Is partitioning a bad idea?

[ineedh3lp]

Hello!

Just finished installing Windows 7 U SP1 x64 on a 120GB Intel x25m drive. I'm familiar with Windows' behavior creating that 100MB system reserved partition and I deleted it and left the space as unallocated. I was left with a 111GB partition and continued Windows installation on it.

My question is, would it hurt partitioning a SSD drive, like 50GB for the system partition and the rest for other data? The reason I'd want to do that is backups. I would like to create frequent system partition images and I want them small (I used to have a 1TB system partition before : D, big mistake).

Does it conflict with any special SSD features like TRIM and such?

 

[Kralnor]

It won't make any difference to performance or affect TRIM. Partitioning of an SSD won't physically split the areas that are written to - the wear leveling algorithms used by SSD's will prevent this, so there is no greater degradation of lifespan from partitioning.

I considered doing the same thing for the exact same reasons that you have outlined, but it turned out that creating an image was fast enough, so I didn't bother.

 

[ineedh3lp]

Best answer selected by ineedh3lp.

 

[John_VanKirk]

Hello,

You can do that but there are much better ways of imaging and backing up your boot partition than trying to place them on your smaller SSD.

First of all, your setup now has 100MB of unallocated space at the beginning of the SSD, which you will probably never use because of its size. If you really don't want that space, you should format your SSD first into 1 big, or 2 smaller partitions. Then when you install Win-7 and PS-1 place it specifically in a partition, and Win-7 will not create that additional 100MB partition, rather placing the BCD etc data in your OS partition (system, and boot).

Trying to cram WIn-7 SP-1 and repeated boot partition images onto a 110 GB drive will fill it up very fast.
I just installed Win-7 Ult + SP-1, and NIS yesterday on a SSD, nothing else, just that, and it took up 40 GB of space.

Why not use the builtIn Win-7 BackUp and Restore feature, storing them on a separate secondary drive. The initial image takes ~ 10 min, and the incremental backups integrated into 'previous versions' takes very little time. It can be shadow copied so you don't have to stop working, and you can schedule them automatically at any time you want, with a frequency of daily on out.

Then you have the images in an area that's essentially not accessed except for the backups, - and - if your SSD goes down, you still have your backup Images or incremental files on a separate drive ready to restore.

 

[ineedh3lp]

You can do that but there are much better ways of imaging and backing up your boot partition than trying to place them on your smaller SSD.

Hello, John.

This SSD I got is my first SSD and I intend on using it to speed up system partitions of some of my virtual computers and to transfer to it data that was previously residing in RAM Disks. Got no issues with space (2 out of 8 TBs free on the older hard disks) and I wasn't going to keep images on the SSD drive, that would be waste of money.

Honestly, I don't mind imaging 111GBs once every week, but I was curious if there's any issues with partitioning a SSD drive. Windows is already installed, I think I won't go back now and I'll leave it as it is. Interesting it took you 40 GBs. Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 x64, without anything installed only takes 16 GB on my drive. Maybe you're also counting the system page-file and hibernation file- my system page file defaulted to 12GB (maybe because I have 12GBs of RAM), but I disabled virtual memory as well as hibernation (and system restore) since I don't actually need any of those.

 

[John_VanKirk]

Hello, John.

This SSD I got is my first SSD and I intend on using it to speed up system partitions of some of my virtual computers and to transfer to it data that was previously residing in RAM Disks. Got no issues with space (2 out of 8 TBs free on the older hard disks) and I wasn't going to keep images on the SSD drive, that would be waste of money.

Honestly, I don't mind imaging 111GBs once every week, but I was curious if there's any issues with partitioning a SSD drive. Windows is already installed, I think I won't go back now and I'll leave it as it is. Interesting it took you 40 GBs. Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 x64, without anything installed only takes 16 GB on my drive. Maybe you're also counting the system page-file and hibernation file- my system page file defaulted to 12GB (maybe because I have 12GBs of RAM), but I disabled virtual memory as well as hibernation (and system restore) since I don't actually need any of those.

Hi again,

No, partitioning a SSD is no big deal. That just resets the partition table or LDM, the 1's and 0's on the drive are still there. just not useable.
It's not degrading. The thiing you don't want to do is defrag a SSD because that moves data repreatedly over the drive to put it in sequential order.

The size of my Win-7 Ultimate + SP-1 + all the Windows Updates to have it all updated, the page file, etc + Norton Internet Security is what took up 40 GB +-. From 0 to updated and ready to go, but no other programs or installations. And that's what really matters, how much disk space you actually use to have it functional, up to date, safe, and ready to use. It takes significantly more space than you anticipate.

 

[ineedh3lp]

In order to better optimize space on the SSD drive I'm going to use folder junctions. No point wasting lots of GBs to keep applications that don't even need to run at startup (think multimedia editing software), so I'll still let them go to their default locations at installation time, but then move the content to a mechanical drive and link the folders using junctions.

 

[John_VanKirk]

In order to better optimize space on the SSD drive I'm going to use folder junctions. No point wasting lots of GBs to keep applications that don't even need to run at startup (think multimedia editing software), so I'll still let them go to their default locations at installation time, but then move the content to a mechanical drive and link the folders using junctions.

Good idea. I like the library junctions as a way to have quick access to data, not just on your boot drive. Another reasonable concept is to mount a HDD to an empty folder on the SSD, making the data immediately available also in the file system but stored elsewhere.

Good luck with your new SSD. It's cutting edge.

 

[ineedh3lp]

I like the library junctions as a way to have quick access to data, not just on your boot drive. Another reasonable concept is to mount a HDD to an empty folder on the SSD, making the data immediately available also in the file system but stored elsewhere.

I thought folder junctions are just for redirecting file requests. Are you saying there's also actual gain in data access speed even if it resides outside the SSD on a slower hard disk? I feel like I'm missing something here after what you've said.

 

[John_VanKirk]

I thought folder junctions are just for redirecting file requests. Are you saying there's also actual gain in data access speed even if it resides outside the SSD on a slower hard disk? I feel like I'm missing something here after what you've said.

No, I don't think you are missing any important points. Both junctions and mount points are methods to have your data show up in your file structure, just like any other data actually there, except it is being stored in a different location, even on a different drive.

For example in a library, you might have a photo in the folder 'Pictures', also in a Windows XP folder called 'My Pictures', and also on a different drive called F:\ archive photos\'Additional images'. Imagiine how long it would take to gather all those images together to review. With a library they all are visible instantaneously even though they are in 3 different locations.

With a mount point, you might have photos in 'Pictures', and a folder in pictures called 'Archived Images', which is actually on your H: cateloged there. By clicking on "Pictures" they are all immediately available. If you save a photo in "Archived Images", it actually is immediately stored on the H: drive, taking no room on your boot drive, or SSD drive .

By application performance speed, no, by your ability to have immediate access to all these photos, whereever they are stored, 'priceless'!