Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best size of partitions for 160 Gb data

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
May 13, 2004 12:08:02 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Bravo....

It is definitely a matter of personal preference.....

I personally do not like my partitions to be too big, and use
partitions to help me organize my programs and data files..
I find this also makes it quicker to defrag (smaller partitions taking
less time to defrag than larger ones, and you don't have to defrag
partitons that are not fragmented)....

Some people do not like this at all, and prefer really big partitions,
and that's great for them, they should set their computers up the way
that they like...

JM


On Tue, 11 May 2004 19:45:36 -0400, "Richard Urban"
<richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote:

>The best partitioning methodology is however YOU want to do it. I am not
>using your computer. You are. Do what you like!
May 13, 2004 12:46:07 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Mark

My understanding is that Windows (XP) will allow large parition sizes; however, "defrag" will not work for partitions greater then 80 gig in size. So I recommend two 80s.

Thats how I set mine up.
Anonymous
May 13, 2004 3:54:03 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

What gave you the idea defrag won't work on partitions over 80gb?

--
Larry Samuels MS-MVP (Windows-Shell/User)
Associate Expert
Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Unofficial FAQ for Windows Server 2003 at
http://pelos.us/SERVER.htm
"Fred" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:40E6F2AA-1986-493F-AA02-B2C9FCFB6396@microsoft.com...
> Mark
>
> My understanding is that Windows (XP) will allow large parition sizes;
> however, "defrag" will not work for partitions greater then 80 gig in
> size. So I recommend two 80s.
>
> Thats how I set mine up.
Anonymous
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.
May 15, 2004 9:11:04 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Going back to the original question, you also mention later that your using XP on a different drive that this is primarily for backups, personally, I have a 160GB HDD and a 100GB, I put XP on the 100GB and then I put my data on the 160GB, I split mine similarly to yours, 80/20, I did one partition to get the full size usage out of the drive, but used two folders on the drive, this keeps the O/S from looking for more drives than necessary, not to mention the hassles down to a min.

If your going to be putting nothing but those two things on the drive you'll be ok that way, personally though I use the 20% for backups, I keep all my MP3's backed up to CD/DVD's, and use a partition on the 100GB hdd to store them, (I use only 40GB for the O/S on that drive, the rest is dedicated to swap file, Audio files, and "temp" files for my recordings, (I use an AIW and it needs a "temp" folder to do the tv dvr files.) Of course once I get what I want from the video recordings I put them on DVD's as backups as well.

The only thing I dont keep backups of on DVD/CD is the backups for my programs, mostly because they are upgraded too frequently, I only keep the backups of them on HDD so as to make for quicker upgrades/updates, also so if I have a problem with an upgrade, I have the older one to fall back on, (found out from personal experiences that NOT having these files could be disasterous to your O/S's health when a newly updated patch/upgrade comes out and doesn't work right.) Since I maintain 4 different operating systems on as many computers, I keep all the upgrades for all the operating systems in that one partition, only moving it to another partition on another drive when necessary.

As far as defragging a drive goes, sure it takes a long time to defrag the 160GB drive but that's of little importance to me, because when I am doing things such as that it's being done from a batch file I made up and it's being done while I am asleep, so I don't care how long it's taking to do it. IF I need to record something when it's supposed to run, I just change the times on the scheduled tasks to do it when the drives not going to be busy.

The one person is right though, on a 160GB hdd, there is only right at 149GB of storage space available when formatting it for full usage of the drive, when you partition the drive it keeps about 8MB of space for Windows usage out of the equation, also if you partition the drive it wont be exactly 15/85%, but there abouts because of the dynamics of the drive. It will probably come out something like 14.975%/84.989% or there abouts.

Those issues aside, it's totally up to you, only time I would partition a drive that size is if I was going to run an O/S off of it, then I would put the O/S in a partition about 40GB then use the rest to put data on. Do make sure that your not putting a swap file on that drive if your using it for data so as to cut down on the ammount of times you have to defrag it, I have only defragged mine 5 times in as many months then it's not really necessary when it is done.

[Notes: Though 30GB is a lot of backup space, when about 50-60% of that is pictures, it's not really all that much left for programs. The different O/S's I use are Windows XP Home, Professional, and MCE as well as Mac OS X Panther, which yes, can read and write to these files, and in some instances use them (I also run Virtual PC with XP Pro on it as well.) The batch file I made uses scheduled tasks to run such things as defrag, pest patrol, virus scanning, etc, and they run at hours when I am not using the computer and generally run for hours anyways. One final note, it's really up to personal preferences as to how you partition or not your hdds, personally for data drives, I use folders and leave them full size partitions to utilize the fullest amount of space on the drives, others partition the drives to keep the different sections seperate for security reasons, as it's been said, it's up to personal preferences. If your going to be sharing the data over the net I would partition the drives so as to keep viruses to a minimum, if not then just format it to one big drive and use folders on the drive.]


----- 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
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).
>
>
!