[Tommi]

Hi guys,

I will be reinstalling an audio computer's Windows XP OS soon. This gives me
a great excuse to rethink about that computer's hard disk drive partitions.
^^ So, I have three physical hard disks at my disposal. How would you guys
recommend I set them up?

Currently I'm thinking:

-Disk number 1, I'll make two partitions; one partition for OS, one for
audio programs + other applications. You think this would be wise?

-Disk number 2, also two partitions; one for audio to be recorded, one for
video (some video-related work will be done).

-Disk 3; no partitions, just a big audio sample library.

OTOH, maybe it'd be wiser to give a full drive for both the video files and
the audio files respectively. This way all the samples and recorded audio
would be on the same drive. Any thoughts?

[jakdedert]

Tommi wrote:
Hi guys,

I will be reinstalling an audio computer's Windows XP OS soon. This gives me
a great excuse to rethink about that computer's hard disk drive partitions.
^^ So, I have three physical hard disks at my disposal. How would you guys
recommend I set them up?

Currently I'm thinking:

-Disk number 1, I'll make two partitions; one partition for OS, one for
audio programs + other applications. You think this would be wise?

-Disk number 2, also two partitions; one for audio to be recorded, one for
video (some video-related work will be done).

-Disk 3; no partitions, just a big audio sample library.

OTOH, maybe it'd be wiser to give a full drive for both the video files and
the audio files respectively. This way all the samples and recorded audio
would be on the same drive. Any thoughts?


My opinion, on computers in general: don't partition anything, unless
you're dual-booting. I followed the 'conventional wisdom' some years
ago and created separate 'system' and 'data' partitions. I ended up
with lot of duplicate folders on both virtual drives. I had two
'program' files, because some apps won't install on anything but the C
drive (without manipulation). Even things that will install on D, still
leave other garbage on the OS drive. It's just not worth the trouble, IMO.

If the point is to have separate places for different things, you have
that with separate physical drives. I'd look into plug in drive frames
for saving projects.

On a related subject, I see where MWave has some large solid-state
laptop drives available at reasonable cost...from 32gigs for around $139
($79 after rebate) to 120gigs for less than $500.
http://www.mwave.com/mwave/Skusearch_v2.asp?scriteria=BA25345 Has
anybody opinions on how those might work for multimedia?

jak

[Julien BH]

On Sep 17, 11:24*pm, jakdedert wrote:
Tommi wrote:
Hi guys,

I will be reinstalling an audio computer's Windows XP OS soon. This gives me
a great excuse to rethink about that computer's hard disk drive partitions.
^^ So, I have three physical hard disks at my disposal. How would you guys
recommend I set them up?

Currently I'm thinking:

-Disk number 1, I'll make two partitions; one partition for OS, one for
audio programs + other applications. You think this would be wise?

-Disk number 2, also two partitions; one for audio to be recorded, one for
video (some video-related work will be done).

-Disk 3; no partitions, just a big audio sample library.

OTOH, maybe it'd be wiser to give a full drive for both the video files and
the audio files respectively. This way all the samples and recorded audio
would be on the same drive. Any thoughts?

My opinion, on computers in general: don't partition anything, unless
you're dual-booting. *I followed the 'conventional wisdom' some years
ago and created separate 'system' and 'data' partitions. *I ended up
with lot of duplicate folders on both virtual drives. *I had two
'program' files, because some apps won't install on anything but the C
drive (without manipulation). *Even things that will install on D, still
leave other garbage on the OS drive. *It's just not worth the trouble, IMO.

If the point is to have separate places for different things, you have
that with separate physical drives. *I'd look into plug in drive frames
for saving projects.

On a related subject, I see where MWave has some large solid-state
laptop drives available at reasonable cost...from 32gigs for around $139
($79 after rebate) to 120gigs for less than $500.
http://www.mwave.com/mwave/Skusearch_v2.asp?scriteria=BA25345 Has
anybody opinions on how those might work for multimedia?

jak

Ultimately, with an SSD in your notebook, you'll see somewhat better
system responsiveness and a positive change in the way the system
handles drive-intensive tasks such as reading data from and writing
data to the drive, coming out of standby mode and booting up from
scratch. If you're a mobile worker who tends to bump your laptop
around a little and who would benefit from performance boosts in those
areas, the extra cost of having "SSD inside" might just be worth it.

