On Tue, 26 May 2015 00:26:27 -0600, Ken Springer
Post by Ken SpringerFWIW, MS has acknowledged partitioning and relocating the folders can be
a good thing.
I'm not Microsoft, but here's my view on having multiple partitions
(this is a article I wrote several years ago, that was on a web-zine
that not longer exists):
Planning Your Partitions
*The Question*
How many partitions should I have on my hard drive, what should I use
each one for, and how big should each of them be?
ItÂ’s a common question, but unfortunately one that doesnÂ’t have a
single simple answer, right for everyone. Many people will answer with
the way they do it, but their answer isnÂ’t necessarily best for the
person asking (in many cases it isnÂ’t even right for the person
responding).
*The Terminology*
First, let’s get the terminology right. Some people ask “should I
partition my drive?” That’s the wrong question, because the
terminology is a little strange. Some people think that the verb
“partition” means to divide the drive into two or more partitions.
ThatÂ’s not correct: to partition a drive is to create one or more
partitions on it. You have to have at least one partition on it to use
it. Those people who think they have an unpartitioned drive actually
have a drive with only a single partition on it, and itÂ’s normally
called C:. The choice you have is whether to have more than one
partition, not whether to partition at all.
*Some History*
Back before Windows 95 OEM Service Release 2 (also known as Windows
95B) was released in 1996, all MS-DOS and Windows hard drives were set
up using the FAT16 file system (except for very tiny ones using
FAT12). Because only 16 bits were used for addressing, FAT16 has a
maximum partition size of 2Gb.
Hard drives larger than 2GB were rare in those days, but if you had
one, you had to have multiple partitions to use all the available
space. But even if your drive was no bigger than 2GB, FAT16 created
another severe problem for many people–the size of the cluster was
bigger if you had a bigger partition. Cluster sizes went from 512
bytes for a partition no bigger than32Mb all the way up to 32Kb for a
partition of 1Gb or greater.
The larger the cluster size, the more space is wasted on a hard drive.
ThatÂ’s because space for all files is allocated in whole clusters
only. If you have 32Kb clusters, a 1-byte files takes 32Kb, a file one
byte larger than 32Kb takes 64Kb, and so on. On the average, each file
wastes about half of its last cluster.
So large partitions create a lot of waste (called “slack”). With a 2GB
FAT16 drive in a single cluster, if you have 10,000 files, each
wasting half of a 32Kb cluster, you waste about 160Mb to slack. ThatÂ’s
a substantial portion of a drive that probably cost over $400 back in
1996–around $32 worth.
So what did people do? They partitioned their 2GB drive into two,
three, or more logical drives. Each of those logical drives was
smaller than the real physical drive, had smaller clusters, and
therefore less waste. If, for example, they could keep all partitions
under 512Mb, cluster size was only 8Kb, and the waste was reduced to a
quarter of what it would otherwise be.
People partitioned for other reasons too, but back in the days of
FAT16, this was the main reason for doing so.
*The Present*
Three things have changed dramatically since 1996:
1. The FAT32 and NTFS file systems have come along, permitting larger
partitions with smaller clusters, and therefore much less waste. In
fact, with NTFS, cluster sizes are 4K, regardless of partition size.
2. Hard drives have become much bigger, often over 1Tb (1000Gb) in
size.
3. Hard drives have become much cheaper. For example, a 500Gb drive
can be bought today for around $50. ThatÂ’s 250 times the size of that
typical 2Gb 1996 drive, at about an eighth of the price.
What those things mean together is that the old rationale of having
multiple partitions to avoid substantial waste of disk space is gone.
The amount of waste is much less than it used to be and the cost of
that waste is much less. For all practical purposes, almost nobody
should be concerned about slack anymore, and it should no longer be
considered when planning your partition structure.
*What Partitions are Used for Today*
There is a wide variety of different ways people set up multiple
partitions these days. Some of these uses are reasonable, some are
questionable, some are outright bad. IÂ’ll discuss a number of common
partition types in what follows:
1. A partition for just Windows
Most people who create such a partition do so because they believe
that if they ever have to reinstall Windows cleanly, at least they
wonÂ’t lose their data and wonÂ’t have to reinstall their applications,
because both are safe on other partitions.
In fact the first of those thoughts is a false comfort, and the second
is downright wrong. See the discussion of partition types 2 and 4
below to find out why.
Also note that as time passes, many people find that their Windows
partition that started out to be the right size turns out to be too
small. For example, if you have such a Windows partition, and later
upgrade to a newer version of Windows, you may find that your Windows
partition is too small.
2. A partition for installed programs
This normally goes hand-in-hand with partition type 1, a partition for
just Windows. The thought that if you reinstall Windows, your
installed application programs are safe if they are in a separate
partitions is simply wrong. ThatÂ’s because all installed programs
(except for an occasional trivial one) have pointers to them within
Windows, in the registry and elsewhere, as well as associated files
buried within the Windows folder. So if Windows goes, the pointers and
files go with it. Since programs have to be reinstalled if Windows
does, this rationale for a separate partition for programs doesn't
work. In fact, there is hardly ever a good reason for separating
Windows from application software in separate partitions.
