Best utilization of two separate Hard Drives

[Artreid]

Running Win 7 Ultimate X64 and the following HDD setup:

Drive C: 160Gg 10Krpm SATA primary drive
Drive F: 750Gg SATA 7200rpm secondary drive

My question:
How best could I split data, files and programs for max efficiency? or does
it even make a noticeable difference?

 

[thanatoid]

Running Win 7 Ultimate X64 and the following HDD setup:

Drive C: 160Gg 10Krpm SATA primary drive
Drive F: 750Gg SATA 7200rpm secondary drive

My question:
How best could I split data, files and programs for max
efficiency? or does it even make a noticeable difference?

Well, I'd suggest going back to where you bought these and
changing the Gg drives for GB ones.

Seriously, partition C:\ into like 4 partitions, and f into 5-10
depending on whether you store entire DVD movies and stuff.

I know I am going to get blasted for even suggesting
partitioning, but those who don't partition are idiots. There
are SO many advantages it's not even funny.

 

[Yousuf Khan]

Running Win 7 Ultimate X64 and the following HDD setup:

Drive C: 160Gg 10Krpm SATA primary drive
Drive F: 750Gg SATA 7200rpm secondary drive

My question:
How best could I split data, files and programs for max efficiency? or
does it even make a noticeable difference?

Partition the first drive into a boot and a data partitions. You could
go half and half, with two 80 Gig partitions. But it depends on how many
programs you plan to install into the drive, as they all go into the
boot partition by default. For your boot partition I'd suggest a minimum
of 64GB but a maximum of 128GB. You adjust the data partition adjust up
and down accordingly, of course. It would be probably best if you stored
your "Users" folder in the data partition of this drive rather than the
boot partition of it.

It's best to keep the boot partition as minimal as you dare, because it
makes it much easier to image for recovery when the drive fails or a
virus wipes out the boot partition. Imaging is slightly different from
normal backups. You need to image a boot partition, because otherwise
you can't boot from it again after restoration. However, run of the mill
data partitions can be simply backed up, you don't need to image them.
Imaging has a much higher proportional storage overhead than backups.

As for your 750GB drive, just partition that as a single partition, it
keeps it simpler, you can just use folders on it to keep things
organized. You'll be using that to store all kinds of large data such as
music, videos, pictures. You will also need to store the backup images
from the boot partition on this drive, so you should create a backups
folder for that purpose.

Another thing you should consider is moving the swap file to this
partition. There are two avenues of thought about this. First avenue is
that it's best to keep the swap file on the fastest available drive,
which in this case is your 160GB boot drive. The second avenue is that
it's best to separate out the swapping function from the boot drive, as
usually that's the busiest drive of all, and you'll just be bogging down
your fastest drive and turning it into your slowest drive. My preference
is that a swapping file is a highly intensive operation that occurs
continuously on a your machine, so it's best to put it on a less busy drive.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Student]

I have been using 2 drives in my desktop for years.

The first drive has 3 partitions C - Windows 7
P - pictures
v - videos


The second drive has D - Backup
E - Software

I use Acronis True Image to to image C ot D once a week

I have once daily scheduled backup of selected items to D
(in my case at home 2 email folders- at work a biling program files)

The sofware partition has all the original CDs of programs in their own
folders example Office 2000, Word Perfect, Motherboard, Personal collection
of software, Web cam etc

I also have external USB drive where do some backups and copying. This comes
handy when a linux program that I am playing with mucks up by second hard
disk

I make periodic bacup of videos and pictures on external USB drive

 

[R. C. White]

Hi, Art.

To keep the terminology straight, run Disk Management and study its screen
for a while. There are several ways to run DM; my favorite is to just click
Start, type diskmgmt.msc, and press Enter. Not only is this quicker than
following the click path, but it also goes directly to DM, rather than
through the MMC (Microsoft Management Console). The MMC takes up a third of
the screen, making us see DM through a laparoscopic keyhole. You'll need to
furnish Administrator credentials either way because this program is
powerful enough to do harm, as well as good.