[Geoff]

Tommi wrote:
Hi guys,

I will be reinstalling an audio computer's Windows XP OS soon. This
gives me a great excuse to rethink about that computer's hard disk
drive partitions. ^^ So, I have three physical hard disks at my
disposal. How would you guys recommend I set them up?

Currently I'm thinking:

-Disk number 1, I'll make two partitions; one partition for OS, one
for audio programs + other applications. You think this would be wise?

A bit pointless really. Whatever...


-Disk number 2, also two partitions; one for audio to be recorded,
one for video (some video-related work will be done).

Again, pointless.


-Disk 3; no partitions, just a big audio sample library.

That's more like it. Just do the same witht he other 2 disks.

geoff

[Geoff]

Julien BH wrote:

Ultimately, with an SSD in your notebook, you'll see somewhat better
system responsiveness and a positive change in the way the system

What worries me about SSDs is the "50,000 writes before it dies" kind of
spec. They will improve, of course...


geoff

[jwvm]

On Sep 17, 11:50*pm, "geoff" wrote:
Tommi wrote:
Hi guys,

I will be reinstalling an audio computer's Windows XP OS soon. This
gives me a great excuse to rethink about that computer's hard disk
drive partitions. ^^ So, I have three physical hard disks at my
disposal. How would you guys recommend I set them up?

Currently I'm thinking:

-Disk number 1, I'll make two partitions; one partition for OS, one
for audio programs + other applications. You think this would be wise?

A bit pointless really. Whatever...



-Disk number 2, also two partitions; one for audio to be recorded,
one for video (some video-related work will be done).

Again, pointless.



-Disk 3; no partitions, just a big audio sample library.

That's more like it. *Just do the same witht he other 2 disks.

geoff

Excellent advice!

[Richard Crowley]

"Tommi" wrote...
I will be reinstalling an audio computer's Windows XP OS soon. This gives
me a great excuse to rethink about that computer's hard disk drive
partitions. ^^ So, I have three physical hard disks at my disposal. How
would you guys recommend I set them up?

Currently I'm thinking:

-Disk number 1, I'll make two partitions; one partition for OS, one for
audio programs + other applications. You think this would be wise?

Why? Just because partitioning sounds "cool"?
Unless you have some good reason to partition
ANY drive, it is more trouble than it's worth.

[jdd]

Tommi a écrit :

Currently I'm thinking:

partitionning mean that you can recover this only partition in case of
failure and the disk space is limited for this use. but you don't say
what is the hard drive size, which is essential.


-Disk number 1, I'll make two partitions; one partition for OS, one for
audio programs + other applications. You think this would be wise?

so it's good to have the system on a different disk/partition. for XP,
10 Go is large 20 wont be filled, so you can use 20 Gb *for the
system*. Notice that even if you install XP on, say, the E: drive,
part of the system is always on C: (boot files).

It's also wise to have *a second XP install*, fresh (no drivers), only
for fast data recovery in case XP crashes hard (happen for me once on
a while), so an nother 20Gb, not necessarily installed now.


-Disk number 2, also two partitions; one for audio to be recorded, one for
video (some video-related work will be done).

the only real use is to prevent on type of files to block the running
of the other. for example, if you DL DV files (12Gb for one hour), you
can fill a drive and make the other app unable to run.

you can devote one drive to such thing (knowing youll have to remove
some files if full).

you can also have problems if you want to edit large mp3 files.

I recently took a shot for a friend, mp3 254b:s, pretty good quality
for personal use, but 4 hours, 350Mb mp3

when opening it in audacity I blocked my home partition. Audacity
wanted to work with wav format and keep two copies (original and
backup)- more than 8Gb, too much


-Disk 3; no partitions, just a big audio sample library.

