Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best size of partitions for 160 Gb data

Last response: in Storage
Share
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 11, 2004 11:17:00 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

How should I partition my 160 GB drive?

I want to store about 150 GB of data on my 160 GB hard drive.
I will use XP to access and to manage this data. The file system
will probably be NTFS.

From a technical and practical point of view, should I have just
one large 160 GB partition or should I break it up into two or
three smaller partitions?

Personally, I don't mind if the data is split up.

The data is 85% jpegs (50 KB to 200 KB) and 15% video (50 MB to 400
MB).
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 11, 2004 11:17:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Hi, Mark.

You realize, of course, that this is kind of like a religious question, or
which car should I buy? I've been using personal computers since before we
had hard drives, so my opinion is colored by my experience with legacy
systems, continually upgraded over the years.

Sometimes we have to upgrade, repair or otherwise change the operating
system. For this reason, I like to keep WinXP in its own partition,
separate from the data. Depending on what applications you run to handle
that data, you might also want to keep the app(s) separate from the data. I
would suggest you use 10 GB or so for WinXP. If it is a large app, put it
in a partition of its own, with some elbow room in case it needs to grow or
if you want to include some other apps with it. If it is only a small app,
you could just include it in the WinXP partition.

You probably will hear several recommendations. The choice is really up to
you.
RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
rc@corridor.net
Microsoft Windows MVP

"Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:94E6C4297B8E53A75@130.133.1.4...
> How should I partition my 160 GB drive?
>
> I want to store about 150 GB of data on my 160 GB hard drive.
> I will use XP to access and to manage this data. The file system
> will probably be NTFS.
>
> From a technical and practical point of view, should I have just
> one large 160 GB partition or should I break it up into two or
> three smaller partitions?
>
> Personally, I don't mind if the data is split up.
>
> The data is 85% jpegs (50 KB to 200 KB) and 15% video (50 MB to 400
> MB).
May 11, 2004 11:17:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On Tue, 11 May 2004 19:17:00 +0100, Mark M
<MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>How should I partition my 160 GB drive?
>
>I want to store about 150 GB of data on my 160 GB hard drive.
>I will use XP to access and to manage this data. The file system
>will probably be NTFS.
>
>From a technical and practical point of view, should I have just
>one large 160 GB partition or should I break it up into two or
>three smaller partitions?
>
>Personally, I don't mind if the data is split up.
>
>The data is 85% jpegs (50 KB to 200 KB) and 15% video (50 MB to 400
>MB).

Formatting to NTFS is a must for a drive that large. I would use
either one or two partitions since it appears the drive is going to be
used primarily for storage. Your choice.

BTW, in order to completely utilize a drive that large, you must have
SP-1 installed and the ability to turn on 48bit LBA in your BIOS.
Otherwise XP will only "see" around 137gb. If your BIOS does not
support 48bit LBA, you can purchase an add in controller card with
built in BIOS such as the one made by Promise Technologies.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 11, 2004 11:17:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

I would set the boot partition (C:)  to be about 20 GB and
install the OS (XP) and applications to this partition.
Keep in mind you need to retain 15-20% free space on each
partition in order for defrag to run.
I would also have a 40 GB partition and a 100 GB partition.
I would use the 40 GB partition for data and downloaded
application files and the 100 GB partition for multimedia
files.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.


"Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
in message news:94E6C4297B8E53A75@130.133.1.4...
| How should I partition my 160 GB drive?
|
| I want to store about 150 GB of data on my 160 GB hard
drive.
| I will use XP to access and to manage this data. The file
system
| will probably be NTFS.
|
| From a technical and practical point of view, should I
have just
| one large 160 GB partition or should I break it up into
two or
| three smaller partitions?
|
| Personally, I don't mind if the data is split up.
|
| The data is 85% jpegs (50 KB to 200 KB) and 15% video (50
MB to 400
| MB).
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 11, 2004 11:45:36 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

The best partitioning methodology is however YOU want to do it. I am not
using your computer. You are. Do what you like!

--
Regards:

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)

"Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:94E6C4297B8E53A75@130.133.1.4...
> How should I partition my 160 GB drive?
>
> I want to store about 150 GB of data on my 160 GB hard drive.
> I will use XP to access and to manage this data. The file system
> will probably be NTFS.
>
> From a technical and practical point of view, should I have just
> one large 160 GB partition or should I break it up into two or
> three smaller partitions?
>
> Personally, I don't mind if the data is split up.
>
> The data is 85% jpegs (50 KB to 200 KB) and 15% video (50 MB to 400
> MB).
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 12, 2004 1:06:50 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Mark M wrote:
> How should I partition my 160 GB drive?
>
> I want to store about 150 GB of data on my 160 GB hard drive.
> I will use XP to access and to manage this data. The file system
> will probably be NTFS.
>
> From a technical and practical point of view, should I have just
> one large 160 GB partition or should I break it up into two or
> three smaller partitions?
>
> Personally, I don't mind if the data is split up.
>
> The data is 85% jpegs (50 KB to 200 KB) and 15% video (50 MB to 400
> MB).

As a 160GB drive is only 149GB when formatted, that could be a problem...
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 12, 2004 1:17:47 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Sorry if my posting is a bit ambiguous: I will run XP on a
different drive. The 160 GB drive will be used purely for data.


Mark

-------

Mark M wrote:

How should I partition my 160 GB drive?

I want to store about 150 GB of data on my 160 GB hard drive.
I will use XP to access and to manage this data. The file system
will probably be NTFS.

From a technical and practical point of view, should I have just
one large 160 GB partition or should I break it up into two or
three smaller partitions?

Personally, I don't mind if the data is split up.

The data is 85% jpegs (50 KB to 200 KB) and 15% video (50 MB to 400
MB).
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 12, 2004 1:17:48 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Then just one partition will be fine.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.


"Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
in message news:94E6D8A396223A75@130.133.1.4...
| Sorry if my posting is a bit ambiguous: I will run XP on
a
| different drive. The 160 GB drive will be used purely for
data.
|
|
| Mark
|
| -------
|
| Mark M wrote:
|
| How should I partition my 160 GB drive?
|
| I want to store about 150 GB of data on my 160 GB hard
drive.
| I will use XP to access and to manage this data. The file
system
| will probably be NTFS.
|
| From a technical and practical point of view, should I
have just
| one large 160 GB partition or should I break it up into
two or
| three smaller partitions?
|
| Personally, I don't mind if the data is split up.
|
| The data is 85% jpegs (50 KB to 200 KB) and 15% video (50
MB to 400
| MB).
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 12, 2004 2:13:32 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

> Sorry if my posting is a bit ambiguous: I will run XP on a
> different drive. The 160 GB drive will be used purely for data.

I would create a single partition and, since you are holding large
multi-media files, format with the largest possible cluster size on NTFS
(32kB?)
May 12, 2004 2:29:50 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Go for one partition, less to deal with.

"Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:94E6C4297B8E53A75@130.133.1.4...
> How should I partition my 160 GB drive?
>
> I want to store about 150 GB of data on my 160 GB hard drive.
> I will use XP to access and to manage this data. The file system
> will probably be NTFS.
>
> From a technical and practical point of view, should I have just
> one large 160 GB partition or should I break it up into two or
> three smaller partitions?
>
> Personally, I don't mind if the data is split up.
>
> The data is 85% jpegs (50 KB to 200 KB) and 15% video (50 MB to 400
> MB).
>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 12, 2004 4:32:06 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"R. C. White" <RCWhite@msn.com> wrote in message news:eWcaoM5NEHA.2740@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl
> Hi, Mark.
>
> You realize, of course, that this is kind of like a religious question,

Yes, he does, and that is exactly why he puts it here.