3. A partition for the swap file.
Some people erroneously think that having the page file on a separate
partition will improve performance. That is also false; it doesnÂ’t
help, and often hurts, performance, because it increases head movement
to get back and forth from the page file to the other frequently-used
data on the drive. For best performance, the page file should normally
be on the most-used partition of the least-used physical drive. For
almost everyone with a single physical drive, thatÂ’s the same drive
Windows is on, C:.
4. A partition for backup of other partitions.
Some people make a separate partition to store backups of their other
partition(s). People who rely on such a "backup" are just kidding
themselves. It's only very slightly better than no backup at all,
because it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original
and backup to many of the most common dangers: head crashes and other
kinds of drive failure, 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.
5. A partition for data files
Above, when I discussed separating Windows on a partition of its own,
I pointed out that separating data from Windows is a false comfort if
itÂ’s done with the thought that the data will be safe if Windows ever
has to be reinstalled. The reason I call it a false comfort is because
I fear that many people will rely on that separation, think that their
data is safe there, and therefore do not take appropriate steps to
back it up. In truth the data is not safe there. Having to reinstall
Windows is only one of the dangers to someoneÂ’s hard drive, and not
even the most likely one. This kind of “safeguard” falls into the same
category as a partition for backup of other partitions; it leaves you
susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original and backup to many of
the most common dangers that affect the entire physical drive, not
just the particular partition. Safety comes from a strong backup
regimen, not from how you partition.
However for some people it can be a good idea to separate Windows and
programs on the one hand from data on the other, putting each of the
two types into separate partitions. I think that most peopleÂ’s
partitioning scheme should be based on their backup scheme, and backup
schemes generally fall into two types: imaging the entire hard drive
or backup of data only. If you backup data only, that backup is
usually facilitated by having a separate partition with data only;
that permits backing up just that partition easily, without having to
collect bits and pieces from here and there. On the other hand, for
those who backup by creating an image of the entire drive, there is
usually little, if any, benefit to separating data in a partition of
its own.
By the way, in all fairness, I should point out that there are many
well-respected people who recommend a separate partition for Windows,
regardless of your backup scheme. Their arguments havenÂ’t convinced
me, but there are clearly two different views here.
6. A partition for picture files
Some people like to treat pictures and videos as something separate
from other data files, and create a separate partition for them. To my
mind, a picture is simply another kind of data, and there is no
advantage in doing this.
7. A partition for music files.
The comments above pertaining to picture files apply equally to music
files. They are just another kind of data and should be treated the
same way as other data.
8. A partition for a second operating system to dual-boot to.
For those who run multiple operating systems (Windows Vista, Windows
XP, Windows 98, Linux, etc.), a separate partition for each operating
system is essential. The issues here are beyond the scope of this
article, but itÂ’s sufficient to note that I have no objection at all
to such partitions
*Performance*
Some people have multiple partitions because they believe that it
somehow improves performance. ThatÂ’s not correct. The effect is
probably small on modern computers with modern hard drives, but if
anything, the opposite is true: more partitions mean poorer
performance. ThatÂ’s because normally no partition is full and there
are therefore gaps between them. It takes time for the driveÂ’s
read/write heads to traverse those gaps. The closer together files
are, the faster access to them will be.
*Organization*
I think many people overpartition because they use partitions as an
organizational structure. They have a strong sense of order and want
to separate apples from oranges on their drives.
Yes, separating different kinds of files on partitions is an
organizational technique, but so is separating different kinds of
files in folders. The difference is that partitions are static and
fixed in size, while folders are dynamic, changing size automatically
as necessary to meet your changing needs. That generally makes folders
a much better way to organize, in my view.
True, partitions can be resized when necessary, but except with recent
versions of Windows, doing so requires third-party software (and the
ability to do it in Windows is primitive, compared to the third-party
solutions). Such third-party software normally costs money, and, no
matter how good and how stable it is, affects the entire drive,
entailing a risk of losing everything. Plan your partitions well in
the first place, and no repartitioning should be necessary. The need
to repartition usually comes about as a result of overpartitioning in
the first place.
What frequently happens when people organize with partitions instead
of folders is that they miscalculate how much room they need on each
such partition, and then when they run out of room on the partition
where a file logically belongs, while still having lots of space left
on the other, they simply store the file in the "wrong" partition.
Paradoxically, therefore, that kind of partition structure results in
less organization rather than more.
*So How Should I Partition My Drive*
If you've read what came before, my conclusions won't come as a
surprise:
1. if your backup scheme is to image the entire drive, have just a
single partition (usually C:);
2. if you just backup data, have two partitions–one for Windows and
installed application programs (usually C:), the other for data
(usually D:).
Except for those running multiple operating systems, there is seldom
any benefit to having more than two partitions.