OTOH, maybe it'd be wiser to give a full drive for both the video files and
the audio files respectively. This way all the samples and recorded audio
would be on the same drive. Any thoughts?


dont forget to have an USB backup drive (*not* in the same box, external)

jdd

--
http://www.dodin.net
http://valerie.dodin.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-eic8MSSfM

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

Currently I'm thinking:

-Disk number 1, I'll make two partitions; one partition for OS, one for
audio programs + other applications. You think this would be wise?

All but the simplest Windows applications don't just install into the
Program Files folder. They integrate with the os - there's no point
in separating them from it.

-Disk number 2, also two partitions; one for audio to be recorded, one for
video (some video-related work will be done).

If you want. But folders would do just as well as partitions.


-Disk 3; no partitions, just a big audio sample library.

OTOH, maybe it'd be wiser to give a full drive for both the video files and
the audio files respectively. This way all the samples and recorded audio
would be on the same drive. Any thoughts?

No, don't do this. Your other suggestions were pointless. But there
could be some advantage in having audio tracks streaming from one
physical drive, samples from another. Not as much advantage as
installing as much RAM as possible though.

That's assuming you use samples as instruments, alongside your own
recorded audio tracks. If you're one of those people who constructs
music by cut 'n paste of prerecorded samples and loops, don't bother.

[Mike Rivers]

Tommi wrote:

^^ So, I have three physical hard disks at my disposal. How would you guys
recommend I set them up?

-Disk number 1, I'll make two partitions; one partition for OS, one for
audio programs + other applications. You think this would be wise?

This was a popular scheme ten years ago, but old ideas die hard on the
net. The most significant feature of an installation like this is that
you can reformat the OS partition and do a "clean install" without
having to re-install all of your applications. That was valid under
Windows up through 3.1 where Windows was a shell running on top of DOS,
and you have a reasonable amount of control over where programs put
things when they were installed (most were just copied to a directory
and there was no registry). But the way people are writing for Windows
today, there are certain places where pieces of programs are expected to
go and they get unhappy if you try to put them elsewhere. For example, a
program may install special DLL files in the Windows\System32 directory.
If you reformat the Windows partition, you'll wipe out those files and
eventually you'll use the program that requires them and it won't work.

-Disk number 2, also two partitions; one for audio to be recorded, one for
video (some video-related work will be done).

This may help you with organization and backup, but it won't improve
performance.

-Disk 3; no partitions, just a big audio sample library.

Same as above.

There was some justification for putting programs and data on separate
drives when there wasn't enough memory in the computer for the program
to load, and it needed to swap portions out on disk, which took time
away from the constant streaming disk access that audio and video
requires. Today this is less of a problem, and disks are faster, too.

Today I think that it's best to stick with a single drive, or use a
second drive just for data. Use your third drive for backup, and use it
regularly.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[William Sommerwerck]

My opinion, on computers in general: don't partition anything, unless
you're dual-booting. I followed the 'conventional wisdom' some years
ago and created separate 'system' and 'data' partitions. I ended up
with lot of duplicate folders on both virtual drives. I had two
'program' files, because some apps won't install on anything but the
C drive (without manipulation). Even things that will install on D, still
leave other garbage on the OS drive. It's just not worth the trouble, IMO.

What you say is true (it really torques me off when an application insists
on installing itself on C, but there's the fact that with separate boot,
software, and user files petitions, it's much easier to find stuff. And
there's less confusion about what to back up, and where to find it.

I have two drives, but the second is used to periodically create a bootable
copy of the main drive. This is the best backup protection * you can have --
if the main drive fails, you're up and running again in a few minutes.

I don't know why you call partitions "virtual" drives. They're not virtual.
A more-correct term would be "logical".

* I do copy critical files -- such as the latest edit of my unpublished
novel -- to a Zip disk occasionally. And I have a third drive in a USB case
where I keep copies of my digital photographs. Drives have gotten so cheap
there's no excuse for not having "mass quantities" to keep multiple copies
of the stuff you can't afford to lose.

[William Sommerwerck]

What worries me about SSDs is the "50,000 writes before it dies"
kind of spec. They will improve, of course...

Why not a hybrid system with an SSD for the operating system (and perhaps
applications), and a hard drive for everything else?

[Arny Krueger]

"Tommi" wrote in message
.fi
Hi guys,

I will be reinstalling an audio computer's Windows XP OS
soon. This gives me a great excuse to rethink about that
computer's hard disk drive partitions.

No, it is a good time to forget about partitions, all together.

[Arny Krueger]

"geoff" wrote in message

Julien BH wrote:

Ultimately, with an SSD in your notebook, you'll see
somewhat better system responsiveness and a positive
change in the way the system

What worries me about SSDs is the "50,000 writes before
it dies" kind of spec. They will improve, of course...

They are really talking about changing the same spot 50,000 times, not
changing any part of the drive 50,000 times.

[William Sommerwerck]

Why? Just because partitioning sounds "cool"?
Unless you have some good reason to partition
ANY drive, it is more trouble than it's worth.

First of all, partitioning is trivial to do. No big deal.

One of the minor advantanges of partitioning is that the clusters are
smaller. If you have lots of "small" files, this gives slightly greater
storage.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"geoff" wrote in message

Julien BH wrote:

Ultimately, with an SSD in your notebook, you'll see
somewhat better system responsiveness and a positive
change in the way the system

What worries me about SSDs is the "50,000 writes before
it dies" kind of spec. They will improve, of course...

They are really talking about changing the same spot 50,000
times, not changing any part of the drive 50,000 times.

Correct. But there might be spots that get hit many times. I press CTRL+S
every few minutes when I'm working on anything. (I learned my lesson almost
30 years ago, when I lost an hour's worth of unsaved work _twice_ in one
day, but that's another story.)

With my camera cards, I wait until the card is filled, and only then delete
the pictures I don't need or want to keep. This keeps card usage more even.

[William Sommerwerck]

I will be reinstalling an audio computer's Windows XP OS
soon. This gives me a great excuse to rethink about that
computer's hard disk drive partitions.

No, it is a good time to forget about partitions, all together.

The anti-partition people must be folks who have essentially "nothing" on
their computers. I like being able to find things without having to root
through one huge drive.

[Steve L.[_3_]]

"William Sommerwerck" so you
om:

One of the minor advantanges of partitioning is that the clusters are
smaller. If you have lots of "small" files, this gives slightly greater
storage.


I believee you can define the cluster size when formatting .. so you're
not at the mercy of how many partitions are on the hard drive.
Anyway .. if the drive is used for large contiguous files (audio/video)
the benefit of extra space diminishes and it's not that great to start
with.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message

What you say is true (it really torques me off when an
application insists on installing itself on C, but
there's the fact that with separate boot, software, and
user files petitions, it's much easier to find stuff.

Frankly, in this day and age, you're not supposed to have to worry about
where most stuff is.

And there's less confusion about what to back up, and where
to find it.

Not necessarily.

I have two drives, but the second is used to periodically
create a bootable copy of the main drive.

Good move.

This is the
best backup protection * you can have -- if the main
drive fails, you're up and running again in a few
minutes.

The only thing that is better in a practical sense, is a RAID array. A drive
fails, and you can keep running, admittedly without backup. You have a hot
backup drive that is a 100%, up-to-the millisecond backup as long as the
array is complete.

I don't know why you call partitions "virtual" drives.
They're not virtual. A more-correct term would be
"logical".

Agreed.

* I do copy critical files -- such as the latest edit of
my unpublished novel -- to a Zip disk occasionally. And I
have a third drive in a USB case where I keep copies of
my digital photographs. Drives have gotten so cheap
there's no excuse for not having "mass quantities" to
keep multiple copies of the stuff you can't afford to
lose.

