Jump to content
Piriform Community Forums
Eldmannen

Disk partitions

Recommended Posts

i have any partitions on my disk. also fast to defrag... :-))

 

c: windows 6 gb

d: programs 10 GB

e: games 30 GB

f: mp3 and other stuff 20 GB

g: system (with download files and updates) 10 GB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have "partition commander 10" from avanquest, from w98 up

 

but is perhaps supportet by paragon, i mean :-)i take this, because its in german, i dont use "easeus free partition" it is only english.

 

I would like to know exactly what I do :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crucial m4 128GB SSD for C:\ and for other files I've Samsung F3 1TB and older Samsung 500GB (total 3 partitions, used to have 4).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't tried SSD yet, Nodles, but I heard of people doing it that way. Should work good.

_________

 

With internal drives, I use 2 partitions to keep data separated from OS for 3 reasons:

 

- Faster defrag

- Faster virus scan

- Can be formatted & clean installed with no loss of data on other partition (direct partition to partition file transfer before format)

_________

 

Current external drive (1 TB):

 

- 100 GB Personal (Partition to put personal pictures/documents/files etc)

- 100 GB Permanent (Partition to place completed SFX/files/etc)

- 800 GB Processing (Partition to place files to be worked on)

_________

 

For the internal drive, I normally partition it this way depending on drive size:

 

80 GB -> 20 GB OS / 60 GB Files

120 GB -> 20 GB OS / 100 GB Files

250 GB -> 50 GB OS / 200 GB Files

 

Although I do vary some from time to time, I generally try to give files about 80% of the drive space or more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't get me wrong, I understand why you all like partitions, they have their benefits.

 

but i've seen people do it on the sole reason that if partition 1 dies, they think they can still access partition 2 for example.

they fail to realise (or forget or were never told) it's the same physical unit. it's more than likely that whatever has rendered one partitiion inaccessible will probably effect the entire drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For folk who make back up "Images" of their drives, partitioning is a pretty good thing.

 

The partition that's likely to go down for a number of reasons other than a complete drive failure, is the System Partition. Far easier to restore a back up Image of just the System Partition as opposed to restoring one for an entire 1TB drive.

 

What is a system image?

 

And if any of you folk don't back up your System Drive/Partition, it's time you started.

 

Just thought I'd mention that.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the situation with partitioning SSDs, any major negatives (eg increased wear on OS partition)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SSDs are so small that you wouldn't gain much with partitioning. I use my 128GB as C: (Windows+software+games). All other data like music and videos are on HDDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you "split" physical disc into partitions then each partition has defined boundary limits with upper and lower limit values of LBA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_block_addressing.

 

A normal user file access is by name of drive letter/folder/file to the Operating system which translates this to LBA values that are communicated to the disk controller.systems.

 

Writing a large file to contiguous range of LBA values is translated by the physical disk controller to :-

A contiguous range of tracks/sectors on a rotating HDD and the contents of one partition are never intermingled.

Whatever the controller arbitrarily chooses based upon algorithms which include the intention of equalizing the wear out of every Flash chip held in an entire stationary SSD.

 

The SSD has no concept of a partition - every Flash chip is "grist for the mill".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SSD has no concept of a partition - every Flash chip is "grist for the mill".

 

My insight, also. I've searched for and discussed with others a justification for partitioning SSDs, and discovered none. So what prompts users to do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you "split" physical disc into partitions then each partition has defined boundary limits with upper and lower limit values of LBA.

https://en.wikipedia...ock_addressing.

 

A normal user file access is by name of drive letter/folder/file to the Operating system which translates this to LBA values that are communicated to the disk controller.systems.

 

Writing a large file to contiguous range of LBA values is translated by the physical disk controller to :-

A contiguous range of tracks/sectors on a rotating HDD and the contents of one partition are never intermingled.

Whatever the controller arbitrarily chooses based upon algorithms which include the intention of equalizing the wear out of every Flash chip held in an entire stationary SSD.

 

The SSD has no concept of a partition - every Flash chip is "grist for the mill".

 

Thanks, so in short, no, it has zero effect on wear :D

 

My insight, also. I've searched for and discussed with others a justification for partitioning SSDs, and discovered none. So what prompts users to do it?

 

My own personal reasoning, if/when I get one, would be for one of the same reasons I partition my current drive - if Windows goes tits up, all data etc is safe on a non OS partition (I should probably mention it's a laptop I'm considering fitting one in so only one drive)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For folk who make back up "Images" of their drives, partitioning is a pretty good thing.

 

The partition that's likely to go down for a number of reasons other than a complete drive failure, is the System Partition. Far easier to restore a back up Image of just the System Partition as opposed to restoring one for an entire 1TB drive.

 

What is a system image?

 

And if any of you folk don't back up your System Drive/Partition, it's time you started.

 

Just thought I'd mention that.

:)

 

DennisD,

I'm curious as to what software you use for imaging your system partition?.

I used to use Nortons Ghost ages ago but found the process took far too long, something like 8 hours to image, then 8'ish if you had to restore.

So I gave up and have for many years now just backed up my personal data with ViceVersa.

I rebuld my PC every 18 months to 2 years to get it back to original speeds and find the entire process of reloading all my software and resetting up personal settings takes about 3 hours.

