Setting up partitions
- Thread starter dario03
- Start date
- Status
TheMajor
PowerQuest / Opera
- Messages
- 10,176
- Location
- Netherlands
Partitions won't improve performance.
My partitions:
C: Windows
D: Storage 1
E: Storage 2
F: Storage 3
G: Backups 1
H: Backups 2
I: Backups 3
The backup partitions are mirrored.
My partitions:
C: Windows
D: Storage 1
E: Storage 2
F: Storage 3
G: Backups 1
H: Backups 2
I: Backups 3
The backup partitions are mirrored.
I know for a fact, that my speed is improved. I don't run tests. I just know. right before the first time I partitioned, I had a 80 gig hard drive that was 90% full (a pent 4 2.24 512 mb machine). the computer acted stupid and slow on all tasks with programs crashing or they stopped to a standstill. somebody told me to partition my drive. I did with Partition Magic 7.
now here is the math. 90% of 74.5 is 67.05 (7.45 gig free). now I had a 15 gig OS drive that is 50% (7.45 gig still) free. the other partiton (full) contain my data files.
all of the above problems disappeared. plus everybody don't realize this. it is just easier for windows to find files when you partition it.
the swap file also increase performance.
If you took an 80 gig hard drive that 90% full and defrag it, it would take forever. switch it to the second scenario and defrag it (both partitons), you will notice the way quicker time it will take to defrag.
now here is the math. 90% of 74.5 is 67.05 (7.45 gig free). now I had a 15 gig OS drive that is 50% (7.45 gig still) free. the other partiton (full) contain my data files.
all of the above problems disappeared. plus everybody don't realize this. it is just easier for windows to find files when you partition it.
the swap file also increase performance.
If you took an 80 gig hard drive that 90% full and defrag it, it would take forever. switch it to the second scenario and defrag it (both partitons), you will notice the way quicker time it will take to defrag.
TheMajor
PowerQuest / Opera
- Messages
- 10,176
- Location
- Netherlands
More partitions = less fragmentation = better performance. You're right about that. But multiple partitions on itself don't do anything but make organizing easier.
I wouldn't consider that proof, I would consider that an anecdotal statement. Your mileage may vary.
Since swap file performance is all about latency, why does it stand to reason that my swap file is not performing best on my WD Raptor drive which is <5ms seek time (ON AVERAGE). That means that it is seeking much faster than any 5400rpm drive given ANY location on the disk, not just at the beginning. 5400rpm drives are slow, have little cache, and have very high latencies.
You may have improved your performance via partitioning, however until I see proof, I do not believe that using a slow obsolete hard drive for the swap file alone is going to help anybody.
Since swap file performance is all about latency, why does it stand to reason that my swap file is not performing best on my WD Raptor drive which is <5ms seek time (ON AVERAGE). That means that it is seeking much faster than any 5400rpm drive given ANY location on the disk, not just at the beginning. 5400rpm drives are slow, have little cache, and have very high latencies.
You may have improved your performance via partitioning, however until I see proof, I do not believe that using a slow obsolete hard drive for the swap file alone is going to help anybody.
TheMajor
PowerQuest / Opera
- Messages
- 10,176
- Location
- Netherlands
As long as it's dedicated.
I'm sorry but I just don't buy that. Maybe if you had it on a dedicated drive of EQUAL speed and cache to your original drive, but a dedicated piece of crap slow drive is still going to be slow, no matter what.
Cache is going to benefit swap file performance immensely.
Cache is going to benefit swap file performance immensely.
- Status
Similar threads