I advise my business customers to keep their files on a PC with a RAID array
(mirrored or equivalent, not striped), and backup their important files
daily to CD, DVD, flash drive, or USB hard drive. Flash drive space/price
is coming down to the point where people who aren't into imaging or audio or
the like, can keep several generations of their whole worlds on one.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message
Why? Just because partitioning sounds "cool"?
Unless you have some good reason to partition
ANY drive, it is more trouble than it's worth.

First of all, partitioning is trivial to do. No big deal.

One of the minor advantanges of partitioning is that the
clusters are smaller. If you have lots of "small" files,
this gives slightly greater storage.

Efficient space utilization just isn't an issue for just about everybody,
any more. Not with hard drives at under $200 per terabyte.

[John Bruce]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
I will be reinstalling an audio computer's Windows XP OS
soon. This gives me a great excuse to rethink about that
computer's hard disk drive partitions.

No, it is a good time to forget about partitions, all together.

The anti-partition people must be folks who have essentially "nothing" on
their computers. I like being able to find things without having to root
through one huge drive.


Amen to that!

There's also the frag/defrag equation to consider, how long exactly does
it take to defrag one of these new-fangle 1TB drives once it has an
appreciable number of files on it?

All other partition condsiderations aside, there is a measurable
advantage to having the Windows swap-file on a physically separate drive
to the system. Having a dedicated 'Swap' partition keeps paging
operations from fragmenting other files.

Lastly, if any of the software you use needs 'Scratch' workspace,
assigning that to a separate drive, or better still a drive on a
separate 'bus', will also improve performance.

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
I will be reinstalling an audio computer's Windows XP OS
soon. This gives me a great excuse to rethink about that
computer's hard disk drive partitions.

No, it is a good time to forget about partitions, all together.

The anti-partition people must be folks who have essentially "nothing" on
their computers. I like being able to find things without having to root
through one huge drive.



There's no difference in rooting through a drive or another folder. If
there is, it's all in your head :-)

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message
I will be reinstalling an audio computer's Windows XP OS
soon. This gives me a great excuse to rethink about that
computer's hard disk drive partitions.

No, it is a good time to forget about partitions, all
together.

The anti-partition people must be folks who have
essentially "nothing" on their computers.

That can't be me. I think I'm still under 3 terabytes of online storage at
home. But over 2.

I like being
able to find things without having to root through one
huge drive.

I have one machine with 4 huge drives, and another with 2. Only a
systematic approach can save me!

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 04:46:25 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

No, it is a good time to forget about partitions, all together.

The anti-partition people must be folks who have essentially "nothing" on
their computers. I like being able to find things without having to root
through one huge drive.

Make two icons on your desktop pointing to two partitions. Make two
more leading to two folders on the same partition. How is the user
experience different?

[Richard Crowley]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote ...
Why? Just because partitioning sounds "cool"?
Unless you have some good reason to partition
ANY drive, it is more trouble than it's worth.

First of all, partitioning is trivial to do. No big deal.

One of the minor advantanges of partitioning is that the clusters are
smaller. If you have lots of "small" files, this gives slightly greater
storage.

So set the cluster size as you wish when you format the drive.

Partitioning was popular back when disk space cost 100x
what it does today. Technology moves on. Go with it.

[Richard Crowley]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote ...
I will be reinstalling an audio computer's Windows XP OS
soon. This gives me a great excuse to rethink about that
computer's hard disk drive partitions.

No, it is a good time to forget about partitions, all together.

The anti-partition people must be folks who have essentially "nothing" on
their computers. I like being able to find things without having to root
through one huge drive.

Ha! I'd bet good money that I have several x more data online
than you do. Directories ("folders") work just fine for organizing
your data. A partition is just a logical division of the hard drive
volume like a folder/directory is.

The downside of partitions is that it causes the drive head
to thrash back and forth between logical "drives" if you do
anything that references both of them concurrently (which
is rather common, IME). Hard drive space is so cheap
these days that there is no reason to do that unless you
have some very small form-factor that supports only one
hard drive, etc.

