Hi Everybody,
I am about to buy a Dell computer with a 320 GByte hard drive. Does
anyone have any suggestions for partitioning the hard drive to maximize
performance. Specifically, I was thinking of three partitions -- Vista,
applications, and data.
1. Will partitioning degrade performance.
2. How much should be allocated to a Vista partition to get maximum speed.
3. How much -- or rather how much extra space -- should be allocated to a
partition containing applications.
4. Do I need much extra space for a partition assigned to data.
5. Will compressing any partition serve a useful function.
Thanking you
Phil

"Philip K." wrote
> Hi Everybody,
> I am about to buy a Dell computer with a 320 GByte hard drive. Does
> anyone have any suggestions for partitioning the hard drive to maximize
> performance. Specifically, I was thinking of three partitions -- Vista,
> applications, and data.

No reason to have a separate partition for Apps. If the OS needs to be
reinstalled so do the Apps. Don one partition for OS and Apps, and one for
data.

> 1. Will partitioning degrade performance.

No but it won't improve performance either. Partition for convenience in
backing up and restoring.

> 2. How much should be allocated to a Vista partition to get maximum
> speed.

Speed is not an issue. I would allocate at least 40GB for OS and APS. You
want a good excess, but it depends on what apps you have.

> 3. How much -- or rather how much extra space -- should be allocated to a
> partition containing applications.

Combine with OS in one partition.
> 4. Do I need much extra space for a partition assigned to data.

Depends on how much data you have.

> 5. Will compressing any partition serve a useful function.

No.

> Thanking you
> Phil
>
>
>
>



--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]

"Philip K." <Philip@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Op0QqZmoHHA.3892@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi Everybody,
> I am about to buy a Dell computer with a 320 GByte hard drive. Does
> anyone have any suggestions for partitioning the hard drive to maximize
> performance. Specifically, I was thinking of three partitions -- Vista,
> applications, and data.
> 1. Will partitioning degrade performance.

No

> 2. How much should be allocated to a Vista partition to get maximum
> speed.

Just don't make it so small that it may eventually become cramped. With a
hard drive that big I see no reason to make it any less than 80gb, unless
you are planning to store huge amounts of data on the data partition, like
Tivo files, in which case you probably want a second hd anyway.

> 3. How much -- or rather how much extra space -- should be allocated to a
> partition containing applications.
> 4. Do I need much extra space for a partition assigned to data.

I agree with Rock, keep it simple, two partitions, one for OS and apps, one
for data.

> 5. Will compressing any partition serve a useful function.
> Thanking you

Not that I can think of.

On Tue, 29 May 2007 22:58:31 -0400, "Philip K." <Philip@aol.com>
wrote:

>Hi Everybody,

> I am about to buy a Dell computer with a 320 GByte hard drive. Does
>anyone have any suggestions for partitioning the hard drive to maximize
>performance.


There are many reasons for having multiple partitions, but improving
performance is *not* one of them.


> Specifically, I was thinking of three partitions -- Vista,
>applications, and data.
>1. Will partitioning degrade performance.


A word on the terminology: partitioning is required, not optional.
Partitioning is the act of creating one or more partitions on the
drive. Since you can't use a drive until it has at least one partition
on it, *everyone* needs to partition.

So I assume you mean "will having *multiple* partitions degrade
performance?" The answer is yes, very slightly. Multiple partitions
spread out files further on the drive, causing the heads to have to
travel farther to get to the other partitions. That will cause a small
degradation in performance, but it's usually small enough so that it
should be disregarded in deciding how to set up your drive.


>2. How much should be allocated to a Vista partition to get maximum speed.


Speed is *not* the issue, and is irrelevant. The issue is how much
space*you* need.



>3. How much -- or rather how much extra space -- should be allocated to a
>partition containing applications.


Zero space. Many people recommend separating the operating system
and installed applications on different partitions because think that
if they ever have to reinstall Windows, their applications will
remain. They are wrong. Even if your applications are installed on a
partition separate from that the operating system is on, you can *not*
reinstall the operating system without losing the applications. The
reason is that all applications (except for a very occasional
near-trivial one) have entries and pointers to them within Windows, in
the registry and elsewhere. With Windows gone, all those entries get
lost, and the applications get broken. So that benefit doesn't exist.
Applications should be on the same partition as the operating system.



