On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:43:43 +0100, "John Whitworth"
<> wrote:
>
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <> wrote in message
> news
...
> >
> > It is best for three reasons:
> >
> > 1. Having things in fewer partitions puts them closer together on the
> > drive. Closer together means that the drive heads need to move a
> > shorter distance to get from file to file. This improves performance.
> >
> > 2. Every time you create another partition, that partition needs to be
> > larger than your current needs so it has room for expansion. The more
> > partitions you have, the more such blocks of unused space you need to
> > keep for expansion. What you are doing is a waste of disk space.
> >
> > 3. Every time you divide something into multiple partitions, you have
> > to estimate how much space each partition will need in the future.
> > Your estimate may or may not be accurate. If it's not, that means that
> > at some point in the future you will not to resize your partitions,
> > and that will probably require the cost of third-party software, the
> > trouble of using it, and the risk of something going wrong while you
> > are doing it. (Or alternatively, instead of resizing the partitions,
> > you can start putting files on the wrong partition, thereby *hurting*
> > your organization; that's what many people end up doing).
> >
> > When you say "space management," I assume that you mean what most of
> > us would call "organization." Organization of what's on your drive is
> > fine; no argument from me. But you can organize by partitions as you
> > do, or you can organize by folders, as most of us do.
> >
> > From an organizational standpoint, what you do is no different from a
> > folder structure like this:
> >
> > C:\Program Files
> > C:\Program Files\Windows stuff
> > C:\Program Files\Office apps
> > C:\Program Files\games
> > C:\Program Files\simulators
> >
> > The only real difference is that your partition-based structure is
> > static and fixed, whereas a folder-based structure would be dynamic
> > and flexible, automatically changing the sizes of folders as necessary
> > to meet your changing needs.
>
> You have some valid points. But:
>
> - wasting space isn't an issue. I have more disk space than I know what to
> do with, with 1.25TB on my desktop machine, and 600GB on a backup file
> server.
My point is a general one, not addressed to you, or any individual, in
particular. Wasting space may not be an issue for you, but it is for
most people.
> Yes - probably would make more sense the other way round, but want
> the newer, faster drives RAIDed in desktop. The space will be wasted
> somewhere.
>
> - putting everything onto C just defragments the drive like crazy.
You mean "fragments," not "defragments."
> Sure, I
> know Vista 'takes care' of that for us. But it's not that clever that it
> moves all program files back next to one another again, is it? So if you
> aren't a space waster, and hence have program files all over your drive,
> then your disk head is clattering around just as much as if it had to go to
> seperate partitions.
As far as I'm concerned, fragmentation is simply a non-issue. In
Vista, defragmentation happens in the background automatically, and I
don't even run a defragmenter anymore.
> - using split partitions means that only certain areas of the disk will
> suffer from bad fragmentation. Meaning that defragmenting becomes a much
> smaller task.
>
> - My Windows folder and 'Windows type stuff' Program Files reside on a
> seperate physical drive to the other Program File folders. This is faster
> than one disk drive going backwards and forwards between Windows and other
> applications.
Yes. But that's a completely different issue than the one we were
discussing, which had to do with partitions on a single drive, not
multiple physical drives. Yes, separating things on different physical
drives can make things faster. But again, that's irrelevant to the
topic under discussion.
> - Too much folder navigation is a nightmare.
Irrelevant. Navigating from folder to folder on one drive is easier
and faster than navigating to different drives.
> Perhaps I'm just too comfortable with working with drive letters. I've done
> it for too long at work.
I certainly understand that what has worked for you in the past
provides comfort and it can be difficult to change from it. But the
issue here is not just what *you* are comfortable with, but what is
best for the others that we make recommendations to here.
> I possibly do have a few too many partitions,
In my view, you have *far* too many partitions. But again, I'm not
trying to persuade you to change, but to give useful advice to the
many others who read here.
> but I
> could never ever be comfortable having just the one partition that gets all
> the crap thrown at it.
Your choice, of course.
By the way, you might be interested in reading my general advice on
partitioning in this article I recently wrote: "Understanding Disk
Partitioning" at
http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=326
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup