Multiple Partitions vs. Single Partition (Boot Drive)

[mista ting]

What are the pros and cons of Multiple Partitions vs. Single Partition on a single boot drive?

I was thinking to do this on my WD 640GB AALS (boot drive) (596GB formatted) :

80GB? Partition 1
Windows 7 Operating System (possible performance gain?)

200GB Partition 2
Applications

300GB Partition 3
Personal Documents

20GB Partition 4
Page File? (possible performance gain?)
Temp files

I was thinking to do this now since i haven't used my applications yet so i can keep everything organized in the long run. But is it even worth the hassle? i already have a 2TB drive external backup that backs up the entire disk every month using Acronis TrueImage in only 45mins.

 

[Elf_Boy]

For myself I dont really see the point unless you are installing multiple OSs.

I've read that putting the page file on a separate disk can help, some - who knows how much - because it spreads out disk IO over multiple channels. I dont see that really accomplishing much if all the read/writes are going though the same pipe as the system volume.

I suppose it is possible that it could help prevent some types of fragmentation by making a volume just for the page file.

Are you going to go to the time and trouble to re-size partitions when/if they fill up? Or do you end up with most of your porn/games/whatever on partition d, some on e, and a few files still on c in the download directory?

I had multiple physical drives in my last version of this box (well this version does too, they are much bigger though) and when my boot drive filled up downloading large files, like all of Doctor Who, started to get to be problematic finding enough space in one place.

Being organised is good just make sure the trade off in terms of extra maintenance and loss of flexibility is worth your gained time and efficiency in knowing where to put stuff.

Myself, except for a second (or more) OS, I have found multi-partitions not worth the eventual need to have to change them.

 

[CacaSapo]

I've always had separate physical drives, but I use the same scheme (1-OS+apps, 2-Temp+pagefile, 3-Storage+c:\games symbolic directory link.) on my craptop. Multiple partitions will keep fragmentation down.
On the craptop I have 55GB for OS, 50GB for temp, 195GB Storage. This is a tiny drive and this laptop isn't normally used for day-to-day. My main PC had 4 drives in the previously-mentioned scheme.
I've experimented with mapping partitions directly to empty folders, but I've found it glitchy (windows lost the mapping sometimes, free space reporting issues) and the C:,D:,E: scheme is fluid for me.

Temp drive contains browser temp files, page file and both TEMP and TMP variables.

W7 offers pretty convenient resizing, though I haven't had the need to use it. Remember that your last partition will be your slowest, being on the ass-end of the drive. I'm leery of putting apps in their own drive letter because of past issues with apps not liking non-default install locations and don't use many large apps, mainly games.

 

[Aesma]

The pagefile at the end of the disk will give you a performance loss, not gain.

 

[dustNbone]

There isn't really anything to gain performance wise in that scheme. Spreading things across physical drives is not the same thing as partitioning a single drive. By putting things that are going to be accessed simultaneously on separate partitions, you are making the head physically move a lot more than it would have to otherwise. OS, Apps, and temp will all be used at once, during almost any application load.

You are better off having all of them on one partition, and let the filesystem organize them for most efficient access. By partitioning you inevitably leave large areas of empty space in between the partitions, some of it on the fast (outer) part of the disk. Instead of storing frequently accessed data here, it's being stored closer to the inside (slower) part of the disk on your "apps" partition or whatever.