Need assistance - new desktop partition
- Thread starter dunlopj
- Start date
Best tool is Partition Magic, but not sure what you'll gain .. A better plan might be to pick up another 2Tb drive for $100, add it to the system and move the swap space, and data to it. Splitting swap (or virtual memory space) to a second drive from the OS will give you better performance.
There is a gain in time and space by partitioning a single physical hard drive into twp partitions, limiting the C: drive to the OS only (generally about 60gb is sufficient) and relegating the remainder to the D: drive for data and other environmentals (e.g. My Documents, My Music, My Pictures, My Videos, My "whatever"), the TMP/TEMP folders, and the pagefile.
Any of the items on the D partition can be copied (except the pagefile) thus nothing special is needed to have outboard copies. The operating system drive must be cloned in order to back it up effectively. The more non-OS, non-Programs, stuff on the C drive, the more space and time is needed to complete the clone.
Adding a second hard drive is way cool because that's where the backup and clones can reside as well as the pagefile as Steve 149 suggests.
Any of the items on the D partition can be copied (except the pagefile) thus nothing special is needed to have outboard copies. The operating system drive must be cloned in order to back it up effectively. The more non-OS, non-Programs, stuff on the C drive, the more space and time is needed to complete the clone.
Adding a second hard drive is way cool because that's where the backup and clones can reside as well as the pagefile as Steve 149 suggests.
Never saw any great reasons to use separate partition's. I use Acronis True Image. which does a full sector by sector backup, and can be transferred to any other computer, regardless of make an model.
And never use My Docs, My Music, My videos etc. They are tied to you your user login, and are virtual folders. If your user account gets hosed, you lose everything in those virtual folders.
Just create a C:/1Work folder, and everything goes under that as far as data. I call it 1Work, because it shows up at the top of the Explorer list, makes it easy to sync.
And never use My Docs, My Music, My videos etc. They are tied to you your user login, and are virtual folders. If your user account gets hosed, you lose everything in those virtual folders.
Just create a C:/1Work folder, and everything goes under that as far as data. I call it 1Work, because it shows up at the top of the Explorer list, makes it easy to sync.
Not so, Ric. If the environment settings (SETTINGS, CONTROL PANEL, SYSTEM, ADVANCED TAB click on ENVIRONMENTAL sub tab lower left) are changed and pointed to an actual physical folder on the D drive, the data remains regardless of the account status.
If your C:\1Work folder contains significant gb's worth of data along with all your program files and OS, how long does it take and how much space to create your image?
If your C:\1Work folder contains significant gb's worth of data along with all your program files and OS, how long does it take and how much space to create your image?
I create an entire image of my drive. It includes the entire OS, all data, etc.
I run it at night, and it's done in a few hours.
About 300 GBs total. I also use Diskeeper, which auto defrags my drive, so the backups go much faster.
I use mostly WAV files now, because AG and RockIt can tag them. I'm not big into requests, so I don't need a zillion files.
Have a hundred or so videos, mainly for my use -- I don't see any reason to ruin the ambiance of the room, and taking focus away from the crowd.
The issue you will have with multiple partitions on the same disk is drive thrashing. Even though they are separate partitions, all the heads are attached to one physical piece of metal - and it cannot access all these places simultaneously. This is why fragmentation can be problematic.
All my desktops have 2 physical drives in them. I have been doing this since since running windows 95 c:\ drive is my os and installed programs, d:\ drive is where all my work (saved work), program updates, downloaded programs and my picture library is housed. So if my c drive goes all my data is in tact. This D drive is also backed up to an external drive. My other external drives (4 in all) is where I keep all my music, videos and other dj related stuff.
There has been an on-going debate and I have yet to see any definitive authoritative expert findings on which is better, partioning, not partitioning, swap file where? swap file sizing?, etc etc
Currently, my C:\ is as drzinc says ^^^, and for all the exact reasons mentioned. My sector by sector cloning (Ghost 6.0) of the entire C:\drive is 30 minutes total. It is a 128gb SSD. The separate physical D:\ drive is a 10,000 rpm Raptor. Unfortunately, my machine is WinXP SP2 and is long overdue for a complete gutting and upgrading. Problem is, it ain't broke and I'm reluctant to fix anything that ain't broke.
Currently, my C:\ is as drzinc says ^^^, and for all the exact reasons mentioned. My sector by sector cloning (Ghost 6.0) of the entire C:\drive is 30 minutes total. It is a 128gb SSD. The separate physical D:\ drive is a 10,000 rpm Raptor. Unfortunately, my machine is WinXP SP2 and is long overdue for a complete gutting and upgrading. Problem is, it ain't broke and I'm reluctant to fix anything that ain't broke.