In DM, the Volume List at the top shows "drives" or "volumes"; you should
see your Drive C: and Drive F: there. But have a look at the Graphical
Display below. It should show Disk 0 and Disk 1. Drive C: occupies only a
portion of Disk 0, although that portion (the partition) might be 100% of
the disk. Depending on the history of that disk, Drive C: might start at
the beginning of the disk, or there may be a small partition (with no drive
letter) before it. Some OEMs also add a "recovery" partition of some kind,
which DM will show if it is there. Likewise, Disk 1 may be completely
included in Drive F:, or there may be unused space before or after that
drive.

A "drive" letter is never assigned to a hard disk drive (HDD). It is
assigned only to a partition on that HDD, even if the partition includes all
the space on the HDD. So we cannot subdivide Drive C:, but we can subdivide
Disk 0 into multiple partitions, often called "drives". HDDs are never
lettered; they are numbered starting with zero. The file system numbers the
partitions, starting with one on each disk, but we seldom see or use those
numbers; we just refer to the partitions by the Drive letters assigned by
the operating system.

Make DM full-screen and widen the Status column in the Volume List so that
you can see all the information in it. You should see labels for Boot,
System, Page File and others. Your Drive C: and Drive F: should both be
"Primary Partitions", which does not mean "of first importance" in this
case; each disk can have up to 4 primary partitions. One primary partition
on each disk may be coded "Active"; this is the one that can be used to
start the computer when that disk is designated in the BIOS as the boot
device.

Since your Drives C: and F: cover all of their respective disks, you'll have
to shrink those partitions if you want to create new, smaller partitions
using parts of that freed space. Depending on how YOU use your computer,
you might want to leave all of Disk 0 in Drive C:. (My Drive C: partition
is 70 GB and is running out of room. :>( Luckily, I can move the 20 GB
partition following it to another disk and Extend C: to include that space.)

"How many partitions" is a topic that can quickly become a "religious war".
Listen to some opinions, think about how YOU use your computer, and then
decide for yourself. Yes, it can make a big difference - for some users,
but not for others. With DM, you can almost always change your mind later -
if you are willing to learn how to use it effectively.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
[email protected]
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-2010)
Windows Live Mail 2011 (Build 15.4.3508.1109) in Win7 Ultimate x64 SP1


"Artreid" wrote in message
Running Win 7 Ultimate X64 and the following HDD setup:

Drive C: 160Gg 10Krpm SATA primary drive
Drive F: 750Gg SATA 7200rpm secondary drive

My question:
How best could I split data, files and programs for max efficiency? or does
it even make a noticeable difference?

 

[Ken Blake]

Running Win 7 Ultimate X64 and the following HDD setup:

Drive C: 160Gg 10Krpm SATA primary drive
Drive F: 750Gg SATA 7200rpm secondary drive

My question:
How best could I split data, files and programs for max efficiency? or does
it even make a noticeable difference?

Efficiency isn't really an issue here. The issue is what kinds of
files you have and how much of each type you have.

If it were me, I would use C: for the operating system and programs,
and F: for all my data (all types of data: word processing,
spreadsheets, photographs, videos, music, etc.), but your needs might
be different from mine.

Also, your question, at least in part, is related to one like "how
should I partition my hard drive?" So I recommend that you read this
article I've written: "Understanding Disk Partitioning" at
http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=326

 

[Ken Blake]

I have been using 2 drives in my desktop for years.

The first drive has 3 partitions C - Windows 7
P - pictures
v - videos


The second drive has D - Backup
E - Software

I use Acronis True Image to to image C ot D once a week

I have once daily scheduled backup of selected items to D
(in my case at home 2 email folders- at work a biling program files)

Two comments:

1. Pictures and videos are simply two different kinds of data files.
For almost everyone there's no real advantage to putting them in
separate partitions; separate folders in the same partition is just as
good from an organizational standpoint, and greatly preferable,
because partitions are static, with fixed sizes, and folders are
dynamic, with sizes that automatically expand or contract as needed.