> or which car should I buy? I've been using personal computers since before
> we had hard drives, so my opinion is colored by my experience with legacy
> systems, continually upgraded over the years.
>
[snip]
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 12, 2004 12:37:19 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On Tue, 11 May 2004 15:04:57 -0500, CS <nomail@hotmail.com>,wrote:

>On Tue, 11 May 2004 19:17:00 +0100, Mark M
><MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>How should I partition my 160 GB drive?
>>
>>I want to store about 150 GB of data on my 160 GB hard drive.
>>I will use XP to access and to manage this data. The file system
>>will probably be NTFS.
>>
>>From a technical and practical point of view, should I have just
>>one large 160 GB partition or should I break it up into two or
>>three smaller partitions?
>>
>>Personally, I don't mind if the data is split up.
>>
>>The data is 85% jpegs (50 KB to 200 KB) and 15% video (50 MB to 400
>>MB).
>
>Formatting to NTFS is a must for a drive that large. I would use
>either one or two partitions since it appears the drive is going to be
>used primarily for storage. Your choice.
>
>BTW, in order to completely utilize a drive that large, you must have
>SP-1 installed and the ability to turn on 48bit LBA in your BIOS.
>Otherwise XP will only "see" around 137gb. If your BIOS does not
>support 48bit LBA, you can purchase an add in controller card with
>built in BIOS such as the one made by Promise Technologies.

Ok then how does XP Pro treat a 400 gig RAID-0 container that it is being
installed on before SP1 is applied?
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 12, 2004 1:30:40 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Meat-->Plow" <Meat@petitmorte.net> wrote in message
news:p h64a0hhmga9pg6udo3ikebpcn41v8rem9@4ax.com...
> >
> >Formatting to NTFS is a must for a drive that large. I would use
> >either one or two partitions since it appears the drive is going to be
> >used primarily for storage. Your choice.
> >
FAT32 would work fine if you know how to format it.

> >BTW, in order to completely utilize a drive that large, you must have
> >SP-1 installed and the ability to turn on 48bit LBA in your BIOS.
> >Otherwise XP will only "see" around 137gb. If your BIOS does not
> >support 48bit LBA, you can purchase an add in controller card with
> >built in BIOS such as the one made by Promise Technologies.
>
That is only with Microsoft's IDE driver.

> Ok then how does XP Pro treat a 400 gig RAID-0 container that it is being
> installed on before SP1 is applied?

You press F6 and supply the RAID driver.
May 12, 2004 1:47:46 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

man, thats a lot of porn

"Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:94E6C4297B8E53A75@130.133.1.4...
> How should I partition my 160 GB drive?
>
> I want to store about 150 GB of data on my 160 GB hard drive.
> I will use XP to access and to manage this data. The file system
> will probably be NTFS.
>
> From a technical and practical point of view, should I have just
> one large 160 GB partition or should I break it up into two or
> three smaller partitions?
>
> Personally, I don't mind if the data is split up.
>
> The data is 85% jpegs (50 KB to 200 KB) and 15% video (50 MB to 400
> MB).
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 12, 2004 2:19:13 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"R. C. White" <RCWhite@msn.com> wrote:

> You realize, of course, that this is kind of like a religious
> question, or which car should I buy? I've been using personal
> computers since before we had hard drives, so my opinion is
> colored by my experience with legacy systems, continually
> upgraded over the years.

I think you misunderstand the question. I asked:

"From a TECHNICAL and PRACTICAL point of view, should I have just
one large 160 GB partition or should I break it up into two or
three smaller partitions?"

This means I would like to know, among other things, if there are
issues with the ability of NTFS tools to access and work with such
a large partition. Maybe NTFS starts to behave less efficiently if
one large partition is used for two very different sets of file
sizes than if two partitions were used.

I don't think there is anything much like "religion" in such quite
tangible matters.


> Sometimes we have to upgrade, repair or otherwise change the
> operating system. For this reason, I like to keep WinXP in
> its own partition, separate from the data. Depending on what
> applications you run to handle that data, you might also want
> to keep the app(s) separate from the data.

I will use the hard drive and the partition only for data. The
system partition is on another hard drive.

> I would suggest
> you use 10 GB or so for WinXP. If it is a large app, put it
> in a partition of its own, with some elbow room in case it
> needs to grow or if you want to include some other apps with
> it. If it is only a small app, you could just include it in
> the WinXP partition.
>
> You probably will hear several recommendations. The choice is
> really up to you.

