Will partition the disk make it run faster?

J

Justgetmein

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 20, 2005
Messages
148
I have a 250gb and i'm gonna install Xp, don't now if it's faster to partition on one side the os and games and on the other media crap like movies and music or it doesn't really matter.
 
If this gets moved to the "Disk Storage Systems" forum later, you"ll get some good responses. 'Till then, here's my 2 cents (some may disagree).

My primary HDD has 3 partitions.

C - Strictly for game installs. Fastest part of the disk.
E - Windows installation
F - NTFS formatted bulk file storage . Slowest part of the disk.
(D is the DVD)
Theoretically the game files can be accessed faster.

My second HDD has 3 partitions.

G - Linux installation
H - NTFS formatted bulk file storage backup and paging file.
(If the paging files need to be acessed during gaming, they are on a separate drive and can be accessed without moving out of C on the primary HDD.)
I - Linux formatted bulk storage.
 
Justgetmein said:
I have a 250gb and i'm gonna install Xp, don't now if it's faster to partition on one side the os and games and on the other media crap like movies and music or it doesn't really matter.
Click to expand...

If all are on one physical hard disk drive then it doesn't matter. If separate drives, then you might see a slight increase in speed depending on what is installed on each drive and depending on how stored.
 
Partitions don't effect access speed. If it's all on the same HDD, speed will be the same as if you have one big partition. It does help people section off the HDD for different purposes, though...
 
If you download large files at a time (legal or illegal lol), you will get some fragmentation. In that sense, I think it's a heckuva lot more efficent to be only defragging 125GB of your 250GB, than defragging the ENTIRE thing, just cuz your d/l spit lil parts all of your hard drive.
 
Frank4d said:
If all are on one physical hard disk drive then it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that.

Your entire platter spins at the same RPM's. The block sizes are all the same, from the first track to the last. So there are more blocks on the outside track than on the inside track. In one revolution of the disk, more blocks will be available on the outside tracks. Your first partition starts on the outside of the disk.

So the platter has to spin 2 or 3 revolutions on the inside track to equal 1 revolution on the outside track.

I'm pretty sure I got that right. I set mine up based on a link I got in the Disk Storage Systems forum a year or so ago. Maybe someone else remembers what I'm talking about.
 
Found it, Copied it, Pasted it. Original by Ice Czar here
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=741512

Optimizing through Partitioning

1st Click Here

That is a representation of Zoned Bit Recording, your Partition order starts at the outer edge and works inward, for the purposes of this tutorial will will say each color represents a partition (unless specifically described differently)
the concentric circles represent tracks, and the scetions within a track would be sectors

Since the drive spins at the same speed constantly there are some basic access attributes that would occur if the head\arm doesnt jump partitions to access a different part of the disk

Dark Blue, this area will have the highest density of data passing under the head for the given speed, and thus will have the best sustained transfer rate (STR), so the largest files benefit from this placement

Whereas the Innner zone (Red Section) has the fewest sectors and since the rotation is fixed, less data will be passing under the head, so it has the lowest STR
So smaller files, will do relatively well here. or files that the reduced transfer rate doesnt impact the application, like music or media that is just being read, not written in realtime.

<actively working on this descriptor >
Also the file "Density" itself can be an advantage with small files, in comparison to larger files on the outside zones, if they are truely smaller files, the number of files passing under the head could be comparible to the tracks further out, while in the representation the outer tracks have 16 sector (in reality many many more, varies with the capacity of the HDD) in the Red zone that is reduced to nine sectors, this optimization can offset the actual seek time for a given file, since that many more files would be passing under the head for the same rotation <end, >

Now if each color band was a partition any data on that partition would have to be contained to a much smaller area, so regardless of how fragmented it was, the arm and head only have to move through a few degrees of arc to seek it (the access latency), whereas a larger partition (say dark blue through green) might have a part of single file on the outside track (dark blue) and more of it located in towards the green, several degrees more the arm has to move to seek the track(s) and of course any miss with the latency of waiting for it to come around again.
 
speed difference is probably negligable...

IMO, you should not partition if you are looking to get better speeds. Partitions are more for organization.
 
Justgetmein said:
I have a 250gb and i'm gonna install Xp, don't now if it's faster to partition on one side the os and games and on the other media crap like movies and music or it doesn't really matter.
Click to expand...

No it won't. It's still the same disk no matter how you slice it. You'll have the same performance either way.

I would recommend you get another drive for all your files though. That way in the event of an OS crash you don't have to worry about salvaging your data dumps.
 
i would make a 10 gig or so partition for windows and leave the rest for your other crap thats what i do. partitioning wont give you any speed increases
 
ChingChang said:
speed difference is probably negligable...

IMO, you should not partition if you are looking to get better speeds. Partitions are more for organization.
Click to expand...

Here's an abbreviated version of the chart you'll find if you click the links to the pcguide.com website.

Zone Tracks in Zone Sectors Per Track Data Transfer Rate (Mbits/s)
0 454 232 92.9
4 454 214 85.8
7 454 185 74.4
10 454 162 65.2
14 454 122 49.5

So the data transfer rate almost doubles from the inside zone to the outside zone.

And in my experience, you'll need more than 10 gigs for the Windows partition if you'll be installing lots of programs. Your "Program Files" folder can get pretty big if you're anything like me. Don't go less than 15.
 
I keep my OS partitioned off from the rest mainly for virus security. If one should happen to slip through then theoretically (and hopefully) my stored data will not be affected. I have been doing this for years and have yet to lose anything. (well after one bad experience years ago then this was recommended to me)

Edit: I wouldnt go any less than 25gb for your OS partition. I split my 74 gb raptor in half for mine.
 
upriverpaddler said:
Here's an abbreviated version of the chart you'll find if you click the links to the pcguide.com website.

