Re: How would you distribute these 6 partitions between 2 HDDs?

On Wed, 23 May 2007 20:15:40 -0500, Stan Hilliard
<usenetreplyMS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:35:38 -0500, Stan Hilliard
<usenetreplyMS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I'm building a PC. For best performance, how should I distribution the
following partitions between two volumes:



I missed your question originally, but let me comment on your overall
partitioning scheme, mostly without reference to which drive each
partition is on.


Six Partitions:
1 Windows XP Pro SP2
2 Application program files


Application program files should almost always be in the same
partition as Windows. Installed applications have many references to
themselves within Windows, in the registry and elsewhere. If you
reload Windows, you have to reinstall your applications. That's the
reason why the practice that many people have of separating their
applications on a separate partition or physical drive really makes no
sense.


3 Text data (my documents, program code, etc.)
4 Video (very large files.)


What is the rationale for separating the two types of data? For most
people, data is data, and there is no reason to separate it into
multiple partitions.


5 Virtual memory pagefile



A couple of points here:

1. The main performance issue with the page file is the time it takes
to move the drive heads to and from it. So, for almost everyone with a
single physical drive, the page file should be on the same partition
as Windows, normally C:

2. However, if you have two physical drives, the main part of the page
file should probably be on the second drive. However don't put it in
its own partition, but on the most-used partition on that
drive--thereby minimizing the time for head movement. A good rule of
thumb is to put it on the most-used partition of the least-used
physical drive.

But even if you put it on the second drive, you should also maintain a
small page file on C:. The best info on the page file is in this
article by the late MVP Alex
Nichol: "Virtual Memory in Windows XP"
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php

3. Most people running Windows XP these days have enough memory so
that page file use is minimal. In that case, it makes very little
difference where you put it.



6 Backups


If you care about your data, you should reconsider the idea of putting
backups on a separate partition or even a separate internal hard
drive. Such a scheme is better than no backup at all, but just barely.
It is always possible that a hard drive crash, user error, nearby
lightning strike, virus attack, even theft of the computer, can cause
the loss of everything on your drive or even everything on your entire
computer.

In my view, secure backup needs to be on removable media, and not kept
in the computer. For really secure backup (needed, for example, if the
life of your business depends on your data) you should have multiple
generations of backup, and at least one of those generations should be
stored off-site.

My computer isn't used for business, but my personal backup scheme
uses two identical removable hard drives,I alternate between the two,
and use Acronis True Image to make a complete copy of the primary
drive.

My view is that most people's partitioning scheme should be based on
their backup scheme. If, for example, you backup by creating a clone
or image of the entire drive, then a single partition might be best.
If, on the other hand, you backup only your data, then the backup
process is facilitated by having all data in a separate partition.

Except for those running multiple operating systems, there is seldom
any benefit to having more than two partitions.


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
.

Relevant Pages

  • Backup strategy
    ... > I have a Windows2000 Pro desktop, and I created a backup job to daily ... Partition one of the drives into 4 partitions. ... in your mirror hard disk as your only hard disk to make sure that it boots ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.general)
  • Re: RAID, SCHMAID.......
    ... And risky to change it later without a full image backup. ... with & in the system images so I know exactly what's where & done when. ... Pity that just saving the OS partition wont do that, ... to what raid or 10K+ drives or other new drives bring to the table. ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage)
  • Re: another Time Machine thread - still need SuperDuper?
    ... I was thinking of making the partition the same size as the Mac's boot ... experience with Time Machine, and someone who has a similar usage ... Machine backup looks like a complete copy of your data, ... I have two identical hard drives which I'll be using ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: questions on partitions for exchange
    ... If your backup is using the exchange backup API, ... build process that starts with a FAT partition and then converts it to NTFS. ... The second local RAID 1 with the SMTP is fine if this is not a cluster. ... Because of the limitation on the number of physical drives, ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.setup)
  • Re: Warning: Oblivion deletes your characters on uninstall
    ... comprehensive backup to retrieve something so small. ... truncating data all across the entire partition before I could recover by using ... with 2 160Gb drives to manage my partitions a bit better. ... Clue long since taken. ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg)