Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (
More info?)
In news:u9ChVFirFHA.304@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl,
DeeDee <dlyle@writeme.com> typed:
> Ok, so I have read the excellent article "Planning your
> partitions".
> And, using his sample for his 80g + 20g - I only have the 1
> large
> drive though, would this be right or are some partitions too
> big - am
> I better off to leave a larger "Future Expansion" partition.
This is far too many partitions. What you're planning will be
counterproductive. See below.
> C: Primary partion (active): 10gb Windows XP Pro
I'd make it bigger
> D: Swap File/page file: 500mg ???is this in the
> right
> spot for one disk setup
No. This is not a good idea, and can hurt your performance. What
this does is move the page file to a location on the hard drive
distant from the other frequently-used data on the drive. The
result is that every time Windows needs to use the page file, the
time to get to it and back from it is increased.
Putting the swap file on a second *physical* drive is a good
idea, since it decreases head movement, but not to a second
partition on a single drive. A good rule of thumb is that the
page file should be on the most-used partition of the least-used
physical drive. For almost everyone with a single physical drive,
that's C:.
> E: Data 10gb (My Docs/IE
> Favs
> OE data store)
> F: Programs 10gb
There's no advantage to separating programs from data.
> G: Downloaded Programs 10gb
Again, no advantage to separating this.
> H: Disposable Temp Files 500mg
Again, no advantage to separating this.
> I: Downloads Prog CD's 10gb
Again, no advantage to separating this.
> J: Balance remaining space 110gb
Why do you want this in a partition of its own?
> K: Backups 30gb
I don't recommend backup to a second non-removable hard drive
because it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the
original and backup to many of the most common dangers: severe
power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks, even
theft of the computer.
In my view, secure backup needs to be on removable media, and not
kept in the computer. For really secure backup (needed, for
example, if the life of your business depends on your data) you
should have multiple generations of backup, and at least one of
those generations should be stored off-site.
My computer isn't used for business, but my personal backup
scheme uses two identical removable hard drives, which fit into a
sleeve installed in the computer. I alternate between the two,
and use Drive Image to make a complete copy of the primary drive.
Every time you separate two type of files into separate
partitions, you run the risk that you will run out of space on
one partition which still having lots left on the other. You then
need third-party software to change the partition structure, or
else you can violate your own organizational rules by putting a
file where there's room for it instead of where it logically
belongs. If you do that (and most people do), the net result of
overpartitioning is, paradoxically, *less* organization.
I haven't seen anything in any of what you've posted that would
suggest that you would benefit by having more than two
partitions--probably a C: of 20-30GB for Windows, and the rest in
a a second partition.
--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram