Re: Does Partitioning C Drive slow speed?
- From: "cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 02:56:58 +0200
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 07:43:34 +1100, "Sam Lewis"
>a computer vendor told me that partitioning C Drive (in my case to keep data
>separate from OS) would significantly slow down the speed of the computer.I
>this true and why,thanks
As stated, it's meaningless - C: "drive" *is* a (primary) partition,
and you can't create logical volumes in a primary partition. So if
you are verbatim-quoting the tech, I'd be inclined to flush now :-)
Every standard hard drive can contain up to 4 partitions. A HD set up
as a single primary partition "C:" has one partition present - so it
is already "partitioned".
Whether creating multiple partitions and volumeson the same HD will
speed upor slow it down, depends on:
- where the partitions are on the physical HD
- how big they are
- what the file system and clusrter size are
- what you put in each volume
Of these, the last is the biggie.
You can slow down a system by creating multiple partitions and
volumes. For example, create a small primary as C:, then an extended
with a large volume D: and a small volume E: at the end. Install the
OS on C:, i.e. at the "start" of the HD, then locate Temp, TIF and
pagefile in E:, as far away from C: as possible. You will have
constant head travel from the OS on C: to the swap etc. on E:, making
the system as slow as if one big C: had filled up, if not worse.
You can speed up a system in the same way, by making better choices.
Let's say you have a 120G HD and you want to store 80G of music that
you need to keep handy, but play only now and then when not really
using the PC otherwise. Here's what you do: small C: for OS,
pagefile, temp and TIF, the rest as an extended with small D:for data,
then a laaarge E: for that music collection, then a small F: for
backups. Now no matter how big the music, most head travel is kept to
the "front" of the HD, no matter how fragged the volumes get.
But speed isn't everything; there's also safety to consider. Data
gets corrupted during file writes, and the OS is constantly bashing
away at Temp, TIF and pagefile on C: - which is an excellent reason to
keep your data off C:, as in the previous example. Not being able to
work at all, because your data is gone, is really "slow".
Finally, there's ease of maintenance.
The XP OS is fragile; it won't survive being copies as loose files
from one HD to another - the whole volume has to be backed up as a
partition image. That's an awful palaver when you have one huge
doomed 120G C:, but it's a lot easier when C: is only 8G - you can
store multiple backup images off it in logical volume E:, in last e.g.
After a bad exit, C: usually has to be "fixed". That's a lot quicker
when C: is 8G rather than 120G, and data off C: is protected against
the "fixes" on C: Defrag is faster too, and less necessary because no
matter how fragged C: gets, it still spans no more than 8G.
Your vendor's wrong, unless he goes out of his way to plan partitions
and contents as badly as possible.
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Does Partitioning C Drive slow speed?
- From: Sam Lewis
- Re: Does Partitioning C Drive slow speed?
- References:
- Does Partitioning C Drive slow speed?
- From: Sam Lewis
- Does Partitioning C Drive slow speed?
- Prev by Date: Re: Dual LAN
- Next by Date: Re: Does Partitioning C Drive slow speed?
- Previous by thread: Re: Does Partitioning C Drive slow speed?
- Next by thread: Re: Does Partitioning C Drive slow speed?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