[Meindert Sprang]

"John Bruce" wrote in message
...
There's also the frag/defrag equation to consider, how long exactly does
it take to defrag one of these new-fangle 1TB drives once it has an
appreciable number of files on it?

Not really an issue with non-FAT filesystems.

All other partition condsiderations aside, there is a measurable
advantage to having the Windows swap-file on a physically separate drive
to the system. Having a dedicated 'Swap' partition keeps paging
operations from fragmenting other files.

If you assign a fixed size swap file, windows will keep this file on one
place, unfragmented.

Meindert

[Rob Aries]

Interesting that there seems to be strong feelings against partitioning.
I've been doing it for years (on a Mac). I have no reasons to doubt
what anyone is saying here, but there are two characteristics of
partitioning that I always thought made it advantageous. Please tell me
if I've been mistaken all these years! :-)

1. All drives have a partition map, no? If a software glitch hits that
area of the drive, on a single-partition drive everything is gone
(until/unless you recover it of course), On a drive with multiple
partitions there's a good chance you'll only lose that one partition.
(This happened to me a few years ago).

2. A drive's access time varies depending where the r/w head is. The
outside of a platter has a faster rotational speed so access times are
quicker, surely an advantage with multi-track DAWs. If you take a large
drive and create a small (2-10GB) partition as the first (outside)
partition, you benefit two ways: the access times I mentioned, PLUS the
fact that the r/w head does not have to move around much to stay inside
the smaller area of the platter that the small partition uses.

Per #2, I use a small "recording" partition for my current project, then
move it to another partition or drive when I'm done recording. Of
course I'm not a big studio so I usually work on one song at a time.

Unless I missed it, the consensus is that partitioning as a way of
organizing files is no different from separate folders on a single
drive. That's not the same as saying that partitioning actually affects
the computer or OS in a negative way. Based on what I thought (which I
suspect is going to be shot down g), partitioning may have an
advantage for DAW work.

[Nick Brown]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 04:44:58 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
They are really talking about changing the same spot 50,000
times, not changing any part of the drive 50,000 times.

Correct. But there might be spots that get hit many times. I press CTRL+S
every few minutes when I'm working on anything. (I learned my lesson almost
30 years ago, when I lost an hour's worth of unsaved work _twice_ in one
day, but that's another story.)


Don't know about *all* flash memory, but certainly the SSDs being
targetted at computer use include wear-leveling algorithms, such that
a particular block which is written to repeatedly by the OS (per your
example) will actually be stored in numerous different physical
locations within the flash media.

This ought to allow SSD manufacturers to make more practical
estimations of drive life, but many seemingly don't, perhaps on the
basis that the usable life of the product is beyond what the average
consumer needs to worry about. While I'd like to consider myself an
average consumer in that regard, I wouldn't mind a little reassurance
from them. ;-)

This is an interesting read on the subject, in particular the section
"How long have you got before the disk is trashed?", about half way
down the page.

http://www.storagesearch.com/ssdmyths-endurance.html

-Nick

[Tommi]

"Meindert Sprang" wrote in message
...
"John Bruce" wrote in message
...
There's also the frag/defrag equation to consider, how long exactly does
it take to defrag one of these new-fangle 1TB drives once it has an
appreciable number of files on it?

Not really an issue with non-FAT filesystems.

All other partition condsiderations aside, there is a measurable
advantage to having the Windows swap-file on a physically separate drive
to the system. Having a dedicated 'Swap' partition keeps paging
operations from fragmenting other files.

If you assign a fixed size swap file, windows will keep this file on one
place, unfragmented.

First of all, thanks for all the replies.

I am assuming that swap file means the same as page file. This conversation
brings another question to mind; should there be only one page file on a
given system, or should there be a page file on many different hard drives?

I guess if the page file should only be on one drive, then it would be wise
to assign a fixed page file size to that, and keep it on a drive which will
be altered the least often.

[jakdedert]

Soundhaspriority wrote:
"Tommi" wrote in message
.fi...
Hi guys,

I will be reinstalling an audio computer's Windows XP OS soon. This gives
me a great excuse to rethink about that computer's hard disk drive
partitions. ^^ So, I have three physical hard disks at my disposal. How
would you guys recommend I set them up?

