View Full Version : Disk Partition Question

Resource Consumer
12-04-2006, 11:10:03
Hey, I am trying to beak the habit of a lifetime and ask and intelligent question on here.

OK. Assume I have 2 150 GB disks set up as RAID 0. I can see how having two disks can improve access times.

I can also sort of see how setting up a partition into C: and D: with the system on C: should improve things as well. I guess that is because the computer does not have to look through other crap to find the system files it needs.

So, my question.

1) Assume this two part partition. Is there any reason that the system (C:) partition needs to occupy 150 GB (I think not)? What is the optimum (or minimum recommended) partition size for the system drive?

2) If then, I decide on a 4-way partition - C:, D:, E:, F: (or whatever). This could be easier for organising stuff from my point of view but does increasing the number of partitions do anything horrible to access times? Any other potential pitfalls?

Thanks to all for any advice (what would I do without you guys).

12-04-2006, 11:20:04
If you're using Windows C: needs to be fairly big just to accommodate all the bloat - say minimum 5GB (plucking a figure out of the air). You'll also find that as you install more apps a lot of them will install to the C: drive unless you specify otherwise; since you have plenty of space allocate perhaps 10 GB to the C: drive.

That still leaves you 140 GB toplay with for your other partitions - note that is 140 GB and not 290 - if you have a RAID 0 set-up then, iirc, any data is written simultaneously to BOTH of the physical disks. Something to do with access times and data security / redundancy I think, but you'd better ask someone who kows what they're talking about :D

I don't think splitting into different partitions will adversely affect your access times - if anything it would improve them. In any case for most PC useage you wouldn't be able to notice the difference 'with the naked eye', unless you were doing some pretty intensive processing.

Finally, organising your data that way makes your back-ups easier. Just keep all the valuable stuff on one partition and copy that one to a CD or whatever on a regular basis. That way you don't end up backing up windows and all the associated crap as well, wasting time and storage space.

Hope that helps. I apologise for making a serious post :cute:

12-04-2006, 12:26:24
5-10GB for a system drive. Probably 10GB. Depending on your OS. For example, windows XP takes like 3GB's itself, plus it needs all the extra space for the swap file and other shit like that.

Also, rekrul, RAID 1 is the redudant RAID. RAID 0 is not redundant at all, it's a striping set up so files are broken up across the hard drives however the SCSI controller deems necessary. So RC would have 290GB of storage.

I'm not aware of the number of partitions affecting access times.

12-04-2006, 14:15:14
Originally posted by Rekrul
... but you'd better ask someone who knows what they're talking about :D

I rest my case. Cheers Venom

12-04-2006, 14:17:29
RAID explained (http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,290660,sid5_gci214332,00.html)

If anyone can be arsed. Too geeky for me

12-04-2006, 14:20:58
I only know because I just put a RAID 1 server in my office.

12-04-2006, 14:32:58
A likely story. You have that kind of information at your fingertips - we know you know

12-04-2006, 14:37:18
I have used ide raid 0 a couple of times and although it does increase speed slightly, the impending doom of single disk failure and thus complete system failure annoyed me too much to ever do it again.

I would use 0 and 1 across a 4 disk array if i was ever going to do it again.

12-04-2006, 14:58:51
Known as RAID 10.

12-04-2006, 14:59:17
I swear, I don't know anything about that.

Resource Consumer
12-04-2006, 15:34:12
Thanks guys - that is much appreciated.

So 10 GB for the OS and no problem with the other partitions.

I really need to buy the posters on this forum a drink

12-04-2006, 15:38:16
If they can't make it to the wedding, I'll drink them for them.

They can thank me some other time.

Resource Consumer
12-04-2006, 15:39:57
you're only in this thread for the beer

12-04-2006, 15:42:16
I am here to show support because I truly care about RAID issues.

12-04-2006, 19:10:29
Thanks Funko. My drink of choice is a Baileys and creme de menthe, but you can have it for me at RC's wedding :)

12-04-2006, 20:36:10
I'll have a yak piss with dung ball.

12-04-2006, 21:07:40
You should make your system drive at least 20 Gig. So many applications slam down files on the C drive, regardless of where else you tell them to install. Plus, all those security updates for Windows. And then temp space for all your browsers, players, and whatnot. Definately 20 Gig at a minimum.

With just 2 HDs, I'd not run RAID. I'd set it up such that the First Disk is a System drive, with two partions if I wasn't running Media Center on it. If I was running MC, then the whole drive would be one partition, as Media Center wants to put all your DVR recordings on the system drive. Recordings are easily moved by the most unimaginative or Drekkus of users though, so it isn't a big problem.

Second drive, I'd set as one solitary partition. But if you want 2 or 3, enjoy.

I just don't see a point setting yourself up to lose all your data when 1 drive cracks, or some malware cracks your system. Going old school like this will prevent you losing all your data when one HD goes out to lunch (which will eventually happen), and make reinstalling windows much easier on you. All your important data is on Drive 2, and that doesn't need to be reformated for a good clean install.

But hey, I suppose with a displined usage of a large external USB 2 or Firewire hard drive, you can preserve your important info. Whatever it might be.

Resource Consumer
13-04-2006, 09:00:47

Thanks. Actually, I am sort of going that way with a spare drive doing the backups in addition to the Raid 0 array. Most (all) important data will be backed up to at least that drive and also (sometimes) to a hard drive.

The point about the 20 GB is ntoed. Actually, I am not that sensitive to making it 20 or 30 or 40 - just need to know that it does not have to be 100 or so.

Thanks all. :)

13-04-2006, 12:00:57
Darkstar must be rich, because hard drives for the SCSI card run about $300 a piece.

Resource Consumer
13-04-2006, 13:57:14
I am sure he is very rich :)

13-04-2006, 20:48:51
Rich enough to afford a couple of drives and controllers.

13-04-2006, 20:56:05
So, pretty rich then. Can I borrow say.....5 or 10 thousand dollars?

I'll pay you back. I'm good for it.

25-04-2006, 14:24:13

25-04-2006, 18:32:39
See? Spartak will loan you the money. I'd get his terms for repayment though. He might be charging you 100% interest compounded annually, like a kind loan shark.