Harddisk - 8/16 MB cache

At the moment I got a 320 GB Seagate 16 MB cache storing data.
Then I bought a 250 GB Maxtor 8 MB cache considering as primary partition of
Vista.

I will think I should use the 16 MB cache Seagate to install Vista for
better performance. Do you think there are great difference between using 16
MB and 8 MB cache harddisk for primary partition to install Vista?

My PC spec:
AMD Athlon 64 3200+
Hyundai (Hynix) 2 GB RAM (PC400)

"Alan T" <> wrote in message
news:...

> At the moment I got a 320 GB Seagate 16 MB cache storing data.
> Then I bought a 250 GB Maxtor 8 MB cache considering as primary partition
> of
> Vista.
>
> I will think I should use the 16 MB cache Seagate to install Vista for
> better performance. Do you think there are great difference between using
> 16
> MB and 8 MB cache harddisk for primary partition to install Vista?

Go with the 16MB cache - it will be faster. The cache size is far more
significant in determining overall performance than SATA vs. SATA II or
7200RPM vs. 10000RPM given that throughput never actually approaches the
1.5Gb/s reported on SATA drives let alone the 3Gb/s of SATA II.

--
And loving it,

-Q
_________________________________________________

(Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me)

Absolutely go for the drive with the 16MB cache. Also create smaller
partitions on it and install the OS on the first partition i.e. which
would be on the innermost part of the disk platter and therefore
fastest. Smaller partitions also make defragging easier, and if the OS
ever gets screwed up, you can just reinstall it in the same partition
without losing data from other partitions. (you may still need to
reinstall other programs).

Also, keeping the swap file on a different physical drive, again in a
small partition is good.


--
Benjamin

If I go for the 320 GB 16 MB cache one, what do you suggest on the
partitions?
2 partitions, one partition of 100Gb for Vista OS and 220 GB for the
programs (MS Office,..etc)?

"Benjamin" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> Absolutely go for the drive with the 16MB cache. Also create smaller
> partitions on it and install the OS on the first partition i.e. which
> would be on the innermost part of the disk platter and therefore
> fastest. Smaller partitions also make defragging easier, and if the OS
> ever gets screwed up, you can just reinstall it in the same partition
> without losing data from other partitions. (you may still need to
> reinstall other programs).
>
> Also, keeping the swap file on a different physical drive, again in a
> small partition is good.
>
>
> --
> Benjamin

"Alan T" <> wrote in message
news:...

> If I go for the 320 GB 16 MB cache one, what do you suggest on the
> partitions?
> 2 partitions, one partition of 100Gb for Vista OS and 220 GB for the
> programs (MS Office,..etc)?

I disagree with Benjamin - I think it is easier for the defragger to do its
job with plenty of disk space to spare but 100GB is a bit of an overkill.
I'd go for something like 60-75GB for the system partition and the rest for
your "data" partition where you can store your files and your Program Files
if you so choose. Frankly though I still can't see a major benefit in
keeping your Program Files on a separate partition from your system files
because you will need to reinstall all your programs (or most) if you need
to reinstall Windows. The only exception is if you are using a disk imaging
tool like Acronis True Image.

--
And loving it,

-Q
_________________________________________________

(Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me)

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 09:19:56 +1000, "Alan T"
<> wrote:

> If I go for the 320 GB 16 MB cache one, what do you suggest on the
> partitions?
> 2 partitions, one partition of 100Gb for Vista OS and 220 GB for the
> programs (MS Office,..etc)?


You need to decide for yourself how to partition your drive, based on
how much of each type of file *you* expect to have, based on your
personal preferences, and also based on your personal backup scheme.
Nobody else is exactly the same situation as you, and that's why
nobody else's recommendations on partitioning should be of any
interest to you.


>
> "Benjamin" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> >
> > Absolutely go for the drive with the 16MB cache. Also create smaller
> > partitions on it and install the OS on the first partition i.e. which
> > would be on the innermost part of the disk platter and therefore
> > fastest. Smaller partitions also make defragging easier, and if the OS
> > ever gets screwed up, you can just reinstall it in the same partition
> > without losing data from other partitions. (you may still need to
> > reinstall other programs).
> >
> > Also, keeping the swap file on a different physical drive, again in a
> > small partition is good.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Benjamin
>

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Any performance benefits of putting OS and program files
1) same partition
2) separate partitions ?

