HDD Partitioning for Multi-Boot Systems

[wickedestman]

Hey guys i was discussing this with a good friend of mine in this forum and this came up.

First of all, i hope this is the correct Section!

I want to know which one is true...

I will be soon (God Willing) getting a new pc with a 500GB hard drive. I will be making partitions and will be multi-booting Vista Ultimate and XP Pro SP2. At first i was just going to simply do two partitions, one about 300GB for XP and the rest for Vista. But what was suggested is that i do three, 20GB for XP and 40GB for Vista and the remaining as space for music, movies, programs etc.

Would the system run faster if i did the second set up?

OR

By putting 80GB for XP partition, 120GB for Vista Partition and a last partition of the remaining ~300GB as a last partition. But instead of installing the respective XP and Vista programs on the huge 300GB part, I will install the programs and games i will run on XP on the 80GB XP part and the Vista ones on the 120GB Vista part.

Which would run faster/better or make more sense?

Or what do you guys suggest?

I expect to see the great mentor, whom i owe a lot too, Mr. Paul, giving me a lil help again :D

Thanks in advance!

[Sylvander]

1. I believe in Compartmentalisation [big word].
...Because it makes it easier [for both you and anything else like Windows] to find things quickly.
It makes for increased efficiency.

2. That means using different physical drives and/or partitions for different purposes, with each particularly suited to its purpose.
(a) Keep the OS partitions/drives as small as possible on the fastest possible HDD.
(b) A small fast Raptor would be good for holding OS's, and the paging file would be good on a separate partition on a [separate to the OS] fast physical HDD.
(c) I keep my paging file on its own small partition [on the internal HDD], so it never becomes fragmented, and it doesn't contribute to increasing the fragmentation of the OS partition.
(d) I try to use big partitions with big cluster sizes to hold big files [more efficient use of space with the FAT(32) file system].
(e) You might not go the whole hog, but approximate to the above.

3. Keep the Program files on the same partition as that which holds the Windows installation [and registry and configuration files] under which it runs.
That way you can make images of the partitions and the images will hold all the necessary for a working system of Windows & Programs.

4. Move all unnecessary [data] files off the OS partitions [to make the OS Partitions "lean & mean" (fast)], and further separate the data files by type into their own separate partitions.
e.g. All but one of my partitions use the FAT32 file system, but my G: partition is NTFS for holding files greater than 4GB.
(a) You might make a partition for holding image backups of all the other partitions.
This could be internal [on your internal HDD] or external [if you had or got an external HDD].

[wickedestman]

HAHA big word... lol compartmen...choke... :D

i see... so in a case as me.. with a whole sh*t load of music mp3s, movies, backups and etc. I should make a partition like 200GB-300GB for that then?

The Hard drive is a seagate 500GB SATA II 16MB cache.
i cant afford those 10000rpm raptors :(

And well make the XP partition about 80GB (cuz i will be installing a load of games and some huge programs) and the vista one around 80GB. and well keep em as clean as possible.

also create a separate partition for page file?

That mean 4 partitions (haha i can count!)

By the way now two questions arose in my head:

1) What is a good tool to make partitions?

2) What is a good size of partition for the page file?

the specs on the pc i am hoping to buy are:

q6600
4GB 800Mhz RAM
8800gt
500gb hd sata 2


THANKS MAN! :D

[Quark]

Download Ubuntu ISO.
Burn ISO to CD.
Put the CD in, restart PC.
PC will boot from Ubuntu CD.
Ubuntu has a partition manager program you can use to do what you want.

[Sylvander]

Here's what I have:

INTERNAL HDD
1. C:
Windows Operating System
Programs
Registry
Hibernation file [use presently disabled]

2. D:
Personal data files re-registered off C: like:
Password Vault files
Desktop
Emails & Address Book
Firefox Profile
IE Favorites & Temporary Internet Files
My Documents

3. E:
Sound/audio files:
MP3, wave, etc.

4. F:
Visual stuff:
Photo's, images of documents, videos.

5. G:
Big files greater than 4GB:

6. H:
Paging file fills 1/2GB partition in my case.

EXTERNAL USB2 HDD
7. R:
Image backup files.
Mostly by "Image for DOS" , but some by "Acronis True Image" [booted from CD-RW disk].


8. [B]S:
Second backup/synchronized copies of folders/files held on partitions D: E: F:
These made by "SyncBack" run within Windows.