A small OS partition will be faster to load components, since the drive heads won't be thrashing around. However, you lose that benefit by keeping swap space on the same physical drive, since it is used constantly to manage virtual memory. Any space you have on the primary disk after making as small a partition as possible for the OS and the most often used program files, should be used for seldom accessed and seldom modified files.
For performance, you would partition the first drive so that the OS and oft used applications are in the smallest partition (see: http://www.pcworld.com/article/255224/how_to_partition_your_hard_drive_to_optimize_performance.html ), using the remainder partition for archive data. On a second drive you would place your Virtual Memory file(s) and your data. There will only be a small gain to partition that drive, especially if you create and modify data files often.
A SSD used for the primary disc will give an even greater return, assuming you can put the swap file on a separate disc, since writing to a SSD will wear it out faster.
I am still finishing building my new desktop (i7-4700 based). It has a 128Gb SSD for the OS and program files, a 2Tb disc for swap and program data, a 2Tb disc for my photos and a 2Tb disc for music, karaoke and video files (which will probably be replaced with a 4Tb drive when they drop in price).
For performance, you would partition the first drive so that the OS and oft used applications are in the smallest partition (see: http://www.pcworld.com/article/255224/how_to_partition_your_hard_drive_to_optimize_performance.html ), using the remainder partition for archive data. On a second drive you would place your Virtual Memory file(s) and your data. There will only be a small gain to partition that drive, especially if you create and modify data files often.
A SSD used for the primary disc will give an even greater return, assuming you can put the swap file on a separate disc, since writing to a SSD will wear it out faster.
I am still finishing building my new desktop (i7-4700 based). It has a 128Gb SSD for the OS and program files, a 2Tb disc for swap and program data, a 2Tb disc for my photos and a 2Tb disc for music, karaoke and video files (which will probably be replaced with a 4Tb drive when they drop in price).
I must be one of the few people on the 3rd rock from the Sun, that just uses my C: drive.
I honestly have to question people who need TB's of space. That means you've spent a couple hundred thousand on music, kroakie and videos -- or you have acquired them in some other way...
We've acquired them from pools ... I stopped bringing down "dance" genre from my pool, but when I did a complete pull down, I had over 750Gb of music. Add to that 30,000 Karaoke files and it adds up. I don't carry anything near that, but it's not tough to get there.
And for photos, I have shot over 100,000 in the past 5 years (85K on my Canon 7d alone). I get rid of a lot, but have close to 500Mb on my system .. and I shoot about 20,000 per year (high school and some college sports mostly).
And for photos, I have shot over 100,000 in the past 5 years (85K on my Canon 7d alone). I get rid of a lot, but have close to 500Mb on my system .. and I shoot about 20,000 per year (high school and some college sports mostly).
I didn't count backups .. I backup my PCs to a home server (running MS Home Server 2011), plus a couple of external drives. My laptops run primarily with their internal discs.
Which is about as legal as robbing a bank.
Pools are simply file sharing sites. If you are comfortable with that -- so be it.
BTW, can you play Lief Garratt -- I was made for Dancing? I'm sure that is a highly requested tune...
I've always wondered about people with huge storage needs. Do you save everything? I have ~1700 MP3s in my personal collection which of course much less than most DJs need. Several hundred pictures plus all kinds of website backups and about 90 ripped DVDs - (I own the physical disc, only ripped them for easier access [ex: Roku]). With that my storage needs top out at less than 200GB. The biggest eater of space are the DVD rips.
Except for pictures - If I don't need again I delete it.
Except for pictures - If I don't need again I delete it.
Pools are NOT file sharing sites .. Torrents are, and I don't get files from them.Which is about as legal as robbing a bank.
Pools are simply file sharing sites. If you are comfortable with that -- so be it.
BTW, can you play Lief Garratt -- I was made for Dancing? I'm sure that is a highly requested tune...
Pools are sponsored by the labels to make music available to DJs, radio stations, etc.
Since storage is cheap, and pools only keep files active for a short time, it's easier to download them and keep them handy in case .... The dance genre, with their longer intro/outros and multiple DJ remix versions, were killing my system. IDJPool keeps the last 2 years active and in that period, they posted almost 500Gb of "Dance" genre songs, which are also replicated in the Urban/Top 40./Hot 100/etc if they make the radio.