2. Putting your backups on a second internal drive is better than no
backup at all, but just barely. I don't recommend backup to a second
non-removable hard drive because it leaves you susceptible to
simultaneous loss of the original and backup to many of the most
common dangers: 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. For really secure backup (needed, for example, if the
life of your business depends on your data) you should have multiple
generations of backup, and at least one of those generations should be
stored off-site.

 

[Bob Hatch]

Efficiency isn't really an issue here. The issue is what kinds of
files you have and how much of each type you have.

If it were me, I would use C: for the operating system and programs,
and F: for all my data (all types of data: word processing,
spreadsheets, photographs, videos, music, etc.), but your needs might
be different from mine.

Also, your question, at least in part, is related to one like "how
should I partition my hard drive?" So I recommend that you read this
article I've written: "Understanding Disk Partitioning" at
http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=326

I'm with you on this, Ken. My computer has:
C: 320GB Operating system and all programs. I clone this drive about
every 2 weeks.
D: 500GB All data, organized into folders.
H: 750GB External backup drive, automatic backup every 12 hours.

C: Still has a recovery partition, but it's not much use because I now
have W-7 and the recovery is XP.

A few months ago my D: drive crashed. I bought a new drive, did a
restore from the backup and was back in business in about 30 minutes.

When I moved from XP to W-7 my data wasn't touched or vulnerable. I've
been using this setup for over 15 years.


--
I respect that you have an opinion. Don't confuse that
respect with really giving a crap what it is.
"Anon"
http://www.bobhatch.com
http://www.tdsrvresort.com

 

[Ken Blake]

I'm with you on this, Ken. My computer has:
C: 320GB Operating system and all programs. I clone this drive about
every 2 weeks.
D: 500GB All data, organized into folders.
H: 750GB External backup drive, automatic backup every 12 hours.

Well, you're *almost* with me. But if you have an automatic backup
every twelve hours, that means you keep that external drive connected
all the time. If that's the case, it's really no different from an
internal drive. I don't recommend backup to a second internal hard
drive because it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the
original and backup to many of the most common dangers: 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. For really secure backup (needed, for example, if the
life of your business depends on your data) you should have multiple
generations of backup, and at least one of those generations should be
stored off-site.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Well, I'd suggest going back to where you bought these and
changing the Gg drives for GB ones.

Seriously, partition C:\ into like 4 partitions, and f into 5-10
depending on whether you store entire DVD movies and stuff.

I know I am going to get blasted for even suggesting
partitioning, but those who don't partition are idiots. There
are SO many advantages it's not even funny.

Here's one idiot blasting you

Or to put it more sanely, I disagree. For me, folders do everything that
partitions do, and they don't preempt drive letters.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Here's one idiot blasting you

Or to put it more sanely, I disagree. For me, folders do everything that
partitions do, and they don't preempt drive letters.

Also see Ken Blake's remark in this thread about static versus dynamic
size allocation. I'm paraphrasing a bit sloppily, so read his post

 

[Ken Blake]

Also see Ken Blake's remark in this thread about static versus dynamic
size allocation. I'm paraphrasing a bit sloppily, so read his post

Not sloppily at all. I was about to add essentially the same thing to
your previous post, but you already did it for me. <g>

To me, that's the most important advantage of folders over partitions.
Using drive letters might *sometimes* be an issue, but 24 of them (C:
through Z is more than enough for almost all of us. I have three
physical hard drives, one DVD drive, and three network drives; that
leaves 17 drive letters for things like thumb drives, external hard
drives, etc.

 

[Seth]

Here's one idiot blasting you

Or to put it more sanely, I disagree. For me, folders do everything that
partitions do, and they don't preempt drive letters.