Currently I'm thinking:

-Disk number 1, I'll make two partitions; one partition for OS, one for
audio programs + other applications. You think this would be wise?

-Disk number 2, also two partitions; one for audio to be recorded, one for
video (some video-related work will be done).

-Disk 3; no partitions, just a big audio sample library.

OTOH, maybe it'd be wiser to give a full drive for both the video files
and the audio files respectively. This way all the samples and recorded
audio would be on the same drive. Any thoughts?
Tommi,
Put the OS and all the programs on one partition. Put everything else
on another partition.

There is no performance advantage in having separate partitions. However, if
you put the OS and the programs in one partition that's just large enough
(with a little to spare), you can use an image backup program like Acronis
to make a bootable backup. If the hard disk crashes, you can use Acronis, or
another such program, to restore the boot partition instead of doing a
complete reinstall. This can make swapping out a bad system disk a one hour
procedure, instead of an all-day procedure.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511


This approach is only valid if you intend to have a computer dedicated
to a single use. If you 'put the OS and the programs in one partition
that's just large enough (with a little to spare)'; over time, that
partition will run out of space if you install even just one more app.
Then you'll have to use a partitioning to readjust the partitions and
free up more drive real estate.

jak

[Nick Brown]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:21:52 -0400, Rob Aries
wrote:

Interesting that there seems to be strong feelings against partitioning.
I've been doing it for years (on a Mac). I have no reasons to doubt
what anyone is saying here, but there are two characteristics of
partitioning that I always thought made it advantageous. Please tell me
if I've been mistaken all these years! :-)

1. All drives have a partition map, no? If a software glitch hits that
area of the drive, on a single-partition drive everything is gone
(until/unless you recover it of course), On a drive with multiple
partitions there's a good chance you'll only lose that one partition.
(This happened to me a few years ago).

The amount of disk space required to store the partition table is
tiny. If it gets trashed, it'll probably lose the records of all
partitions, not just one. OTOH, a serious error within a particular
partition will of course only damage the files therein, which is
better, but only in the sense that losing one leg is better than
losing two.

2. A drive's access time varies depending where the r/w head is. The
outside of a platter has a faster rotational speed so access times are
quicker, surely an advantage with multi-track DAWs. If you take a large
drive and create a small (2-10GB) partition as the first (outside)
partition, you benefit two ways: the access times I mentioned, PLUS the
fact that the r/w head does not have to move around much to stay inside
the smaller area of the platter that the small partition uses.

Per #2, I use a small "recording" partition for my current project, then
move it to another partition or drive when I'm done recording. Of
course I'm not a big studio so I usually work on one song at a time.

OSs don't tend to put files near the inside of the drive unless it's
absolutely necessary. There's a trade-off in that any time your
computer has to access files on both partitions at once, performance
will likely be worse than if you'd kept everything on the same
partition (though I realize that's probably not what you're doing).

Unless I missed it, the consensus is that partitioning as a way of
organizing files is no different from separate folders on a single
drive. That's not the same as saying that partitioning actually affects
the computer or OS in a negative way. Based on what I thought (which I
suspect is going to be shot down g), partitioning may have an
advantage for DAW work.

It might be worth thinking about how close to the limits of disk
performance you are. I can barely remember that last time I worried
about disk performance for audio work, though I don't tend to run many
tracks at once.

I don't dispute that the advantages you talk about are there, but I
think for many people, much of the time, it's pretty small potatoes
these days.

OTOH, if your partition scheme suits your way of working, then who's
to tell you not to keep doing it?

-Nick

[Nick Brown]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:52:02 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

This approach is only valid if you intend to have a computer dedicated
to a single use. If you 'put the OS and the programs in one partition
that's just large enough (with a little to spare)'; over time, that
partition will run out of space if you install even just one more app.
Then you'll have to use a partitioning to readjust the partitions and
free up more drive real estate.

jak

What's todays definition of 'a little to spare'? For a system
partition, my definition is probably about 20GB (that is, *over* what
I think I'll need), so I don't worry too much about running out of
space. And if it really comes to it, adjusting the partitions is a
chore, but not the end of the world.