So personally I've never found a benefit with partitions, I just use folders.

I'd be interested to hear of your timings to if you can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DennisD,

I'm curious as to what software you use for imaging your system partition?.

I used to use Nortons Ghost ages ago but found the process took far too long, something like 8 hours to image, then 8'ish if you had to restore.

 

I'd be interested to hear of your timings to if you can.

 

Like a lot of others on here I use Macrium Reflect Home Edition (Freeware), and there have been a lot of threads over the last few years on this program and how easy it is to use, and how reliable it is.

 

It doesn't take long at all to backup my system drive to an Image, and as I'm due a "fresh" one, I'll post back here "how long it takes/size of Image" when I'm done.

 

Some past threads if you're interested ...

 

http://www.google.co...ect&btnG=Search

 

 

EDIT: The home page for Macrium uses CNET as it's download source. I don't like CNET although Macriums home page is worth a look, so personally I would download the Free version from FileHippo ...

 

http://filehippo.com/download_macrium_reflect/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the heads-up Dennis, I hadn't heard of Macrium, but as i said, that'll be due to my lack of interest in images over backups.

but i'm curioous enough now (and it's been long enough) to give it another whirl.

plus last week i bit the bullet and installed a SSD as the System Drive, hence my sudden, refreshed interest in imaging.

 

as an off topic item (sorry), why do you not like CNET. I tend to use Filehippo and MajorGeeks mostly but that's only mainly due to a particular link taking me to those mirror sites. is there some underlying reason to avoid CNET?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hazelnut,

thanks for the CNET link, and I had actually forgotten about the Win7 system image software.

probably because i hate the MS Backup program in general and gave up on it, i think, back in the 3.1 or 95/98 days.

thanks to DennisD, I have been playing with the free Macrium program and must say, so far so good. as you say, it's an additional safety net.

 

again , my apologies for the off topic detour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks from me also hazel. Good link, and you're not really off topic mta as we're talking about partitioning, and Image back ups of system partitions are relevant and always worth talking about.

 

If you go down the Imaging road, don't forget the most important thing, which I never get tired of shouting about .. verifying.

 

Verify after making an Image, before restoring an Image, and most definitely if you include one in a defrag process, which I never do as I'm wary that defragging may compromise an Image's integrity.

 

Also make sure you have a "Resue CD", whether it be the one made from within Macrium, or something like a BartPE disk for which you can get a Macrium plug-in. You can also restore an Image using a small utility called "Disk Restore".

 

I keep a copy of this little tool on the same drive as the Image, and I can then boot my pc with any rescue/linux type disk, and run "Disk Restore" to restore the Image.

 

Information here, to save my fingers ...

 

http://forum.pirifor...ndpost&p=217475

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My insight, also. I've searched for and discussed with others a justification for partitioning SSDs, and discovered none. So what prompts users to do it?

 

Even though SSD drives may not need defraggling, I still do it for the following reasons:

 

- Data Separation -> You still need to periodically scan for malware/viruses, so why scan ALL of your data? Save time & wear. Just scan system files, please!!!

- Data Preservation -> If the system partition goes down, you can format/re-install Windows & be back up. No files lost, as they're on the other partition.

- Easier -> Do you really like all your music to be on your system partition? D:\Music, D:\Games, D:\Pictures etc. is SOOO much easier than C:\Users\etc....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't get me wrong, I understand why you all like partitions, they have their benefits.

 

but i've seen people do it on the sole reason that if partition 1 dies, they think they can still access partition 2 for example.

they fail to realise (or forget or were never told) it's the same physical unit. it's more than likely that whatever has rendered one partitiion inaccessible will probably effect the entire drive.

 

I don't forget that.

 

Which is WHY I partition. To preserve the life of the drive.

 

Question. Which will shorten a drive's life faster? All games/music/pics secluded on a secondary partition, or scanning them ALL every time you check for viruses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made my system 4000% less vulnerable to HDD errors,

and Chkdsk was 4000% faster,

by using a 25 GB Partition for C:\ instead of the entire 1000 GB HDD :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is 4000 an exact number?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In practice I never actually did any tests with the system partition using the entire HDD.

After waiting for Windows Disk Management to wake up I find the HDD is 931.5 GB

The precise ratio is 931.5 GB / 25 GB = 37.26 = 3726%.

 

NB 11.3 GB of Used space leaves only 13.7 GB of Free Space on a 25 GB partition.

I will never measure this, but I compute that Wiping Free Space in a 25 GB partition is

920.2 / 13.7 * 100% = 6717% faster than if C:\ had been allocated 931.5 GB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wiped my WD 60gb drive with the wipe option in CCleaner. I then used winxp disk management to format and use NTFS everything was great until I realized that half the drive is gone. It seams OK and shows up in xp disk management, but as 31.9 GB NTFS - Healthy. Does not show anything else like unformatted or any other partition. I have it set up as a slave. Have not used it because I want to get back lost GB first. Could the cclean wipe do something that I need to fix after wipe? Any ideas would be helpful. I know enough to screw-up any computer, but I try.

Thanks milljack 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A picture is worth more than a thousand words :)

 

If you would post a screen shot of all the information that Windows Disk Management can show for this drive,

we would understand the situation much better than having a series of posts and requests for clarification.

 

Regards

Alan

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×