Same here. One big, fat C: drive. All my data gets backed up externally. No
managing how big partitions are should one type of data grow faster than
expected. I also don't do image backups. It doesn't take me that long to do
a fresh build and install what I need so I skip having old\stale issues in
an image.

 

[Bob Hatch]

Well, you're *almost* with me. But if you have an automatic backup
every twelve hours, that means you keep that external drive connected
all the time. If that's the case, it's really no different from an
internal drive. I don't recommend backup to a second internal hard
drive because it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the
original and backup to many of the most common dangers: 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. For really secure backup (needed, for example, if the
life of your business depends on your data) you should have multiple
generations of backup, and at least one of those generations should be
stored off-site.

I don't have much "off site" space available. I live full time in a 37'
motor home, so under the passenger seat is where the backup disk lives.

Oh, the MH is protected by a SurgeGuard surge protector at the input
source, so I'm "kind of" safe in the electrical department.

--
I respect that you have an opinion. Don't confuse that
respect with really giving a crap what it is.
"Anon"
http://www.bobhatch.com
http://www.tdsrvresort.com

 

[DanS]

Two comments:

1. Pictures and videos are simply two different kinds of
data files. For almost everyone there's no real advantage
to putting them in separate partitions; separate folders in
the same partition is just as good from an organizational
standpoint, and greatly preferable, because partitions are
static, with fixed sizes, and folders are dynamic, with
sizes that automatically expand or contract as needed.

2. Putting your backups on a second internal drive is
better than no backup at all, but just barely. I don't
recommend backup to a second non-removable hard drive
because it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of
the original and backup to many of the most common dangers:
severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, virus
attacks, even theft of the computer.

I had a power supply event several years ago that took out my
main HD, the HD I was using as a backup drive, and the second
IDE channel.

So yes, backing up to an HD in the same PC is not too bright.

 

[thanatoid]

Here's one idiot blasting you

Or to put it more sanely, I disagree. For me, folders
directories

do everything that partitions do

Do you ever defragment? If I have 10 partitions on a 1TB drive,
then it means I have ten 100GB partitions to defrag (MY largest
partition is 10 GB, I can't even IMAGINE having a 20 MB
partition, and I use a real file manager!). How long will it
take to defrag a 100 GB partition vs. a 1 TB partition?

Also, without really getting into it, say you have 2,000 books.
They're all in a REALLY big box in your garage. You have to find
one. Don't you think it might be easier and faster (in several
ways) to find it if you had them in ten (or 20) boxes instead of
one? And EVEN easier if you took some time and divided them into
categories and kept them in boxes BY category?

I agree WinExplorer and brand name computer makers don't exactly
encourage partitions, but that's because they are all part of
the big computer scam, non-partitioning and having to own a
couple of 1TB drives when a book fits on a floppy and 10 albums
fit on one 15 cent CD-R are just a TINY part of.

and they don't preempt drive letters.

Well, you only have 25 or so to lose... Even I never got to Z
(not counting virtual drives).

 

[thanatoid]

Also see Ken Blake's remark in this thread about static
versus dynamic size allocation. I'm paraphrasing a bit
sloppily, so read his post

I read all of Ken's posts in the thread, and I see nothing about
"static versus dynamic size allocation" unless he is referring
to the fact that if you have ten 100GB partitions you might run
out of space on one of them and the world will come to an end,
because moving anything around using WinExplorer is kind of like
shoving toothpicks under your fingernails. While if you have a
1TB drive with one partition, when you collect enough stuff to
actually fill the 1TB drive, you get another one. I wouldn't
call it dynamic size allocation", I would call it "dumping stuff
into a container until it is full".

Well, it is simply beyond me how everybody says they have
"system" and "data", and some RELUCTANTLY make a separate
partition for the data.

Is that how you classify stuff, in ONE category? Just to make it
simple, how about "work-related", "text", "images", "music",
"movies".

