Re: To partition or not to partition
From: Alex Nichol (alexn.mvpdts_at_ntlworld.delete.com)
Date: 07/19/04
- Next message: Alex Nichol: "Re: DVD reader or CD burner should go in favor of DVD burner?"
- Previous message: Hein Farrell: "RE: Network Cable"
- In reply to: Ken Blake: "Re: To partition or not to partition"
- Next in thread: Ken Blake: "Re: To partition or not to partition"
- Reply: Ken Blake: "Re: To partition or not to partition"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:04:27 +0100
Ken Blake wrote:
>My personal view is that, whether you're talking about FAT16,
>FAT32, or NTFS, if you calculate the amount of space wasted to
>slack in dollars (substitute your local currency, if not
>dollars), it doesn't amount to very much. All those megabytes or
>gigabytes sound like a lot of space, but as hard drive prices per
>gigabyte continue to decline partitioning to save slack space
>makes little sense.
The other consideration in XP is the desirability of having the cluster
size match the internal 4K page used by the hardware of an Intel
architecture CPU. That allows program loads, program files used for
paging in of code, and the page file itself, to be accessed by direct
transfer from disk to RAM, without need for buffering. You get that
size on FAT 32 partitions up to 8GB, and practically any NTFS one.
which is an argument for switching to NTFS above 8GB, except perhaps for
a partition used solely for *very* large data files (eg movies).
I think the OP is going over the top in making so many small partitions;
my feeling is at most to have one for system and core material (like the
parts of Office that go into Program Files no matter what). Back this
up by imaging. And myself, doing a lot of test installs, I have a
separate, identically sized partition for those, dual booted and
mutually invisible. Then beyond that one for other programs (that may
not need such a rigorous backup - and gets shared in the dual boot); one
for small but vital data files, and a fourth for the big stuff;
preferably on a second physical drive.
-- Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies) Bournemouth, U.K. Alexn@mvps.D8E8L.org (remove the D8 bit)
- Next message: Alex Nichol: "Re: DVD reader or CD burner should go in favor of DVD burner?"
- Previous message: Hein Farrell: "RE: Network Cable"
- In reply to: Ken Blake: "Re: To partition or not to partition"
- Next in thread: Ken Blake: "Re: To partition or not to partition"
- Reply: Ken Blake: "Re: To partition or not to partition"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
