Does short-stroking work?

ikjadoon

ikjadoon

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
308
Hi! I've been looking for a new hard drive and have heard of something called short-stroking, in which you basically make partitions and that cuts your access time in half. Is this just a myth or does it really work? If so, why don't more people use it?

~Ibrahim~
 
I've never heard it called short stroking, but I do it. Lots of people partition their drives for better access.

My ideal is
physical disc 1--gaming files partition / storage partition
physical disc 2--OS partition / page file partition / storage partition

The advantages are mostly so small that they are useless.
 
Really? Doesn't halving your access time do at least something?

What if you had two physical drives? I have a 320GB right now and am getting a 640GB,hopefully. Does it still apply?

~Ibrahim~
 
ikjadoon said:
Really?
Click to expand...

No, not really. If you cut milliseconds in half, what are you really gaining.

IMHO, the most important thing is to have any two groups of data that will be accessed simultaneously on different physical drives. (For example, EQ2 and pagefile)
 
Well the ideal is you use the fastest drive - the 640.
Partition it so the OS/games are on the fastest part (the very first partition created). Not sure if you should really be watching partition size vs. platter size...but I'm using 120GB OS/Game partition on my 750.

And then of course, move the page to your 320. Ideally also have it in the faster partition for the page file.
 
upriverpaddler said:
Lots of people partition their drives for better access.

My ideal is
physical disc 1--gaming files partition / storage partition
physical disc 2--OS partition / page file partition / storage partition
Click to expand...

What I consider short stroking is, to take your drive and partition it to something smaller and not use the rest of unpartitioned space so as to not have the head have to seek from the end of the primary partition to the spindle.

e.g. My 160gig Dell Raptor drive, short stroke it to 60 gigs and leave the rest of the 100 gigs of unpartitioned space alone. Thus keeping the 60 gig main partition on the outer faster areas of the drive platter and since there is no logical partition the head doesn't waste time seeking for info thats not there.
 
Yes, but you don't have to leave the extra partition empty. Use it for data storage. Your porn files will not effect your FPS if they are on another partition.

If you aren't going to use the space, then just buy a smaller 10,000 rpm drive for the same price.
 
OK, OK. I think I have it:

WD6400AAKS (640GB): 150GB partition for OS, games, etc. 490GB partition for TV Recordings.
ST332062 (320GB): 5GB partition for page file. 315GB partition for TV Recordings.

A few questions

Can I enlarge a partition after it has been made? If not, should I enlarge the OS partition?

What about dual page files? One on the WD6400AAKS (in a dedicated partition) and another on the 320GB, also in a dedicated partition.

Can I make a "virtual" drive that combines both TV recording partitions from both drives?

Thanks!

~Ibrahim~

P.S. I'd buy a Raptor, but I *really* need the space. I only have 8GB left on this 320GB!
 
IT DOES WORK!

Hi!

He is running RAID,but check out those access times!

~Ibrahim~
 
wow 150gb os drive? my os is only 40gb and i've used only 15 with about 8 gbs of system restore
 
ikjadoon said:
IT DOES WORK!

Hi!

He is running RAID,but check out those access times!

~Ibrahim~
Click to expand...

It's a shame that the access seek time for a single drive is 4.6ms and write 5.2ms. Irregardless, it is impressive for that many drives. I wonder how he did that.
 
I'm doing this with my 3 RAID0'd Raptors. The more HDDs you add to the mix, the better access times you're guaranteeing for your first, outside slice/partition of the drives. I always force my OS onto the outside of the disks on as small a partition as possible.
 
DrStrangeBrew said:
this is one of the keywords, that when heard in an office environment, is a clear signal for a bonafide bullshitter :p

PS: heh for a second I thought this thread had something to do w/stock trading
Click to expand...

So are you saying according to WD specs and this guy's test with Raided drives that it would be better to slower access times? Sure benchmarks are nice, but what about real world performance?
 
upriverpaddler said:
I've never heard it called short stroking, but I do it. Lots of people partition their drives for better access.

My ideal is
physical disc 1--gaming files partition / storage partition
physical disc 2--OS partition / page file partition / storage partition

The advantages are mostly so small that they are useless.
Click to expand...

so is your OS disk "D"? and gaming "C"?

also, good partition software? (avail at microcenter preferable)
 
protias said:
So are you saying according to WD specs and this guy's test with Raided drives that it would be better to slower access times? Sure benchmarks are nice, but what about real world performance?
Click to expand...

Of course, that is the most important thing. Why go through all this hassle for nothing? Game loading times are probably most pertinent.

But, of course, such a low access time coupled with his read/write (mostly due to the RAID setup, I'm sure) has to mean something, no?

Going to purchase the 640GB today or tomorrow, nonetheless. I need a new drive, irregardless of the short-stroking.

@Brahmzy:

Do you have any real-world benches to "compare"?

~Ibrahim~
 
Short-stroking in the sense of only using the beginning section of your disk does work. Try short-stroking a large raid array and you will reap the performance benefits! :)
 
upriverpaddler said:
Yes, but you don't have to leave the extra partition empty. Use it for data storage. Your porn files will not effect your FPS if they are on another partition.

If you aren't going to use the space, then just buy a smaller 10,000 rpm drive for the same price.
Click to expand...

I dont think your getting the idea.


Shaggy3zx said:
Short-stroking in the sense of only using the beginning section of your disk does work. Try short-stroking a large raid array and you will reap the performance benefits! :)
Click to expand...
 