>4. Do I need much extra space for a partition assigned to data.



Again, that depends entirely on you. Nobody here knows how much data
you have and how quickly that amount will grow in the future.


>5. Will compressing any partition serve a useful function.



It will save space, but at an enormous cost--you run a greatly
increased risk of losing everything on the partition.

Here's my standard post on partitioning.

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

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:mm9r539uigcetq13sklt42bajgfapdf72g@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 22:58:31 -0400, "Philip K." <Philip@aol.com>
> wrote:
> 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

Great post Ken, you must be getting paid to do this.

Partitioning = waste of time.

In the past before FAT32 and NTFS if you had a huge partition the File Table
(the part of the drive that tells the drive where to find files on your HD,
kind of like a table of contents) would increase in size exponentially, so
like if you had a FAT16 partition on your drive and the partition went over
4Gigs the file table size would increase giving you much less usable space
on your hard drive. I forget, exactly the size, it might of been 128Megs.

FAT32 and NTFS elliminated that problem so your partitions can be a lot
bigger without loosing as much space. I won't go into too many details, but
i'm sure there are articles online about it if you google around a bit.

Just make one big partition, and think of the folders on your HD as
different drives. You have the "Users" folder for all your personal Data,
"Program Files" contains all your programs, and "Windows" contains the
System files.

3 Drives/Folders. Keep everything where they belong and you don't have to
worry about running out of space on one partition because you miscalculated
how much space you'd need.

Good luck Philip.

Sorry, but that's all just a waste of time.

The only thing that might be of real benefit is putting the
pagefile on a separate hard drive. I've tried many schemes
and configurations over the years- keeping the OS, programs, and pagefile
intact on one partition and one drive always seems to be the best thing.
It makes it a lot easier for me to make an image backup, too.


-Michael

* Philip K.:
> Hi Everybody,
> I am about to buy a Dell computer with a 320 GByte hard drive. Does
> anyone have any suggestions for partitioning the hard drive to maximize
> performance. Specifically, I was thinking of three partitions -- Vista,
> applications, and data.
> 1. Will partitioning degrade performance.
> 2. How much should be allocated to a Vista partition to get maximum speed.
> 3. How much -- or rather how much extra space -- should be allocated to a
> partition containing applications.
> 4. Do I need much extra space for a partition assigned to data.
> 5. Will compressing any partition serve a useful function.
> Thanking you
> Phil
>
>
>
>

On Wed, 30 May 2007 10:06:34 -0700, "Andy" <android8675@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
>news:mm9r539uigcetq13sklt42bajgfapdf72g@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 29 May 2007 22:58:31 -0400, "Philip K." <Philip@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>> 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
>
>Great post Ken,


Thanks for the kind words.


>you must be getting paid to do this.


I wish!

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

It all depends upon your personal preference.
The performance differences in having a single or more than one are rarely noticeable to anyone unless unusual circumstances exist(e.g. an intensive work environment with large scale applications and sizeable files). I'm sure one could monitor speed, access, drive head movement and create nifty little graphs and tables showing the difference, but in a normal distribution use environment the differences are hardly significant until one reach the extremes of distribution.

Vista partition ? forget about the speed issue.
Software partition ? forget about keeping it separate. Install software to the same partition as Vista.
How much space assigned to each partition is a personal choice. As an example this system is two internal 160GB drives(master and slave) and two external drives (80 and 40 GB dedicated to images and other backup). 40 GB or the first internal drive is dedicated to Vista and software applications(Vista, Office07, N360, Itunes*, graphics programs for pictures, support utilities[Acronis True Image, Adobe Reader, malware scanners etc). Currently about 12 GB of the 40 total is in use on that partition.

The rest(120GB) of the master drive is and extended partition with 3 logical three drives approx 50, 50, 20 GB(Ipod*, Pictures, Data). All of these drives have 80% or more remaining free space.