9. T:
Files for:
Making bootable disks [CD's & floppies].
Installing Programs [plus record of where & when got].
Running Portable Programs.

[Quark]

That is a ridiculous amount of partitions.
Most of that can be done using simple folders.

[George Hallam]

Hey guys i was discussing this with a good friend of mine in this forum and this came up.



:D


hey mate,

If you get both XP and Vista i would set it out like this

(install XP first)

20Gb partition for XP
40Gb partition for Vista
100Gb partition for games and apps
340Gb for media, music and downloads

That is basically what i have but in larger size my (downloads is 600Gb alone :p)

My OS's have no problems or slowdowns and have been as happy as they were when i first installed them

When installing software i would recomend using XP and keep Vista just for gaming (use XP for older games)

To make the partitions (don't use Ubuntu like #$%^in Quark said) get partition magic and when in XP you can make, resize and change the format any area of space on your HDD... But it can take a long time to do so do it over night, i learned the hard way i did it on a Saturday and no PC all day :( :p

[Quark]

Yes, it can take a very long time.
Yes you can use partition magic if you want to pay for it, and if XP is working on your PC.
However the Ubuntu will work when there is no OS on your PC, it can do many of the things partition magic can do, and its free.

[Rick]

I Have to agree with Sylvander on the multi drives and or partitions

My setup
1. 150 raptor XP
2. 150 raptor Vista
3. 250 sata data
4. 500 sata multi media

5. 250 backup for data (nas)
6. 500 backup for Media (nas)

One rule of thumb I have found that works well for Multi boot system with only one or two drives
Calculate how much disk space you OS and program files require
Then take that number and multiply it by 3 at least
Set the OS partitions to that amount

Vista for example with a few added extras and office programs, Photo editing. video editing, and basics requires 35Gig so My partition would be 105Gig
With the raptor its the full disk at 150..
This leave plenty of room to grow

[George Hallam]

One rule of thumb I have found that works well for Multi boot system with only one or two drives
Calculate how much disk space you OS and program files require
Then take that number and multiply it by 3 at least
Set the OS partitions to that amount



:p Wish i had thought of that when i did my first 10Gb XP partition :D

[wickedestman]

look the good friend george come man! boy i was referring to you! sorry i didnt reply to you i just went straight ahead and started a topic. sorry

@Sylvander
DAMN! :eek: thas A lot of sections... of course i wont have that much space. Nor will i ever have need for all that. (thank God for the ones who discovered DVD format)
But thanks for the advice man...

@Quark
man thas a funny name.. :cool: that aside... thats a GREAT idea about the ubuntu... because i will be getting the pc without an OS

haha i like that word... pay... of course i will "pay" for it.... haha...

but honestly thats a great suggestion though on the ubuntu.
I honestly dont like to use these cr*ck or K*ygen stuff anymore... it sometimes messes with you up bad.

@George
Scene I think i will step up those OS patition sizes a bit.. 100GB 100GB.. and the rest for other stuff... maybe another partition for my page file cuz Sylvander made a great point that doing that separates it and that area doesnt become fragmented.

@rick
WAW....:eek:
lend me a raptor please? haha :D

That setup is wicked!

I totally agree with you. Especially the "leave room to grow part" i of course dont intend (well right now) on storing all my movies and stuff on my HD, just music and some of those movies. I will jus burn them off. so that ~270GB remainder partition will be great.

later on of course i have to add another 500GB or external it for more music and others.

@george and others
well man the idea worked. I got great suggestions on this topic and well this i show i am planning to do it:

~100GB XP
~100GB Vista
~2GB Page file
~270GB My Documents folder with music, movies and extras like downloads and stuff.

cuz i for sure will be installing games like mad!


I want to kinda go off topic...

but,

the 64-bit releases of the OS like vista ultimate 64-bit, there are really enhanced for dual-core and maybe quad-core setups?

and if this is so, they will in turn run better than the 32-bit version?

or is it just for future use, like being capable of handling >4GB of RAM?

[Sylvander]

"that's A lot of sections"
Seems quite normal to me; isn't a problem in use.

It's like my house.
There are many different rooms.
Each room has its own heating controlled by a thermostat [not one big open plan area].
So I can adjust to maintain different temperatures in each room.
Bedrooms are cool most of the time.
Living room is the warmest.
Bathroom is cool most of the time, but hot when used for bath or shower.

