Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • December 03, 2016, 05:59:45 PM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Last post Author Topic: Should I get my new laptop with hard drive partitioned?  (Read 18502 times)

tomos

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,315
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Should I get my new laptop with hard drive partitioned?
« Reply #25 on: April 18, 2008, 06:32:51 AM »
By the way if you want to put all the temp files with PageFile.sys in the first partition on drive 2 I suggest you use a fixed size page file.

How big?
normally 1.5 times memory = e.g. 3GB if you have 2GB ram
Tom

AndyM

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 616
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Should I get my new laptop with hard drive partitioned?
« Reply #26 on: April 18, 2008, 06:35:50 AM »
first partition on second drive - (f0dder says you dont need one if you have 2GB ram tongue)
I have the Temp folders there and Temp Internet files too. Just nice to have the messy stuff all in one package!

Now I'm wondering if I should have the swap file in the first (small) partition of the second drive, and all the temp and other messy stuff in another partition on the second drive.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2008, 06:37:51 AM by AndyM »

tomos

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,315
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Should I get my new laptop with hard drive partitioned?
« Reply #27 on: April 18, 2008, 06:37:52 AM »
Quote
first partition on second drive - (f0dder says you dont need one if you have 2GB ram tongue)
I have the Temp folders there and Temp Internet files too. Just nice to have the messy stuff all in one package!

Now I'm wondering if I should have the swap file in the first (small) partition of the second drive, and all the temp and other messy stuff in another partition on the second drive.

I have them all in the one partition - I dont think it makes much of a difference seeing as you probably make page file fixed size... (make that first then transfer temp folders etc)
Tom

Carol Haynes

  • Waffles for England (patent pending)
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,986
    • View Profile
    • Dales Computer Services
    • Donate to Member
Re: Should I get my new laptop with hard drive partitioned?
« Reply #28 on: April 18, 2008, 07:14:40 AM »
If you make the pagefile first and make sure the max and min sizes are the same (just use the recommended size it says in the dialogue box) then it will be created on a freshly formatted drive without significant fragmentation (a 3Gb file on a 4Gb drive will be fragmented simply because the MFT is in the middle of the partition so you page file will have at least 2 fragments). Reboot and them move the temp files etc.

Steven Avery

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 846
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Should I get my new laptop with hard drive partitioned?
« Reply #29 on: April 18, 2008, 08:48:48 AM »
Hi Folks,

  Honestly, I am very skeptical that you can ever make clean distinctions between O/S, programs and data in Windows, and any distinctions you could make could just as easily be done with the directory structure.  (e.g. set up a high-level "UserData" directory). The registry settings issue comes up, the issue of configuration settings that can be force-placed with the program directories, and the limitations of installers and programs that may not take too well to cross-partition pointing. The clean distinctions (as you might have on a mini-computers OS) do not apply. So why bother ?

   Also, you might anyway have to make very important distinctions within data, with a multi-gig email being backup up separately from the daily high-gloss data (which might include a subset of the email, a few folders).  So you have lots of tweaking to do anyway in your backup program, even within the partition (other than image backup).

  What did make a lot of sense above is a separate partitions for backup data.  I like that. A daily or weekly backup on disk at night to a separate partition.  Even two separate partitions, one for image backup, one for tailored backups.  Of course any such backup has to be sent offline reasonably frequently to be effective. Then you can optionally use the extra partitions as the offline data source. (Backup G:)  Might be a good idea, since this has absolutely no effect on regular programming functioning and never has to worry about exceptions to data/program structure, the problem above.  This also should allow you to have lots of backup data, away from the OS, on the disk.  In the way that does not force duplicate data into the image backup.  If I understand how these things work  :) .

Shalom,
Steven


Steven Avery

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 846
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Should I get my new laptop with hard drive partitioned?
« Reply #30 on: April 05, 2009, 02:45:16 PM »
Hi Folks,

  Reading the new thread :

http://www.donationc...ex.php?topic=17737.0
OS Re-install Tips?

and this one again. I think I will moderate the above some.  I had not considered a couple of the possible usages and advantages of multiple partitions. The new thread jarred me a bit, helping to understand (e.g. imaging, recovery, test environments, support of frequently wiped puters).

 Overall, there are variables in the system that have to be considered.  Here are some.

Multiple drives or one  (dual drives)
Disk Space pct - light or heavy
Is any planned OS dual booting planned (other than divvying up XP or Vista or 7)
 
==============================================

Special Cases may strongly support multiple partitions.

"Recovery partition" creation (some mfg even put in hidden recovery partitions for the OS)
"Pen drive" mirror partitions (no registry, ergo, less concern for cross-drive mixing)

There are also the speed considerations (see discussions above on swap file, mulitple disks, etc). Minor compared to the other considerations.  However if you have multiple drives it may be more natural to think about this.

=============================================

  So there is the issue mentioned in the new thread of quick redeployment. Types of usage that move toward frequent OS wipes, where multiple partitions by design simplify daily support.  Two are:

Computer support, corporate -- laptop deployment, high personal turnover, security wipes

Test environments.

===============================

  All these issues will have a lot to do with whether multiple partitions make sense. For some, a waste of time, for others, close to essential. Now the basic problem always exists in Windows (the lack of a clearly defined OS) -- this is why I was so dismissive before.  And so many programs can be unruly in trying to make absolutely clear distinctions.  You cannot easily fully differentiate partitions (OS, App Sys, Data).  Apps throw program files in the System folder, data is put here, there and everywhere, and it is a chore to check every program, in some cases it is hard to find. 

