Re: Partitioning for Performance
- From: "Kerry Brown" <kerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*a*m>
- Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 11:02:21 -0700
"Jack Handey" <nothere@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uVl3o02mFHA.2904@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>I don't use the defrag utility in winxp. I have a program called O&O Defrag
>which only needs 5% free space.
>
I still don't see any advantage to setting up your partitions this way. It's
just as easy to organise things with folders. There is really no great
performance advantage that makes all the housework needed to do things this
way necessary. In older versions of Windows and with smaller drives and
slower systems it may have been needed. Now it's simply user preference.
Unless you are storing data on physically seperate drives there is no big
advantage regarding data corruption either. The most common cause of data
corruption is a bad hard drive.
Kerry
>
> "Jim Macklin" <p51mustang[threeX12]@xxxhotmail.calm> wrote in message
> news:%23id5LXzmFHA.3936@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> If you want to defrag you need at least 15% free space, so
>> your 6 GB is basically full.
>>
>> I have 4 partitions on my drive, each about 20 GB. Each has
>> about 50% free space. I have moved My Documents (and all
>> other such files) to other partitions even though that will
>> cause some performance penalty because it increases the
>> safety for email, data and downloaded files. I archive
>> downloads so that I can re-create or rollback to prior
>> versions.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
>> But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
>> some support
>> http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*a*m> wrote in
>> message news:ekVfLjxmFHA.2580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> | "Jack Handey" <nothere@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> | news:Og4cCZvmFHA.3256@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> | > Sure it is, i've had mine set at 6gb since day one and
>> i've still got a
>> | > gig free. EVERYTHING that is intalled gets installed
>> over to d: drive. I
>> | > even go in and change all the folder settings for office
>> over to there so
>> | > my email isn't even on c:.
>> | >
>> |
>> | And the advantage of doing this is?
>> |
>> |
>> | > Besides if you ever need more space that's what
>> partition magic pro is
>> | > for.
>> | >
>> | > "Kerry Brown" <kerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*a*m> wrote in
>> message
>> | > news:uWF4pCvmFHA.1948@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> | >> "John" <none@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> | >>
>> news:42f532d2$0$24823$9a6e19ea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> | >>> Hello Everyone,
>> | >>>
>> | >>> I have 3 hard disks and I am putting together a new
>> computer.
>> | >>> The first hard disk is brand new SATA 300GB 16meg
>> cache and NCQ.
>> | >>> The other two are 250 MB 8meg cache IDE's.
>> | >>>
>> | >>> Would it be best to keep my system files on the new
>> SATA drive
>> | >>> and only have the primary partition? Or should I make
>> 2
>> | >>> partitions on that new SATA drive? One 8GB (for
>> system files)
>> | >>> and the rest for storage/games?
>> | >>>
>> | >>> Also, Should the games folder be on separate drives
>> then the
>> | >>> system drive to potentially increase perfomance?
>> Please Advise!
>> | >>>
>> | >>>
>> | >>
>> | >> It comes down to personal preference. Whatever you do 8
>> GB while
>> | >> technically OK in reality is not large enough for the
>> OS.
>> | >>
>> | >> Kerry
>> | >>
>> | >>
>> | >
>> | >
>> |
>> |
>>
>>
>>
>
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Partitioning for Performance
- From: Jim Macklin
- Re: Partitioning for Performance
- References:
- Partitioning for Performance
- From: John
- Re: Partitioning for Performance
- From: Kerry Brown
- Re: Partitioning for Performance
- From: Jack Handey
- Re: Partitioning for Performance
- From: Kerry Brown
- Re: Partitioning for Performance
- From: Jim Macklin
- Re: Partitioning for Performance
- From: Jack Handey
- Partitioning for Performance
- Prev by Date: XP Fails to Install Previously Working Scanner Driver
- Next by Date: hard drive issue not working
- Previous by thread: Re: Partitioning for Performance
- Next by thread: Re: Partitioning for Performance
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading