I'm starting with a fresh, single OS install of XP and was wondering what the optimal HD layout would be on a system with a 120GB and a 40GB drive? I should probably keep the OS and applications on their own partition? I'm not sure what size that should be. Maybe I shouldn't even bother with partitioning and just leave the drives as they are?
I'm starting with a fresh, single OS install of XP and was wondering what the optimal HD layout would be on a system with a 120GB and a 40GB drive? I should probably keep the OS and applications on their own partition? I'm not sure what size that should be. Maybe I shouldn't even bother with partitioning and just leave the drives as they are?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
OS/games/apps on the 40 and everything else on the 120
OS/games/apps on the 40 and everything else on the 120
I would agree, assuming that the 40GB is 7,200 RPM and has 8MB cashe (a lot of 40GBs don't, if you are unsure look up the model number on the manufacturer's website).
As of right now I'm unsure of the specs of the two drives other than the size.
If the 40GB is atleast equal to the 120GB should I partition the 40GB drive at all?
Ask 10 people and you'll probably get at least 7 different answers. I like to run ghost images of my system partition, so I don't put games on that partition, simply because of the size of resulting image.
I have a system partition of 10-20G for OS and apps, and another partition for everything else. 10G typically works for me because I don't load a lot of apps, but if you do then adjust the system partition size accordingly. That also depends on the size of the actually disk and if it's larger than 80G I use 15G.
Ask 10 people and you'll probably get at least 7 different answers. I like to run ghost images of my system partition, so I don't put games on that partition, simply because of the size of resulting image.
I have a system partition of 10-20G for OS and apps, and another partition for everything else. 10G typically works for me because I don't load a lot of apps, but if you do then adjust the system partition size accordingly. That also depends on the size of the actually disk and if it's larger than 80G I use 15G.
But, that's just me.
10-20 gigs.. well, if you take into account that games like fear take 4.5 gigs, add the OS and some other game and you'll run out of space very soon..
As of right now I'm unsure of the specs of the two drives other than the size.
If the 40GB is atleast equal to the 120GB should I partition the 40GB drive at all?
Too many partiton would create wasted space.. you can have 5 gigs left on 3 partitions (2.5g+1g+1.5g) with your 40 gigs HDD, IE, but could not install anything that need 3 gigs of continious space.
Today's apps and games, as well as OSes are becomming bigger in size, and having room for the OS and apps means that the OS wil have more space to work, defrag will take less time and be more efficient when the OS has more room to work...
That's why I don't put games on my system partition, becasue I don't want to have games in the ghost image of my OS...the ghost file would be huge.
...I like to run ghost images of my system partition, so I don't put games on that partition, simply because of the size of resulting image.
I agree about the gohst image, but it can be done on a large r partition before installing all the other stuff..
And even if you do a ghost reapir, you'll have to reinstall anything that was is still installed on the other partition because they probably won't work.
Many games will still work without an official install. Thats all I do not put on the system partition, other than data of course. Most apps do indeed need to be installed so there is little point to not having them on the system partition, I agree.
My opinion is much the same as SurpremeLaw wrote above. For me, I have a hand full of apps and the OS on the system partition, so 10G is typically plenty. If the disk is big enough I'll use 15G, just because. The rest of the disk is for data and games. I actually have a server for data, but games and other non-critical data goes on the second partition.
I have a system partition of 10-20G for OS and apps, and another partition for everything else. 10G typically works for me because I don't load a lot of apps, but if you do then adjust the system partition size accordingly. That also depends on the size of the actually disk and if it's larger than 80G I use 15G.
But, that's just me.
I come from the camp of keeping the system partition small (within reason) to minimize fragmentation of the disk and subsequently keep performance in check over the long haul.
If you took 100gig disk and made that a single partition, whenever you save a file to that disk in gets written anywhere along that 100gig partition. By keeping the partition small (usually 20gig) you contain the area where the data is saved.
As always, how you partition the disk really goes to how you use the machine. For most business machines and servers I configure, I do a 20gig system partition and use the remainder for whatever. In the business environment, it's pretty unusual to see applications + OS + files grow bigger than 20G.
In the case of the servers, the applications/services such as databases/web services go on the D...this is good security practice as well.
Lots of ways to think about this. I thought this was an interesting take.
Quote :
2 HDDs are much better than one, for several
reasons:
...
with at least 2 HDDs, and at least 2 partitions
on the primary HDD, drive image creation is
MUCH SMOOTHER AND MUCH FASTER
because
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.