Is too big TOO BIG?

J

jrg70

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 23, 2004
Messages
84
I'm putting together a new system and will keep my old system running so that means I'll need a new hard drive. Last time (in 2004) I got a 250 GB drive and partitioned it and thought I'd be set on storage space. Well I now have another larger drive in the box (500 GB) as well and space is still a problem. My main question is if I get a large drive, say 750 GB - 1 TB, do I need to partition the heck out of it? Or can I leave it as one, or maybe two partitions?

Last time I partitioned I ended up with partitions that weren't big enough to hold certain groups of information. My music for example got too big to be on the partition with anything else. My pictures and videos became the same. So I end up with fragments of stuff all over multiple drives. So do I need to partition or can Vista handle it?

Thanks.
 
You can just leave it as one big partition/drive.
 
ya, you can leave it as 1 big partition.

The only reason I partition my hard drive is for formating purposes. I split my hard drive into 2, 60-80gig for OS and the rest for all my apps, download and other junk.

This way if something screws up my os install I can format the partition with just the OS and re-install it and not lose any important data in the format. I also back-up my music and videos once every few months to a dvd just incase but thats just me being paranoid, I have never had a hard drive fail on me but I have definatly had to format and re-install my os before.
 
I partitioned mine so that one was dedicated to the Windows and Program installs, and the other partition held "My Documents" and whatever else I deemed necessary.

Don't have to worry if something ever goes bad with the OS, just format the partition and resintall, then point "My Documents" to the partition.
 
After reading this thread, I am now convinced that I need to partition my drive.
 
I'm putting together a new system and will keep my old system running so that means I'll need a new hard drive. Last time (in 2004) I got a 250 GB drive and partitioned it and thought I'd be set on storage space. Well I now have another larger drive in the box (500 GB) as well and space is still a problem. My main question is if I get a large drive, say 750 GB - 1 TB, do I need to partition the heck out of it? Or can I leave it as one, or maybe two partitions?

Last time I partitioned I ended up with partitions that weren't big enough to hold certain groups of information. My music for example got too big to be on the partition with anything else. My pictures and videos became the same. So I end up with fragments of stuff all over multiple drives. So do I need to partition or can Vista handle it?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't partion it for exactly that reason. I hate my data being fragmented among seperate Computers/drives/partitions. I got a 750GB WD SATAII HDD for christmas and promptly copied all of the data i had spread across 5 machines on my network. Its easier to make a folder on the root of the drive(its not my data drive) than to partition it, and you aren't space limited by a folder. I plan to buy a second one asap.
You don't need to worry about Windows Vista seeing it.

DrStrangeBrew said:
It is a good idea - but when in doubt a 2nd physical disk is nice insurance
Click to expand...
Indeed.. and with how cheap hard drives are now, its more than worth it if you can spare the cash.
The most important drive isnt the drive you keep your data on, the most important drive is the one you backup your data too. I have a friend who has two drives he keeps his data on, seperate from his OS, they are nearly exact copies of each other, but they are not in a RAID, because he doesnt trust RAID.
 
OmegaAvenger said:
I have a friend who has two drives he keeps his data on, seperate from his OS, they are nearly exact copies of each other, but they are not in a RAID, because he doesnt trust RAID.
Click to expand...
So he manually does the job of RAID1 because he doesn't trust RAID...? :confused:

EDIT: Maybe he's confused and doesn't realize that not all RAID is RAID0?
 
Korrd said:
So he manually does the job of RAID1 because he doesn't trust RAID...? :confused:

EDIT: Maybe he's confused and doesn't realize that not all RAID is RAID0?
Click to expand...

Maybe he realized that RAID-1 instantly mirrors changes. If he deletes a file on a RAID-n array, it's gone. Not so with his system. A virus wiping the C: drive will remove the data from the whole RAID-n array, not so with the system that this other person uses. A bug in the RAID implementation may make the array inaccessible. Not so if you are not using RAID. RAID is for UPTIME, not backup.
 
Fair points, surely. But if he's keeping both of these drives in his PC anyway, I would posit that he's exposing them to many of the same risks a RAID1 setup would face, which IMO makes it equally questionable as a backup method.

Of course, that's a bit off topic. I tend to do a single partition on all drives, but I also prefer to install the OS to a small drive (40-60GB IDE, 74GB Raptor, etc.) and reserve the remainder of that partition for non-essential data. Everything else goes on a data drive or my server, where redundancy and backup protect against loss. These again are all large, single partition disks/arrays where possible.

If you're using a large capacity drive as your system disk, then yes, it makes sense to have an OS partition in the event you need to reinstall. Otherwise I prefer the method above.
 
Maybe he realized that RAID-1 instantly mirrors changes. If he deletes a file on a RAID-n array, it's gone. Not so with his system. A virus wiping the C: drive will remove the data from the whole RAID-n array, not so with the system that this other person uses. A bug in the RAID implementation may make the array inaccessible. Not so if you are not using RAID. RAID is for UPTIME, not backup.
Click to expand...

nicely said... it's awesome being able to take a [backup] drive out of a computer, independently, & not worry about any disruption to the computer's operation.. then take that drive, put it in another computer or external enclosure.

Sort of like the difference between having a car company guarantee you a lifetime of oil changes at their dealership .... versus having a service bay, hoist & tools at your disposal in your garage :)
 
So he manually does the job of RAID1 because he doesn't trust RAID...?

EDIT: Maybe he's confused and doesn't realize that not all RAID is RAID0?
Click to expand...

He knows the different RAID levels. He just got a job actually working with computers, instead of just as a hobby. I've been doing it for three years, so I've taught him some stuff.
Coincidently except for our hard drives and RAM, we have identical main machines.

Maybe he realized that RAID-1 instantly mirrors changes. If he deletes a file on a RAID-n array, it's gone. Not so with his system. A virus wiping the C: drive will remove the data from the whole RAID-n array, not so with the system that this other person uses. A bug in the RAID implementation may make the array inaccessible. Not so if you are not using RAID. RAID is for UPTIME, not backup.
Click to expand...
Exactly his reasoning

DrStrangeBrew said:
nicely said... it's awesome being able to take a [backup] drive out of a computer, independently, & not worry about any disruption to the computer's operation.. then take that drive, put it in another computer or external enclosure.

Sort of like the difference between having a car company guarantee you a lifetime of oil changes at their dealership .... versus having a service bay, hoist & tools at your disposal in your garage :)
Click to expand...

Yup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top