That's five partitions right there (personally I would further
divide them into about 20, but I am trying to keep it simple for
people who don't know how to count to E). You may never even
need to defrag some of them because stuff just gets added little
by little. You can find everything faster. And many other
advantages which I can not write off the top of my head but
which are gone into in detail on a variety of sites created when
computers were still computers and not entertainment centers.

I should just get off the Usenet. It's becoming too much like
arguing in RL.

May I refer you weirdos to the following article:

It's 5 screens. I wonder why he didn't put it all on ONE screen.
It would have been SO MUCH EASIER TO READ AND NAVIGATE.

http://partition.radified.com/

 

[Yousuf Khan]

Same here. One big, fat C: drive. All my data gets backed up externally.
No managing how big partitions are should one type of data grow faster
than expected. I also don't do image backups. It doesn't take me that
long to do a fresh build and install what I need so I skip having
old\stale issues in an image.

I agree keeping data drives as one big fat partition is the way to go.
However, I used to follow the same philosophy for the boot partition,
the C: drive. I kept following this philosophy from the days of DOS, all
of the way upto XP and Win7, through larger and larger upgraded drives
over time. Then one day I had a C: drive that was 800GB! Now do you want
to imagine backing up or imaging that monster? Keep the boot partition
small, split it up if you must into boot and data partitions, but that's
the only one you really need to partition up.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Not sloppily at all. I was about to add essentially the same thing to
your previous post, but you already did it for me. <g>

To me, that's the most important advantage of folders over partitions.
Using drive letters might *sometimes* be an issue, but 24 of them (C:
through Z is more than enough for almost all of us. I have three
physical hard drives, one DVD drive, and three network drives; that
leaves 17 drive letters for things like thumb drives, external hard
drives, etc.

Nowadays you don't necessarily need drive letters.

I use Win 7's ability to mount a drive (HD, USB, SD) to an empty NTFS
folder so that I can use a file synchronization program without worrying
about drive letter changes confusing the synchronizer. At least SyncToy
gets confused, but lately I've been using Allway Sync and am happier. I
think it might not get confused by changes in drive letters, but I
already had the mount points set up...

It's in Disk Management.

Of course, it makes your system look like folders instead of drives

And be careful when you backup to a drive mounted this way: the drive
will bask itself up, thus enlarging itself, thus increasing the size of
the backup source, thus enlarging itself, thus...

So exclude it from the backup.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

directories

AKA folders

Do you ever defragment? If I have 10 partitions on a 1TB drive,
then it means I have ten 100GB partitions to defrag (MY largest
partition is 10 GB, I can't even IMAGINE having a 20 MB
partition, and I use a real file manager!). How long will it
take to defrag a 100 GB partition vs. a 1 TB partition?

I never defragment, but supposedly Windows does in the background,
unless I turned off while not looking.

Also, without really getting into it, say you have 2,000 books.
They're all in a REALLY big box in your garage. You have to find
one. Don't you think it might be easier and faster (in several
ways) to find it if you had them in ten (or 20) boxes
Folders

instead of
one? And EVEN easier if you took some time and divided them into
categories and kept them in boxes
Directories

BY category?

But I'm not looking for books in boxes in the garage (at the moment, at
least!)

I agree WinExplorer and brand name computer makers don't exactly
encourage partitions,

They don't discourage them either, AFAICT, but on occasion I have
organized a system with a few partitions, and I find that I don't like
doing it that way.

but that's because they are all part of
the big computer scam, non-partitioning and having to own a
couple of 1TB drives when a book fits on a floppy and 10 albums
fit on one 15 cent CD-R are just a TINY part of.

Let us not forget YMMV, or in French, à chacun son goût.

Well, you only have 25 or so to lose... Even I never got to Z
(not counting virtual drives).

See my recent remark in this thread about mounting a drive to a folder.

But that doesn't look like a partition