Imagine a central library.
You might have all the books in one huge room.
Or you might put different types of books each in their own dedicated room that all lead off a central access.
Computer books in one room.
Genealogy records in another.
There might be many rooms.
At the reception desk when you ask where all the computer books are kept they tell you to go to room 5.
Right away you've cut out all extraneous info to home in on your topic.

It's like that on my 2 [internal & external] HDD's.

[Rick]

@rick
WAW....:eek:
lend me a raptor please? haha :D

That setup is wicked!

I totally agree with you. Especially the "leave room to grow part" i of course dont intend (well right now) on storing all my movies and stuff on my HD, just music and some of those movies. I will jus burn them off. so that ~270GB remainder partition will be great.

later on of course i have to add another 500GB or external it for more music and others.

@george and others
well man the idea worked. I got great suggestions on this topic and well this i show i am planning to do it:

~100GB XP
~100GB Vista
~2GB Page file
~270GB My Documents folder with music, movies and extras like downloads and stuff.

cuz i for sure will be installing games like mad!


I want to kinda go off topic...

but,

the 64-bit releases of the OS like vista ultimate 64-bit, there are really enhanced for dual-core and maybe quad-core setups?

and if this is so, they will in turn run better than the 32-bit version?

or is it just for future use, like being capable of handling >4GB of RAM?

That setup will work great
When adding a second drive.
Think about your backup first. ( 500 external or larger "again think ahead" )
then a third for more storage and add-ins "internal "

Side note..
If you add / remove a lot of programs
Like testing and or games
Think about setting up a drive or at least a partition for this purpose
Then you can save a lot of time by avoiding fragmentation
Each addition and or removal on this drive will not cause as much hassle as it would on the primary drives


32-64 bit OS has been discussed a lot on the board
You don't need a qual core to use it and get good performance
All you need is a CPU that supports it (64bit)


I'll leave the 64 bit AND gaming to those who use it for games
Just make sure before you go 64bit that you can get ALL the required drivers first

I know for a fact that many hardware companies don't support 64 bit
especially on older hardware ( sound blaster and turtle beach for example)
in a few cases not even on new hardware

Additional side note
Sorry the kids have taken the old Raptor's for their systems
So I don't have any extras laying around :)

[Sylvander]

On defragmentation:

I've just recently installed Ashampoo Magical Defrag [got it FREE from Computeractive Magazine]...
Really pleased with this. :)
It is put in the Startup list, so it runs in the background at each new boot.
Doesn't display anything other than an icon down in the System Tray.
Only begins defragging if the CPU usage is less than 100% and the user isn't active [with mouse or keyboard].
When actively defragging a star goes around the four corners of the icon.
Stops when there is activity [CPU, mouse, keyboard].
It eventually succeeds in totally defragging all accessible storage areas, and then displays a big tick in its icon.
Then if/when any fragmentation takes place, and there is no activity, it begins to defrag once again.
Because it responds to the slightest fragmentation, the effect is that the storage areas are always near-perfectly defragmented.

I then use O&O Defrag 2000 Freeware Edition to display the arrangement of the folders & files to see the level of perfection of folder/file layout.
Not perfect, but is pretty good.
There are folders scattered here and there in the empty space that comes after the ordered and tightly packed block of folders/files.

I'd guess there are other programs out there [not freeware?] that could fix this imperfection.
Anyone know of freeware that would do it?

[Rick]

One more note on fragmentation
I don't recall where I read it. ( PC Mag maybe )

But I recall Vista does defrag when it wants to. NOT when you want it to
It also does Not have the analyze feature of the older versions of windows

So you may need to disable the scheduled defrag in Vista when using alternate programs .. ( Never did like M$ version of defrag )

[Roady]

1. I believe in Compartmentalisation [big word].
...Because it makes it easier [for both you and anything else like Windows] to find things quickly.
It makes for increased efficiency.

2. That means using different physical drives and/or partitions for different purposes, with each particularly suited to its purpose.
(a) Keep the OS partitions/drives as small as possible on the fastest possible HDD.
(b) A small fast Raptor would be good for holding OS's, and the paging file would be good on a separate partition on a [separate to the OS] fast physical HDD.
(c) I keep my paging file on its own small partition [on the internal HDD], so it never becomes fragmented, and it doesn't contribute to increasing the fragmentation of the OS partition.
(d) I try to use big partitions with big cluster sizes to hold big files [more efficient use of space with the FAT(32) file system].
(e) You might not go the whole hog, but approximate to the above.

3. Keep the Program files on the same partition as that which holds the Windows installation [and registry and configuration files] under which it runs.
That way you can make images of the partitions and the images will hold all the necessary for a working system of Windows & Programs.