Wait, why can't I use the extra partitions for games and such? Or does that defeat the point? That is why I wanted the 150GB partition. It might be big, but it has games & the OS.

~Ibrahim~
 
you use the outter parts for programs you execute frequently. (games, apps, os)

you can store data you access less in the inner parts (movies, backup, songs, etc)
 
robman_rob said:
you use the outter parts for programs you execute frequently. (games, apps, os)

you can store data you access less in the inner parts (movies, backup, songs, etc)
Click to expand...

So using this logic, which would be faster:

640GB: 150GB (OS and Programs [mostly games]) + 490GB (TV Recordings)
320GB: 5GB (hidden; used for page file) + 315GB (TV Recordings)

versus

640GB: 50GB (OS and programs that won't install on other partitions) + 200GB (All other programs and some media files) + 390GB (TV Recordings)
320GB: 5GB (hidden; used for game file) + 315GB (TV Recordings)

I can add/take away a few gigabytes from other partitions, but this is basically what I want going on. Either one of these are fine, but which one would be faster? I'm inclined to think the first because I want fast access times to both games and OS, but does the OS deserve an entire partition? From other forums, I've heard the 2nd is better, so...

:confused::confused::confused:

~Ibrahim~
 
ive always put the OS on its own.

one reason is that if i wanted to reinstall the OS, then all of my programs will be there and i dont have to woarry about backing up games and whatever.

and i just think that OS requires the most performance.

but for your case, but the OS on the first part of one drive and the games/programs on the first part of the 2nd drive
 
i heard that if you have your os on a partition of it's own, and your programs are on another partition/drive, when you format your os partition and reinstall windows, your program will not work because of registry inconsistency, is that true?
 
robman_rob said:
i heard that if you have your os on a partition of it's own, and your programs are on another partition/drive, when you format your os partition and reinstall windows, your program will not work because of registry inconsistency, is that true?
Click to expand...

Depends on each program. So far, literally copying/pasting the Steam folder still lets it run just fine, so I know (in terms of games), that Steam is very portable. Not sure about other games or other progs that may spray your registry full of garbage though - which is the case with most software.
 
Mav451 said:
Depends on each program. So far, literally copying/pasting the Steam folder still lets it run just fine, so I know (in terms of games), that Steam is very portable. Not sure about other games or other progs that may spray your registry full of garbage though - which is the case with most software.
Click to expand...

robman_rob said:
i heard that if you have your os on a partition of it's own, and your programs are on another partition/drive, when you format your os partition and reinstall windows, your program will not work because of registry inconsistency, is that true?
Click to expand...

ya it all depends on the program. most games that i have work without having to be installed. some programs work also.
 
"Install your games on the physical drive opposite the OS" means this: I put my OS on the first partition of the 640GB and my games/programs on the first partition of the 320GB?

I was hoping to put my games and OS on the 640GB because it is quite a bit faster than the 320GB, but will that performance gain be naught because they are on the same drive?

Does it matter which drive has the page file, then? The one with the games or the one with the OS?

I probably won't ever reinstall my OS after this, so I'm good there.

Thank you so much for all the help, guys!

~Ibrahim~
 
ripken204 said:
put the page file on the non OS drive
Click to expand...

Got it. OK, I'm almost done then. I have one minor queasy, so to speak. It is just that it feels weird that I'd put all my games on the slower drive (320GB); shouldn't they go with the OS on the faster one? In separate partitions, of course.

~Ibrahim~
 
ikjadoon said:
Got it. OK, I'm almost done then. I have one minor queasy, so to speak. It is just that it feels weird that I'd put all my games on the slower drive (320GB); shouldn't they go with the OS on the faster one? In separate partitions, of course.

~Ibrahim~
Click to expand...

it'll be better than having it on your physical os drive.
 
OK, so this is it:

640GB: 50GB OS + 590GB TV Recordings
320GB: 5GB Page File + 200GB Apps + 115GB TV Recordings

I should make the Page File partition before the application one, right?

~Ibrahim~
 
Mav451 said:
Depends on each program. So far, literally copying/pasting the Steam folder still lets it run just fine, so I know (in terms of games), that Steam is very portable. Not sure about other games or other progs that may spray your registry full of garbage though - which is the case with most software.
Click to expand...

ripken204 said:
ya it all depends on the program. most games that i have work without having to be installed. some programs work also.
Click to expand...

if a program doesn't work, i suppose you can just delete the program folder and reinstall it?
 
Wicked monkeys. Thank you so much for all the help guys, I really appreciate it! :D

~Ibrahim~
 
Using the entire drive with different partitions of different sizes is not short stroking. Sure only making a 20 or 30 gig os drive on a 150 gig raptor leaves 130-120 gigs of unallocated space but its for the benefit of improved performance of data intensive tasks.

The partitioning arrangement that ikjadoon proposed seems ideal for using the entire drive, but its not short stroking. Though I'd suggest a smaller OS part and a larger page part
 
kuyaglen said:
...130-120 gigs of unallocated space but its for the benefit of improved performance of data intensive tasks.
Click to expand...
Explain how leaving the space unallocated is more of a benefit than storing data that will not be accessed during the "data intensive tasks". Either way, the arm will never go there. Maybe I'm missing something.
 
and why cant you just make the extra space into storage that you will rarely use?
the head wont move there if you arnt using anything in that partition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top