Drop, charge, and lose the cords
PC hardware: To partition or NOT to partition???
To partition or NOT to partition???
by tcantrelln - 9/5/08 5:59 PM1 Terabyte hard drive, Going into XP machine. For myself- should I partition it into say two 465 pieces and be happy or split into even more parts, or - leave it alone. Reason I ask is client machine ten or eleven weeks ago I installed one (After formatting by itself, only drive connected, using Partition Magic-NTFS-etc- single partition.) I could tell a slowing down of the overall running of the computer. (XP all patches-sp3-etc) They needed it for movie and audio storage. They didn't seem to notice the reduction in speed, have had no problems with it. About to have myself one and can't seem to find a definite yea or nay on the impact or the slow down of that large of a drive. (Machine = Asus P5VDX mb, P4D @3.4, 2gb ram, Nvidia 7600 gs graphics.
My pref...partition with OS and APPs on C: and
by VAPCMD - 9/5/08 7:06 PM In reply to: To partition or NOT to partition??? by tcantrellnall data on D: ...makes backups and restores quicker, easier and safer.
I add a second HDD for the compressed images of C and D:
It works well for me and has for years.
VAPCMD.
OS Partitions
by jpm1999 - 10/22/08 6:08 PM In reply to: My pref...partition with OS and APPs on C: and by VAPCMDIs there an advantage to creating more than two partitions? For example, having one for the OS, another for programs, and a third for data? Maybe even a 4th for backup of the other three?
Is this related to RAID?
YOUR CHOICE HERE.
by R. Proffitt
- 10/22/08 6:13 PM
In reply to: OS Partitions by jpm1999
But some thought they could save APPLICATIONS from needing a reinstall by putting them on their own partition. Sadly they learn that doesn't work.
Let's be clear. Reinstalling the OS destroys install applications. And while some thought that putting their personal files on it's own partition, our forums are filled with pleas on how to recover their files.
So with that all I can offer is we only backup what we can't lose.
Bob
So, Bob, you don't believe in...
by Paul C - 10/26/08 2:34 AM In reply to: YOUR CHOICE HERE. by R. Proffitt
...making an image do removable disk of a new install of the OS and apps as a "just in case?"
I believe that's called BACUP.
by R. Proffitt - 10/26/08 6:38 AM
In reply to: So, Bob, you don't believe in... by Paul C
Which is offered as a sermon every day. But there is a fire and brimstone reading for those that don't save more than one copy of what they can't lose.
LOL!
by Paul C - 10/27/08 1:32 AM In reply to: I believe that's called BACUP. by R. Proffitt
I received that sermon years ago, and took it to heart.
You'd be preaching to the choir were you to repeat it to me... 
I like it simple....Drive 0 = C: OS and APPs with a 2nd
by VAPCMD - 10/22/08 7:13 PM In reply to: OS Partitions by jpm1999partition D: for all DATA....downloads, docs, pics, e-mail...everything.
I use a 2nd internal hard disk drive just for separate comp-ressed backup images of C: and D: ...so if the need arises I could restore C: from a compressed image without affecting the data on D: . If drive 0 dies ....I just replace it and restore the images from the 2nd HDD. Has really worked well for me. I also have copies of the compressed images on an external and hopefully I'll never have to use them.
VAPCMD
PS...RAID not part of the equation.
1Tb, what a huge amt.
by Willy - 9/5/08 7:08 PM In reply to: To partition or NOT to partition??? by tcantrellnThe benefit of partitions is the HD has huge folders of sorts. You can better control where the data resides. You separate the OS and its files from work data or results/storage elsewhere. If the system fails you can more readily access the data in some form. Why, because all too often its the OS and and/or some work pgm. at fault when s/w related. As you've noticed a minor performance increase as the system knows where to go and not fiddle through a huge cache or amount of files to access something. Remember its what the user wants or desires. However, if it works OK allow it to proceed until it bletches. If you can remember in days past, having partitions was still common but the amount of storage for data has increased thus the lost will too. There is a big difference in 120gb vs 1tb. for storage loss.
IMHO, that's my story -----Willy 
Not going to have any OS on it
by tcantrelln - 9/5/08 7:21 PM In reply to: 1Tb, what a huge amt. by WillyFile storage only- just like the client machine that I noticed the SLOW down on. I verified it after first installing their 1Tb drive- most things seemed to drag a little. about like the differenc when you have fresh loaded xp and run it a while then use the performance tune app to 'Adjust for best Performance' then turn on mouse shadows and a couple of other preferences but not that whole sack of stuff MS wants you to have. Remove the 1TB and things were back to lickety quickety. I guess to really know I'd need to partition it and then fill it up and see if things slowed down.
(NT) Will there be a need to backuo the HDD or defrag it ?
by VAPCMD - 9/6/08 8:24 AM In reply to: Not going to have any OS on it by tcantrellnStill valid
by Willy - 9/6/08 9:44 AM In reply to: Not going to have any OS on it by tcantrellnThe info I mentioned is still valid, minus the OS part. Having a huge HD is best controlled when partitioned. If you divided into 2x500gb partitions those are still huge partitions but it is stiller smaller than 1tb. When HDs get that huge the benefits may diminish abit but it holds true smaller is better. FYI, the need for backups, etc., will benefit as insurance against any data lost for any size HD.
tada -----Willy
Stiil pondering and a new question / problem
by tcantrelln - 9/7/08 7:09 AM In reply to: Still valid by WillyUsed partition magic 8 to create partitions (Booted from cd) set it up with three, one primary, 2 logical-etc. Drive seen properly in Winxp, etc. Just for Compulsive Obsessive reasons rebooted with Partition Magic- Get 'Partition Table Error 110 detected' Searched a lot on this 110 error, downloaded Testdisk, ran it, tried recreating after using the 'Delete Partition table Data' option. Multiple times of different variations- always get the 110 error. Checked two more 1tb hard drives- same thing. What is the deal? Looked at Samsung Disk setup software and DO NOT want to use some kind of overlay software they want you to use. Anyone know if 1Tb hard drives just do this because they are so big?
Why not try deleting the HDD partitions and recreating
by VAPCMD - 9/7/08 8:28 AM In reply to: Stiil pondering and a new question / problem by tcantrellnthem using disk management ?
VAPCMD
Still comes
by tcantrelln - 9/7/08 10:23 AM In reply to: Why not try deleting the HDD partitions and recreating by VAPCMDUp with the Partition table error, even if I nuke the drive with something like ZAP, then create the partitions with WinXP.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