Hope the above clarifies what I am asking about.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 12, 2004 2:19:14 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Hi, Mark.

> I think you misunderstand the question.

Yes, I didn't understand that...

> I will use the hard drive and the partition only for data. The
> system partition is on another hard drive.

That, obviously, changes my perspective and I would have answered
differently.

> "From a TECHNICAL and PRACTICAL point of view, should I have just
> one large 160 GB partition or should I break it up into two or
> three smaller partitions?"

Again, my perspective was for a single-drive system and the suggestion to
keep the OS in a separate partition seems both technically and practically
wise, to me.

With the additional information in your later post, I agree with the others
that a single NTFS partition is fine.

Thanks for the clarification.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
rc@corridor.net
Microsoft Windows MVP

"Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:94E768FC0BA9C3A75@130.133.1.4...
> "R. C. White" <RCWhite@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> You realize, of course, that this is kind of like a religious
>> question, or which car should I buy? I've been using personal
>> computers since before we had hard drives, so my opinion is
>> colored by my experience with legacy systems, continually
>> upgraded over the years.
>
> I think you misunderstand the question. I asked:
>
> "From a TECHNICAL and PRACTICAL point of view, should I have just
> one large 160 GB partition or should I break it up into two or
> three smaller partitions?"
>
> This means I would like to know, among other things, if there are
> issues with the ability of NTFS tools to access and work with such
> a large partition. Maybe NTFS starts to behave less efficiently if
> one large partition is used for two very different sets of file
> sizes than if two partitions were used.
>
> I don't think there is anything much like "religion" in such quite
> tangible matters.
>
>
>> Sometimes we have to upgrade, repair or otherwise change the
>> operating system. For this reason, I like to keep WinXP in
>> its own partition, separate from the data. Depending on what
>> applications you run to handle that data, you might also want
>> to keep the app(s) separate from the data.
>
> I will use the hard drive and the partition only for data. The
> system partition is on another hard drive.
>
>> I would suggest
>> you use 10 GB or so for WinXP. If it is a large app, put it
>> in a partition of its own, with some elbow room in case it
>> needs to grow or if you want to include some other apps with
>> it. If it is only a small app, you could just include it in
>> the WinXP partition.
>>
>> You probably will hear several recommendations. The choice is
>> really up to you.
>
> Hope the above clarifies what I am asking about.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 12, 2004 2:21:20 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:

> "R. C. White" <RCWhite@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:eWcaoM5NEHA.2740@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl
>> Hi, Mark.
>>
>> You realize, of course, that this is kind of like a religious
>> question,
>
> Yes, he does, and that is exactly why he puts it here.

As I said in
news:94E768FC0BA9C3A75@130.133.1.4
I don't want info about personal preferences (I don't care where
the data goes from a personal point of view).

I want info from a practical and technical point of view. See
above posting.

>
>> or which car should I buy? I've been using personal
>> computers since before we had hard drives, so my opinion is
>> colored by my experience with legacy systems, continually
>> upgraded over the years.
>>
> [snip]
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 12, 2004 5:09:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Mark M wrote:
>
> "From a TECHNICAL and PRACTICAL point of view, should I have just
> one large 160 GB partition or should I break it up into two or
> three smaller partitions?"

Technically? No problem doing a single partition. Practically? You might
want to have a second partition for you archives of mp3s, videos, etc.
so your PC wont have to deal with them whilst defragging C: ie no need
to defrag files that aren't fragged and very large.


--
http://www.bootdisk.com/
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 14, 2004 3:50:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Mark M <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:94E6C4297B8E53A75@130.133.1.4:

> How should I partition my 160 GB drive?
>
> I want to store about 150 GB of data on my 160 GB hard drive.
> I will use XP to access and to manage this data. The file system
> will probably be NTFS.
>
> From a technical and practical point of view, should I have just
> one large 160 GB partition or should I break it up into two or
> three smaller partitions?
>
> Personally, I don't mind if the data is split up.
>
> The data is 85% jpegs (50 KB to 200 KB) and 15% video (50 MB to 400
> MB).