4. Move all unnecessary [data] files off the OS partitions [to make the OS Partitions "lean & mean" (fast)], and further separate the data files by type into their own separate partitions.
e.g. All but one of my partitions use the FAT32 file system, but my G: partition is NTFS for holding files greater than 4GB.
(a) You might make a partition for holding image backups of all the other partitions.
This could be internal [on your internal HDD] or external [if you had or got an external HDD].

Sylvander
So is that correct in you saying that if you have like DVD films stored etc etc or large data fies, its best to use NTFS for that particuar partition?
Is the reason for this, so Windows XP and Vista make more use out of the hard drive space.
Is it also best using FAT32 for XP and Vista (32 & 64Bit)? if so why?

Regards
Roady

[Sylvander]

1. "So is that correct in you saying that if you have like DVD films stored etc etc or large data fies, its best to use NTFS for that particular partition?"
Yes.
Anything over 4GB would need to be on an NTFS formatted partition.

2. "Is the reason for this, so Windows XP and Vista make more use out of the hard drive space?"
No, it's because the FAT32 file system can only handle files up to 4GB max, whereas NTFS can handle MUCH bigger files than that [2TB plus?].

3. "Is it also best using FAT32 for XP and Vista (32 & 64Bit)? if so why?"
Most people say, and I'm sure they are right, that NTFS is much better than FAT32.
I'm not recommending the use of this or that file system, but in my case I run Win2000Pro and I'll stick with FAT32 until I see a reason not to.
That way I can continue to use the "Emergency Boot CD" and it's programs that only work on FAT partitions.
I changed one partition to NTFS to get the advantage of being able to use/store files greater than 4GB.

[Roady]

Thanks for that , very helpful!

Think I need some more help on choosing which file system though! I want to stick to one file system for both OS.

[Sylvander]

THIS (http://www.theeldergeek.com/ntfs_or_fat32_file_system.htm) weighs up the pro's and con's, and on balance comes out in favor of NTFS.

[Paul Komski]

Download Ubuntu ISO.
Burn ISO to CD.
Put the CD in, restart PC.
PC will boot from Ubuntu CD.
Ubuntu has a partition manager program you can use to do what you want.
It has already been pointed out to Quark that one doesn't need to go to the lengths of downloading a full 700MB ISO and then wait for a full Live Linux CD to load in order to get a freely functional partition manager. Either use BiNG (< 1 MB) or a standalone copy of GParted (~ 50 MB). In addition to its partition managment abilities BiNG can also image and restore and act as a boot manager; it is practically the equivalent of Partition Magic, Boot Magic and Ghost all packaged with a tiny footprint. The ability to image and restore is embellished by having multiple partitions.

[wickedestman]

So here is what i sent to the guy:
100GB XP
100GB Vista
6GB Page file
~270GB extra for docs etc.

i made 6gb for page filing cuz i know vista and xp will both need a page file so ill split it between them. Is that ok?

HAHA is bess Roady budge into my topic :p no probs though. at least i learnt something

Sylvander


I see that makes sense but honestly thats real sorting... i wish i could be as organised as you man! i should have really known about you guys since a WAY! long time! you all really help me out!
I will also use that Ashampoo Magical Defrag. That is pretty cool and it doesnt kill out resources i would assume. and its like magical!

Rick
Thanks man. I will keep that in mind.

So Rick can i use that 270GB to install the test programs? I will keep that one under defragging because its there where i will have d most data flow.

Well its a core 2 quad q6600 so i wanted to know if the 64-bit OS would be better suited. I see Microsoft have patches out for them...

its also going to be the evga 780i motherboard

Paul Komski
Mr. Komski! You know how long we did not chat... thanks for the suggestion... if the guy doesnt pull through what i asked i will be sure to use that program thanks...

[George Hallam]

Wooo so its all sorted :)

when are you going to be ordering? :D

[Roady]

Just going back to the page file theory - Would you or can you see whats going on in the page file if you open the partition in Windows Explorer of where the page file is set?.
I know there is a page file history in tskmgr but can you actually see the raw data going in\out on the actual drive when you make the computer work busy?

If you know what i mean!!!

[Paul Komski]

but can you actually see the raw data going in\out on the actual drive when you make the computer work busyYou should be able to read the data in the pagefile, as with any file, with a hex editor. Mostly what you see will be meaningless hex code just as it is if you read what is in RAM with a similar editor unless you have a way to debug it.

