Re: Does Partitioning C Drive slow speed?
- From: "Sam Lewis" <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:16:16 +1100
Thanks for very helpful and considered answer
Sam
"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:el06s19l8i0dk36b7lgfafmhhk8stu4feq@xxxxxxxxxx
> 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
>>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
.
- References:
- Does Partitioning C Drive slow speed?
- From: Sam Lewis
- Re: Does Partitioning C Drive slow speed?
- From: cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)
- Does Partitioning C Drive slow speed?
- Prev by Date: Re: Install floppy a drive
- Next by Date: Re: Assigning permanent letters to external devices.
- Previous by thread: Re: Does Partitioning C Drive slow speed?
- Next by thread: Re: Does Partitioning C Drive slow speed?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