Zone Tracks in Zone Sectors Per Track Data Transfer Rate (Mbits/s)
0 454 232 92.9
4 454 214 85.8
7 454 185 74.4
10 454 162 65.2
14 454 122 49.5

So the data transfer rate almost doubles from the inside zone to the outside zone.

And in my experience, you'll need more than 10 gigs for the Windows partition if you'll be installing lots of programs. Your "Program Files" folder can get pretty big if you're anything like me. Don't go less than 15.
Click to expand...

thats why you have the rest of your hard drive. custom installs are your friend.

Trucker61 said:
I keep my OS partitioned off from the rest mainly for virus security. If one should happen to slip through then theoretically (and hopefully) my stored data will not be affected. I have been doing this for years and have yet to lose anything. (well after one bad experience years ago then this was recommended to me)
Click to expand...

thats why i split my hard drive
 
upriverpaddler said:
Here's an abbreviated version of the chart you'll find if you click the links to the pcguide.com website.

Zone Tracks in Zone Sectors Per Track Data Transfer Rate (Mbits/s)
0 454 232 92.9
4 454 214 85.8
7 454 185 74.4
10 454 162 65.2
14 454 122 49.5

So the data transfer rate almost doubles from the inside zone to the outside zone.

And in my experience, you'll need more than 10 gigs for the Windows partition if you'll be installing lots of programs. Your "Program Files" folder can get pretty big if you're anything like me. Don't go less than 15.
Click to expand...
I don't care what those charts say. From my experience with this, the difference is negligible. I used to do something like this, making a partition for OS, and leaving the rest for programs and other things. All that was gained was a loss of space (not using extra space in OS partition), and confusion for the customers.
 
ChingChang said:
, and confusion for the customers.
Click to expand...

Well yes, this is obviously a power users thing. Not a casual users thing. It can be just as controversial as the RAID debate. So the answer to the OP is...

Yes.
 
F1xxer said:
No it won't. It's still the same disk no matter how you slice it. You'll have the same performance either way.

I would recommend you get another drive for all your files though. That way in the event of an OS crash you don't have to worry about salvaging your data dumps.
Click to expand...

This is why you can partition as well - your O/S takes a dump and you only have to redo C drive and your other partions are safe.


Trucker61 said:
I keep my OS partitioned off from the rest mainly for virus security. If one should happen to slip through then theoretically (and hopefully) my stored data will not be affected. I have been doing this for years and have yet to lose anything. (well after one bad experience years ago then this was recommended to me)

Edit: I wouldnt go any less than 25gb for your OS partition. I split my 74 gb raptor in half for mine.
Click to expand...

Well who ever told you this is wrong, a virus doesnt care about partitions - if you get a virus on your HD it is going to affect what ever it was designed to affect.
 
upriverpaddler said:
Well yes, this is obviously a power users thing. Not a casual users thing. It can be just as controversial as the RAID debate. So the answer to the OP is...

Yes.
Click to expand...

To me, loss of hard drive space is not worth the minimal gains.
 
ChingChang said:
To me, loss of hard drive space is not worth the minimal gains.
Click to expand...


The space isn't wasted anyway. You can still use it. Its there. Use it for your thumb drive backup folder.
 
boredguyatcomp said:
8MB means alot to you?
Click to expand...
I hope you are not serious...

upriverpaddler said:
The space isn't wasted anyway. You can still use it. Its there. Use it for your thumb drive backup folder.
Click to expand...
Yes, you can use it. But if/when you fill up your applications partition, you have to put new applications in different partitions. If for some reason you had to locate the application folder, you'd know where to look if it was all in one partition.

Also, when you fill up every partition with applications/data, chances are each partition will not be 100% full. Add up all the extra space and you realize how much space you could have used if you had one partition... might not happen to everyone, but I have seen several cases where this was a problem.

I like knowing exactly where my programs/files exist, and I don't like wasting space. As I said before, from what I have seen the difference is negligible. I did read posts like the one you posted above, and read several articles about partitioning improving performance. The theory does make sense. I promoted it to other users as you are doing now, but I eventually realized I did not see any performance difference, and it was just not worth it to me.
 
ChingChang said:
I like knowing exactly where my programs/files exist, and I don't like wasting space. As I said before, from what I have seen the difference is negligible. I did read posts like the one you posted above, and read several articles about partitioning improving performance. The theory does make sense. I promoted it to other users as you are doing now, but I eventually realized I did not see any performance difference, and it was just not worth it to me.
Click to expand...

i guess it depends on how big your hard drive is, mine is big enough for me so i keep windows in 1 partition and crap in another
 
Performance-wise, a single partition is the way to go. Sure, the outside part of a hard drive is the fastest section, and partitioning might help ensure your OS and game files stay in this area, in reality, the performance advantage is negliable. Also, as disk defagmentation programs get more advanced, they are able to place files that are accessed more often towards the faster part of the drive.

To get a noticable increase in speed, you need to increase the number of heads (ie: add extra hard drives), not partitions.
 
Justgetmein said:
I have a 250gb and i'm gonna install Xp, don't now if it's faster to partition on one side the os and games and on the other media crap like movies and music or it doesn't really matter.
Click to expand...

it does not really matter. While you may get improvements by relocating small files to an area of the disk that has a lower STR, the increased seek times are likely to offset and benefits.

Generally, the performance difference is going to be so small that it does not matter. If you are planning to reinstall your OS frequently without having to restore your documents etc. from a backup, a partitioning scheme may be a good idea. otherwise, I would not worry about it.

One could image that a really smart defragging program would be able to rearrage the files on a single partition to take advantage of the STR benefits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top