Quantcast

Maximum PC

It is currently Tue Sep 16, 2014 6:09 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Multiple partitions "not optimal"?
PostPosted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 10:37 pm 
8086
8086

Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 7:14 pm
Posts: 73
So in the May issue story on 2TB+ hard drives hitting the wall, Gordon Mah Ung says, "Yes, you can run multiple partitions to get around the problem, but that's not optimal...."

My question is, why? What makes multiple partitions "not optimal"? I've been building my own systems for many, many years, and ever since I replaced my beloved Seagate ST4096
Image
(check that baby out, 80MB of space stuffed into a 5.25" Full Height drive bay)

with a massive 200MB Maxtor, I've set up multiple partitions on my systems - usually separating out OS, apps, and data.

Tim


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:10 pm 
Northwood
Northwood
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:08 pm
Posts: 2429
Well, reading/writing to/from both partitions on the same disk is always great fun. I only ever put multiple partitions on a disk if I plan to never exchange data between them, such as dual-booting scenarios. It's just a taboo I've had since the early millennium, when I never really understood everyone's obsession with partitioning the crap out of a drive.

But... why exactly are you still partitioning your discs like that for? Is it really just so you can have a partition, instead of a folder, with your data?


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:01 pm 
Chief Surgeon
Chief Surgeon
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 1:24 am
Posts: 6701
Location: M*A*S*H 4077, Korea
This link pretty much explains the limitations of drive's capacities over time.

As far as partitioning drives with NTFS (used by NT/2000/XP/Vista/7), I remember going to a seminar before Windows 95 and NT 4.0 were launched...

When the technician/speaker got to the section about explaining NTFS under WinNT4, I specifically remember 'performance degradation will occur if drives under size limitations are partitioned into multiple partitions.'


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:29 pm 
8086
8086

Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 7:14 pm
Posts: 73
nmanguy wrote:
Well, reading/writing to/from both partitions on the same disk is always great fun. I only ever put multiple partitions on a disk if I plan to never exchange data between them, such as dual-booting scenarios. It's just a taboo I've had since the early millennium, when I never really understood everyone's obsession with partitioning the crap out of a drive.


There's not that much difference between reading/writing to/from two partitions on the same disk and reading/writing to/from data on the same disk that I can see, assuming you partition wisely.

nmanguy wrote:
But... why exactly are you still partitioning your discs like that for? Is it really just so you can have a partition, instead of a folder, with your data?


There's plenty of reasons to partition a disk - ease in data backup, simplified reformat/install of the OS, better performance for certain activities (OS and apps in faster portion of drive, placement of swap file away from other data, etc), and others I can't think of off the top of my head.

Tim


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:46 pm 
8086
8086

Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 7:14 pm
Posts: 73
SuperChip64 wrote:
This link pretty much explains the limitations of drive's capacities over time.


Yes, I was aware of why there was a problem with the big disks, but I was wondering about the reasoning on the quote I gave.

SuperChip64 wrote:
As far as partitioning drives with NTFS (used by NT/2000/XP/Vista/7), I remember going to a seminar before Windows 95 and NT 4.0 were launched...

When the technician/speaker got to the section about explaining NTFS under WinNT4, I specifically remember 'performance degradation will occur if drives under size limitations are partitioned into multiple partitions.'


Well, 15 years is a long time to remember such a specific quote, and an even longer time to apply it to drives with limitations unthought of then, but even if that is true, I was trying to find out exactly what problems or difficulties there might be.

Do you have any idea specifically why it might not be optimal?

Thanks.

Tim


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:39 pm 
Chief Surgeon
Chief Surgeon
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 1:24 am
Posts: 6701
Location: M*A*S*H 4077, Korea
It has to do with the way the NT/2k/XP/Vista/7 read the disk. They read the entire span of the disk, from inmost - where it reads slower - to the outermost - where your read speeds are best.

When you split a drive into multiple partitions, the first partition goes to the inside, and each subsequent partition goes outboard of that. Kind of like an LP record (remember those?) in reverse.

I'll try to hunt down specifics on it for you.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:07 pm 
8086
8086

Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 7:14 pm
Posts: 73
SuperChip64 wrote:
It has to do with the way the NT/2k/XP/Vista/7 read the disk. They read the entire span of the disk, from inmost - where it reads slower - to the outermost - where your read speeds are best.

When you split a drive into multiple partitions, the first partition goes to the inside, and each subsequent partition goes outboard of that. Kind of like an LP record (remember those?) in reverse.

I'll try to hunt down specifics on it for you.


I believe you have that backwards - the first partition goes on the outside and thus the faster part of the disk. This is why a process called "short-stroking" works. See http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/short-stroking-hdd,2157.html

Tim


Top
  Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group