[wickedestman]

@ALL
Hey you guys didnt bother about my question?

So here is what i sent to the guy:
100GB XP
100GB Vista
6GB Page file
~270GB extra for docs etc.

i made 6gb for page filing cuz i know vista and xp will both need a page file so ill split it between them. Is that ok?

And Roady Why dont you start a thread? lol...

@george
man sorry im not keeping you informed via PM, my net time is really limited now.. i jus check here and my email and get off.. my parents are killin me!

I jus have to pay the guy via paypal and it will start to be built.. im hoping that the guy did it last night... he is holding it back a bit... cuz it would have already been shipped if we had sent the money since we finalized the order.

[Roady]

Hi ok yeah I should start a thread, sorry for sort of taking over, but its all linked info to this thread.

[Paul Komski]

wickedestman
i made 6gb for page filing cuz i know vista and xp will both need a page file so ill split it between them. Is that ok?
Well with 4GB RAM its unlikely you will be accessing or need to access the pagefile much with either WinXP or Vista. If you want to be able to debug a full RAMdump then it needs to be significantly larger than your total amount of RAM (so say 4500 MB) but most people never debug such dumps on the occasional times that they occur. It's not a bad idea to keep a minimalist pagefile of say 16 MB rather than specify no pagefile. If you have the same size pagefile.sys setup for both OSes in the same partition then both OSes will share the same area without any problems; a good idea if you decide to go with a large pagefile.

Put simply, the more RAM you have the less you need a pagefile at all for general use but if you want to be able to examine and debug RAMdumps this virtual memory, perhaps ironically, needs to be able to easily accomodate everything in RAM.

Roady
I was wrong about accessing the active pagefile. WinXP wont let you examine it so you would need to examine it from another operating system should the need or interest arise. I have 2gig RAM in my current WinXP system and do actually run with no pagefile so I had to set one up and reboot to test the hypothesis out.

[wickedestman]

@Roady

man no scene... i didnt really mind... once you stuck to the topic... :P sorry if i was being mean... :D You can go ahead and ask question man is no prob!

i learning too!

@Paul Komski
OH! i see.. so 6GB is a lot! i will give them 4GB lol... reduce that space... thanks man!

i see so you cant really access whats in your page file... well at least on the running OS... so there is no program to like "hack" in to the page file?

[Paul Komski]

The fast physical memory (RAM) and the slower virtual memory (pagefile) are really simply a spectrum of memory used by the system. Is there any reason you would want to "hack into" any of such a stack of data?

[Sylvander]

I just used Knoppix run from a "live" CD to copy...

H:\pagefile.sys [normally in use] to F:\pagefile.sys [not normally in use]

Then used hexedit to view the content.
Don't know whether it displayed ALL of the content...
Didn't look like much content to me...
Made no sense to me...
Just said pagefilepagefilepagefie repeating at right for the numbers on left.

Came back into Windows and tried to use Tiny Hexer to view the content, but all I got was Out of memory.
I guess don't have enough RAM/swapfile to hold the content of a 500MB file.

Does this relate to the original topic?
Interesting anyway.

[Paul Komski]

http://i29.tinypic.com/2n1uhjk.jpg

Typical meaningless (to humans) hex output. Without knowing where in RAM it was swapped from, which program (or other resource) was utilizing that memory and whether this is new material or old material from a previous boot-up and not yet overwritten - then, I say again, what's the point? The pagefile, swapfile, swap partition (under Linux) or any virtual memory is merely a temporary "memo pad or scratch pad". There can be text (say from editing a word doc) but in general everything seen from a human eye wont be of value.

[Roady]

mmm oh well at leasst my question was answered about can you view whats going on in there!

I think were running dry on this now!!!!

[Paul Komski]

OH! i see.. so 6GB is a lot! i will give them 4GB lol... reduce that space...
There never seems to be much sense in having a large pagefile when there is a lot of RAM in the system; sort of defeats the object. Time was when RAM was commonly very small in size so that VM was absolutely needed to run all sorts of stuff. If you want to be logical about this whole area then you need to know just how much your pagefile is actually accessed by monitoring its usage (http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-6346_11-5073570.html). Once you know how much is really required you can set an amount to cover this and no more. As stated, the only reason for a pagefile larger than RAM nowadays (say when one may be talking about 8GB or RAM compared to 8MB or less a decade or so ago) is to accommodate a RAMdump - and, apart from developers, these are hardly ever utilised.