The answer depends not only on the type of data, but how you use it.


For example, one pro for small partitions: it may be easier for you to deal
with smaller chunks, for thinks like backups and restores. It's quicker to
read the backup catalog for a smaller partition than one 4x the size, and
quicker to restore too. Or perhaps some data types stay static while
others change a lot, so you handle those partitions differently.

One con is your unused disk is spread across several partitions. If you
need to save new stuff, the biggest new file size or folder size is then
limited to the partition with the most free space. In a single large
partition, all the free space exists as one consolidated amount.

I don't like dealing with the unused space being spread across multiple
partitions. I end up moving stuff around just to make enough free space to
save something new, or splitting up the new stuff across multiple
partitions. Both waste time. So I prefer one big partition when possible.

Currently, I use one drive for operating systems boot partitions. That's
the only one I have multiple partitions on, one per OS. The rest are all
one partition per drive. One for each for apps, games(also page file),
music, video, and backups(also temp/scratch/working data).

Some are Fat32, (so I can get at them from WinME) some are NTFS (Server
2003). The reason I needed NTFS was for files over 4GB in size, which you
can't have in Fat32. Images for DVDs and video captures in this case.
There are a lot of other NTFS and related OS features you might check out.
Encryption, compression, ACLs, shadow copies, dfs, features for basic and
dynamic disks, etc. I can't say one has been more reliable or faster than
the other for home use. There are some tweaks for NTFS that may improve
the performance, like turning off 8.3 filename creation. You have more
choice in your selection of unit size, etc. Some MS documentation suggests
page files on NTFS work faster than on Fat32. I'm sure you can come up
with a benchmark showing one is faster than the other for something or
other. At the end of the day I don't see a big speed difference working
with both types of partitions, at least not with the apps I use.

I've tried mounting NTFS partitions under WinME using NTFS for Win98 with
mixed results. Sometimes it would hang the system. I eventually gave up,
and limited Fat32 to certain drives. I only need some stuff from ME, the
other 99% of the time I'm in 2003. Ghost 8 boot disks can write images to
NTFS volumes, which is nice. One of the reasons I had to keep Fat32 around
was for saving Ghost disk/partition images. There are other apps that will
give you read/write access to NTFS volumes from DOS boot disks too. So
some issues that might have kept me from using NTFS on a home PC aren't a
big deal today as there are more of ways around them.

I've lost data on both due to a power outage. 2003 Chkdsk on fat32
"recovered lost clusters to files" which I just deleted. 2003 Chkdisk,
default options on the NTFS volume for some reason failed to identify a
corrupt file and I could not delete it. It was quicker for me to backup the
partition and format it and restore it, than play with the various chkdsk
options to try and correct the problem. To be fair, Chkdsk performance
under 2003 has improved on very large volumes with lots of files compared
to nt4 and 2000. I used to dread running chkdsk on some large NTFS volumes.

Best of luck on your drive setup. The only other thing I'd say to consider
is more disks or bigger disks. You may find yourself out of space faster
than you expected.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 25, 2004 12:43:42 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

You probably want 40Gig partitions. If you leave it as one partition it
will take forever to defrag or scan for errors. I mean it will take
FOREVER.

JIMMY

"James" <Homer@jamco> wrote in message
news:uU7RxiDOEHA.1616@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> man, thats a lot of porn
>
> "Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:94E6C4297B8E53A75@130.133.1.4...
> > How should I partition my 160 GB drive?
> >
> > I want to store about 150 GB of data on my 160 GB hard drive.
> > I will use XP to access and to manage this data. The file system
> > will probably be NTFS.
> >
> > From a technical and practical point of view, should I have just
> > one large 160 GB partition or should I break it up into two or
> > three smaller partitions?
> >
> > Personally, I don't mind if the data is split up.
> >
> > The data is 85% jpegs (50 KB to 200 KB) and 15% video (50 MB to 400
> > MB).
>
>
!