"Ken Blake, MVP" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 09:19:56 +1000, "Alan T"
> <> wrote:
>
> > If I go for the 320 GB 16 MB cache one, what do you suggest on the
> > partitions?
> > 2 partitions, one partition of 100Gb for Vista OS and 220 GB for the
> > programs (MS Office,..etc)?
>
>
> You need to decide for yourself how to partition your drive, based on
> how much of each type of file *you* expect to have, based on your
> personal preferences, and also based on your personal backup scheme.
> Nobody else is exactly the same situation as you, and that's why
> nobody else's recommendations on partitioning should be of any
> interest to you.
>
>
> >
> > "Benjamin" <> wrote in message
> > news:...
> > >
> > > Absolutely go for the drive with the 16MB cache. Also create smaller
> > > partitions on it and install the OS on the first partition i.e. which
> > > would be on the innermost part of the disk platter and therefore
> > > fastest. Smaller partitions also make defragging easier, and if the OS
> > > ever gets screwed up, you can just reinstall it in the same partition
> > > without losing data from other partitions. (you may still need to
> > > reinstall other programs).
> > >
> > > Also, keeping the swap file on a different physical drive, again in a
> > > small partition is good.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Benjamin
> >
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 12:22:53 +1000, "Alan T"
<> wrote:

>Any performance benefits of putting OS and program files
>1) same partition
>2) separate partitions ?


There would be little if any tangible performance gains in making
separate partitions, however it is usually smarter to keep the OS in
it's own partition, especially now that Vista is such a NAG and throws
a hissy fit if you try to write to the root drive outside of folders
it likes to claim the rest of the partition as it's own.

I've down it both way through the years and see no real difference. It
generally is easier to backup, then again there is little need to
backup program files assuming you have all the source CDs and programs
you've downloaded off the web you saved that to some other partition.
A good backup routine protects what you can't easily replace... your
data files which I ALWAYS keep off the root drive, again making backup
easier.

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 12:22:53 +1000, "Alan T"
<> wrote:

> Any performance benefits of putting OS and program files
> 1) same partition
> 2) separate partitions ?



No, neither. In general, how you partition has no effect on
performance. You choose a partitioning scheme for convenience and
organization, not performance.


> "Ken Blake, MVP" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 09:19:56 +1000, "Alan T"
> > <> wrote:
> >
> > > If I go for the 320 GB 16 MB cache one, what do you suggest on the
> > > partitions?
> > > 2 partitions, one partition of 100Gb for Vista OS and 220 GB for the
> > > programs (MS Office,..etc)?
> >
> >
> > You need to decide for yourself how to partition your drive, based on
> > how much of each type of file *you* expect to have, based on your
> > personal preferences, and also based on your personal backup scheme.
> > Nobody else is exactly the same situation as you, and that's why
> > nobody else's recommendations on partitioning should be of any
> > interest to you.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > "Benjamin" <> wrote in message
> > > news:...
> > > >
> > > > Absolutely go for the drive with the 16MB cache. Also create smaller
> > > > partitions on it and install the OS on the first partition i.e. which
> > > > would be on the innermost part of the disk platter and therefore
> > > > fastest. Smaller partitions also make defragging easier, and if the OS
> > > > ever gets screwed up, you can just reinstall it in the same partition
> > > > without losing data from other partitions. (you may still need to
> > > > reinstall other programs).
> > > >
> > > > Also, keeping the swap file on a different physical drive, again in a
> > > > small partition is good.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Benjamin
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

OS + prog files can be on the same partition, but try to put it on the
first partition of the physical drive. The read/write head accesses this
area faster than it does the outer regions. This is what I have read.

The other thing to note is that fragmentation from program files will
not cause fragmentation in the OS files, if they are in different
partitions. If OS + program files are in the same partition, then
fragmentation from using the programs (especially heavy A/V, P2P or
gaming) can affect the OS files too.

Qu0ll, you are absolutely right that the defragger will do the job
better when there is atleast 15% free space on the partition. I should
have added that in my earlier post, thanks for the reminder.

But you dont need 100GB IMO. My vista laptop is in my office ATM, and I
dont recall how much space the install takes. But, on my XP Pro system,
I kept C: (30GB) for the OS alone and I still have 22 GB free after even
(forgetfully) installing MS office XP too on it. I have been using this
setup for a year nearly and the install has not bloated much. I havent
used vista for long enough to see how much it bloats over time.


Ken Blake, MVP;371188 Wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 12:22:53 +1000, "Alan T"
> <> wrote:
>
> > Any performance benefits of putting OS and program files
> > 1) same partition
> > 2) separate partitions ?
>
>
>
> No, neither. In general, how you partition has no effect on
> performance. You choose a partitioning scheme for convenience and
> organization, not performance.


--
Benjamin