I Just bought a 160GB hard drive and I plan on partitioning it. I want Windows and the swap file to be on its own partition in the fastest part of the hard drive.
When I create what will become the C:\ drive, does it always place this first partition in the fastest area of the drive, or is it completely random? I saw another thread that seemed to suggest that the hard drive just randomly places partitions wherever it sees fit.
Partitioning For Speed? Can't seem to find this in the FAQ
MultiQuote
#2
Gilbo 
Posted 17 August 2004 - 02:10 PM
The hard drive certainly doesn't place partitions "wherever it sees fit" 
. Partitions are created from the outside of the drive inwards --just like data is deposited.
The pagefile, like most any file will be created on the outermost, free space on the disk. Since the pagefile is created when you first boot Windows, it will be as far to the outside of the disk as possible, edged out only by the OS. There is no need to partition your disk. You will, however, want to configure the pagefile to be a constant size so it does not fragment.
You should bear in mind that partitioning will invariably increase seek distances between data on your disk, and, therefore, will reduce performance --not increase it. Of course, since there is no reason to partition in the first place, this is of little concern.
. Partitions are created from the outside of the drive inwards --just like data is deposited.The pagefile, like most any file will be created on the outermost, free space on the disk. Since the pagefile is created when you first boot Windows, it will be as far to the outside of the disk as possible, edged out only by the OS. There is no need to partition your disk. You will, however, want to configure the pagefile to be a constant size so it does not fragment.
You should bear in mind that partitioning will invariably increase seek distances between data on your disk, and, therefore, will reduce performance --not increase it. Of course, since there is no reason to partition in the first place, this is of little concern.
#3
HisMajestyTheKing
- Member
- Group: Member
- Posts: 5,000
- Joined: 30-December 01
Posted 17 August 2004 - 02:19 PM
Quote
There is no need to partition your disk
No?
PC is too old to brag with.
#4
MortySnerd
- Member
- Group: Member
- Posts: 5
- Joined: 27-July 04
Posted 17 August 2004 - 03:13 PM
I've always noticed that as I add more huge files like MP3's and video that my hard drive slows down. I imagine this is because the HD has more data to chug through to get to things like DLL's and game data, which is what I use most frequently.
If I have a seperate partition for all my huge media files, would this not speed up typical day to day use of my Windows/Swap file/Gaming partition?
If I have a seperate partition for all my huge media files, would this not speed up typical day to day use of my Windows/Swap file/Gaming partition?
#6
Olaf van der Spek
- Member
- Group: Member
- Posts: 1,958
- Joined: 14-November 02
Posted 17 August 2004 - 03:23 PM
Gilbo, on Aug 17 2004, 09:16 PM, said:
Not for his usage. (Ignore this if you were just making fun of the fact that his question appears to be the question of the week).
Not partitioning isn't the same as creating one partition.
#7
Gilbo
Posted 17 August 2004 - 03:30 PM
MortySnerd, on Aug 17 2004, 04:13 PM, said:
I've always noticed that as I add more huge files like MP3's and video that my hard drive slows down. I imagine this is because the HD has more data to chug through to get to things like DLL's and game data, which is what I use most frequently.
Data is written from the outside of the disk towards the middle. Adding media data will not somehow split up the program data that you have already installed. Linked libraries and binary executables and game data will all remain nicely localized on your hard drive no matter how many mp3s you drop onto it.
The only way the issue that you describe could arise was if you were copying mp3s to your hard disk while simultaneously installing an application. Then you might mix things up a little, but I doubt it would be noticeable.
It is also impossible to fragment application data, because application data is not deleted, modified or moved after it has been installed.
#8
Gilbo
Posted 17 August 2004 - 03:31 PM
Olaf van der Spek, on Aug 17 2004, 04:23 PM, said:
Gilbo, on Aug 17 2004, 09:16 PM, said:
Not for his usage. (Ignore this if you were just making fun of the fact that his question appears to be the question of the week).
Not partitioning isn't the same as creating one partition.
LOL. Of course. You guys are too clever for me... I hang my head in shame.
#9
Screwdriver
- Member
- Group: Member
- Posts: 401
- Joined: 04-January 02
Posted 17 August 2004 - 04:40 PM
Gilbo, on Aug 17 2004, 12:16 PM, said:
HisMajestyTheKing, on Aug 17 2004, 03:19 PM, said:
Quote
There is no need to partition your disk
No?
Not for his usage. (Ignore this if you were just making fun of the fact that his question appears to be the question of the week).
one 160GB partition?
What would happen if he ran a copy of windows prior to XP SP1?
#10
alanx
- Member
- Group: Member
- Posts: 121
- Joined: 18-May 04
Posted 17 August 2004 - 05:48 PM
Quote
You should bear in mind that partitioning will invariably increase seek distances between data on your disk, and, therefore, will reduce performance --not increase it.
What if he partitioned the 160GB drive in half (or fouth), and used the first half (or fourth) for all normally used files, such as O/S, programs, dat, and reserved the second half for infrequenly-used files, such as downloads, back-ups, drivers? Wouldn't that prevent the drive from seeking to the far end of the disk during normal system operation, thereby minimizing seek/access times and speeding things up?
Sign In
Register
Help