The slave drive has two primary partitions one holds XP Pro and software(30GB with only 9GB in use) for dual booting and another with organized folders(Windows Updates, Drivers, Programs, Image, Setup, and Misc with a subfolder for each o/s). Similar setup with XP and software installed(XP,Office2K3, Itunes*, graphics programs and utilities(NSW2006 Premier, etc)

Itunes* - Itunes software resides on each o/s partition but each o/s uses the same Ipod* folder on its stand alone partition. And each o/s uses the same folder for Pictures and Data.

The external drives as noted are only for backup(images or copy/drag and drop etc). The entire system image and backup easily fits on the external drives and each o/s image in a redundant backup fits on single dual layer DVD. The entire balance of all drives can fit on redundant 4 dual layer dvds.

Compression-imo effort and expense should be placed on spare and external drives before considering compression.

How and what you decide to do is your personal choice. Assess your needs, decide how the manage the system without or without partitions, and more importantly invest in a capable image program compatible for Vista(e.g. Acronis True Image or Ghost 12) and a properly sized external usb drive for storing images or the o/s and software and backup of data.

And finally in a pre-purchased system you may not have much choice upfront on partitioning. Vista has its own tool, but it certainly is not as flexible as Acronis Disk Director Suite(do not use Norton Partition Magic on Vista).

Good luck,
..winston


"Philip K." <Philip@aol.com> wrote in message news:Op0QqZmoHHA.3892@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
: Hi Everybody,
: I am about to buy a Dell computer with a 320 GByte hard drive. Does
: anyone have any suggestions for partitioning the hard drive to maximize
: performance. Specifically, I was thinking of three partitions -- Vista,
: applications, and data.
: 1. Will partitioning degrade performance.
: 2. How much should be allocated to a Vista partition to get maximum speed.
: 3. How much -- or rather how much extra space -- should be allocated to a
: partition containing applications.
: 4. Do I need much extra space for a partition assigned to data.
: 5. Will compressing any partition serve a useful function.
: Thanking you
: Phil
:
:
:
:

"Andy" <android8675@hotmail.com> wrote
> Partitioning = waste of time.
> Just make one big partition, and think of the folders on your HD as
> different drives. You have the "Users" folder for all your personal Data,
> "Program Files" contains all your programs, and "Windows" contains the
> System files.

Too often people become enamoured with the imagined benefits of partitioning
and take it to extremes, but having two partitions is still a very good
idea. If you have one 300GB partition then to have a current backup you need
to frequently image the entire thing. If you dedicate 50-100GB to the system
and the remainder to day-to-day data, then you can simply update the saved
data backup regularly and only update the system partition backup image set
after a major change. I also keep a backup image of the system partition
located right on the data partition, so in case of a serious problem with
Windows, I can recover quickly without having to resort to the backup DVD
set. This should not happen often to a wise user, but it's nice to be
prepared if it does.

Lee

Leee From your post "... I also keep a backup image of the system partition
located right on the data partition, so in case of a serious problem with
Windows, ..." - not a good idea having the backup on the same drive as the
OS - if you lose access to the drive you cannot access any partition -
including the Data partition with your backup

Complete PC backup (Vista Ultimate and Business versions) will not permit
backup to the active drive only to an external drive or removable media.
Most "newer" backup program will issue a warning against backing up to the
same drive.

"Lee" <not@chance.ever> wrote in message
news:%23O5ej1voHHA.2596@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "Andy" <android8675@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Partitioning = waste of time.
>> Just make one big partition, and think of the folders on your HD as
>> different drives. You have the "Users" folder for all your personal Data,
>> "Program Files" contains all your programs, and "Windows" contains the
>> System files.
>
> Too often people become enamoured with the imagined benefits of
> partitioning and take it to extremes, but having two partitions is still a
> very good idea. If you have one 300GB partition then to have a current
> backup you need to frequently image the entire thing. If you dedicate
> 50-100GB to the system and the remainder to day-to-day data, then you can
> simply update the saved data backup regularly and only update the system
> partition backup image set after a major change. I also keep a backup
> image of the system partition located right on the data partition, so in
> case of a serious problem with Windows, I can recover quickly without
> having to resort to the backup DVD set. This should not happen often to a
> wise user, but it's nice to be prepared if it does.
>
> Lee
>