 "It is 10:PM . Do you know where your log file is tonight"

  Two areas that even the simple home enthusiast may see obvious benefit.

A) Setting up very special partitions (recovery, pen drive) that will fulfill their function 100% and can be tested.  (And this overlaps the next, you want a recovery partition light.)  A pen drive is by nature a bootable independent drive, separate from everything and a recovery partition similarly has to be 100% independent.

B)  Offload a lot of data from the system partition (eg. gigabytes of mail) so that OS partition mirror is simple and clean. You may still have minor data and config vestiges on the OS partition, but the great bulk will be off, making it lighter.  Cleaner for imaging and restoring.

Many of us have 100Gb simply free.  So a 25-50 Gb partition holding data from some programs (that know how to cross-drive) may make a lot of sense.   This is due to the popularity of imaging for quick backup and restore .. in the file-by-file backup you would simply exclude a folder in one backup - it was all in the design. 

This is what I did not consider above, how those in quick-support realms design for imaging and restore possibilities. (I've always been skeptical of disk image backup but in some environments it is the norm.) In such a case, massive data removed from the source takes away a very cumbersome element. 

On my home PC, I am considering beginning the project with a 25 Gb data partition, and then testing, one-by-one, moving program data over, and seeing how it fits my usage. This would be the simplest startup of multi-partition, and does not require being done at format time.  This would go hand-in-hand with one other "recovery partition" that would then match the much-smaller main partition.   That could come later, even if I set-aside the partition now.  (Well, I could always use it for Linux, except Linux might want multiple partitions .. is that physical or can that be done logically within one partition - experts ?)

One thing to be aware of.  If your disk space is tight, then dividing up into partitions is likely to cause more space problems.  Similar to how two-way streets will move slower than one-way streets.  You are creating 2 or 3 or 4 crunch points, and the lighter loads are not balancing the heavier load.   A disk that is 70% full that is divided up into 3 partitions is likely to have one unacceptably too full too quickly, even if no new major data, like a recovery partition, is added.  Also, you have a bit more maintenance to be concerned with, whatever you do on one drive, now you have to consider for more than one, defrag, cleaning, etc.

So I am now listening to the partition experts here.  I still think it is at times grossly overdone, however I can see how in some cases it is an excellent idea. As some of our posters have shared from their own experiences, especially in PC-support.

Your thoughts ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery
« Last Edit: April 05, 2009, 03:10:57 PM by Steven Avery »

kartal

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 1,529
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Should I get my new laptop with hard drive partitioned?
« Reply #31 on: April 05, 2009, 02:49:40 PM »
I had partitioned my laptop`s(Macbook pro) drive to 3 partitions. I have Macos, Winxp and Linux on it and I am very happy about it. Having multiple partitions and multiple Os is a good idea in my opinion.

Steven Avery

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 846
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Should I get my new laptop with hard drive partitioned?
« Reply #32 on: April 05, 2009, 03:09:53 PM »
Hi Kartal,

  Understood.  However that is very different than partitions within XP.   To get a dual-boot or a tri-boot system is kewl.  However would you then take the XP partition and divide it up into 3, ending with 5 partitions? Likely not. 

  That is one of my concerns, it can easily be an either-or situation.  If I am gonna set up a Linux partition, perhaps I should simply deep-six the XP-divvy partitions.  Why set up too many levels of complication ?  (Thinking out loud.)

  Or (other than laptops) should I simply put Linux and any other OS on its own box, and put aside the dual-boot possibility.  This is what I am considering.  My workplace just gave me a decent 3 to 5 yr-old Windows box, find a spot for it and let it do Linux ?  Such hardware is $25-100 even if not free, however not as quick as my main sys.  Of course it is safer and easier, at least the first time, to put a new OS on a otherwise-not-used box.  From what I read in the grapevine, folks may cause themselves problems by chewing off too much.

  Your laptop situation of course is kewl and different.  You work with one laptop, so you want to have multi-boot on the system, your not gonna carry around 2 or 3 laptops :) .

Shalom,
Steven Avery
« Last Edit: April 05, 2009, 03:18:53 PM by Steven Avery »

4wd

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 4,471
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Should I get my new laptop with hard drive partitioned?
« Reply #33 on: April 05, 2009, 07:45:15 PM »
Hi Kartal,

  Understood.  However that is very different than partitions within XP.   To get a dual-boot or a tri-boot system is kewl.  However would you then take the XP partition and divide it up into 3, ending with 5 partitions? Likely not.

I would, (well divide the XP into 2 at least).

Purely so my data, (My Docs, portable programs, etc, etc), doesn't reside on the system partition.

The system partition has the most writes to it, (temp files, pagefile, etc), so IMO it's the one most likely to suffer read/write errors and in that case I don't want my data on it.

f0dder

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,029
  • [Well, THAT escalated quickly!]
    • View Profile
    • f0dder's place
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Should I get my new laptop with hard drive partitioned?
« Reply #34 on: April 06, 2009, 04:21:27 AM »
4wd: if you want to protect your data against sector errors, you really want it on a separate physical drive, not just a partition on the same drive.
- carpe noctem