need more RAM, not another hard disk. Hence, with enough RAM, your OS won't suddenly decide that it needs something from the disk while your programs are busy accessing the disk already.

 

[conlan]

Many thanks for the help

I found another interesting idea while researching this:

Splitting your HDD into 3 Partitions, the first and third being of equal size, and making the second a small 1 - 2 GB Partition for the swap file, thus putting the swap file in the center of the HDD. This, i assume, is done with the idea that wherever the HDD is being accessed at any particular time, it's never far from the swap file.

I guess the best way to speed up load times would be to install the OS and programs on a small fast HDD like a 36GB Raptor, and use the 160GB as Storage?

 

[dclive]

Conlan,

You're talking about such a minor performance difference and such a major amount of work (you'll have to screw with multiple partitions for as long as you use the computer) that I think the recommenation is silly.

If you have XP SP0, you'll want to slipstream SP2 into it for a new computer, so that the 160GB hard drive is seen and recognized. nlite.org has a good guide and the programs to do it all for you very effectively.

I strongly suggest one partition for the boot volume. If you feel it's slow, get a faster hard drive and more RAM.

 

[ProviaFan]

In case you need to know about slipstreaming, see here.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Always have at least two partitions. Save all data on one, the OS on the other, so when you format, you hardly have to backup anything. So for a 160GB drive I'd make a 100GB data partition and leave the rest for the OS. (should be around 50ish). But like has been mention that may be overkill so you may want to give like 130 for data then the rest.

 

[Nocturnal]

Just get another hard drive to store all your data. That's what I did.

I have one 74GB Ratpor as my OS hard drive then a 300GB Maxtor Maxline III as my storage drive.