Come to think of it, even 50GB spare doesn't seem like it would be
outlandish, these days. (I briefly felt all space-age and futuristic
when I fitted my first terabyte drive... and then I started to really
wish I'd chosen "quick format" ;-)

-Nick

[jakdedert]

Nick Brown wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:52:02 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

This approach is only valid if you intend to have a computer dedicated
to a single use. If you 'put the OS and the programs in one partition
that's just large enough (with a little to spare)'; over time, that
partition will run out of space if you install even just one more app.
Then you'll have to use a partitioning to readjust the partitions and
free up more drive real estate.

jak

What's todays definition of 'a little to spare'? For a system
partition, my definition is probably about 20GB (that is, *over* what
I think I'll need), so I don't worry too much about running out of
space. And if it really comes to it, adjusting the partitions is a
chore, but not the end of the world.

The problem is that 'todays' definition might not fit tomorrows
computer. That's the problem I find myself in. This machine has grown
up from a box that originally had 98SE on it. I 'should' just wipe and
reinstall XP, but there are bits and pieces everywhere that I'd like to
keep. I've long outgrown the original partitions, and need to use
commercial partitioning software (that I don't have) in order to adjust
the size...probably onto new disks.

It would have been much easier had I not partitioned the disk
originally. My problem is maybe a bit unusual; but not unheard of.

Come to think of it, even 50GB spare doesn't seem like it would be
outlandish, these days. (I briefly felt all space-age and futuristic
when I fitted my first terabyte drive... and then I started to really
wish I'd chosen "quick format" ;-)

Yeah, well 50 gigs is actually larger than the entire drive to which I'm
referrring.....

jak
-Nick

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:21:52 -0400, Rob Aries
wrote:

1. All drives have a partition map, no? If a software glitch hits that
area of the drive, on a single-partition drive everything is gone
(until/unless you recover it of course), On a drive with multiple
partitions there's a good chance you'll only lose that one partition.
(This happened to me a few years ago).

If anything, that sounds like a reason to only have a very simple
single-partition map that can be easily reconstructed.

[John Williamson]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:21:52 -0400, Rob Aries
wrote:

1. All drives have a partition map, no? If a software glitch hits that
area of the drive, on a single-partition drive everything is gone
(until/unless you recover it of course), On a drive with multiple
partitions there's a good chance you'll only lose that one partition.
(This happened to me a few years ago).

If anything, that sounds like a reason to only have a very simple
single-partition map that can be easily reconstructed.

I've been following this thread & I've found that most computer failures
I've suffered over the last couple of decades have been the OS falling
over or the HD dying completely.

*If* a machine is marginal on performance, you might squeeze an extra
track or two by using one data drive on one IDE controller channel to
hold your data & another on a different controller channel to hold
sample data, but you'd probably be better off spending money on more
RAM. I'd also be tempted in your case to split the audio (Recorded &
samples) & video files on to different drives on different controllers,
as video needs more bandwidth than audio.

If I've got 2 or 3 HDs in the machine, I keep all the data off the
system drive, & if I'm using PATA (IDE) connections, put one data drive
on each controller channel, & split the other (Boot) drive into 2 parts.
A boot partition, big enough for the OS, applications & a decent size
swapfile & temporary files, then a partition which has all the stuff I
need to re-install an operating system & the applications I use. Add a
floppy or a bootable CD drive & I can recover from just about all
crashes without data loss or needing to search out all those install CDs
which I'm *sure* I put somewhere safe. :-/

To cover hardware faults, just back up to another machine or an external
drive. I've not lost any data by accident in all the time I've been
using PCs, not counting the time someone stole a laptop, but even then I
only lost a day's worth of stuff.

On a single HD machine, I split the HD with a boot partition big enough
to hold OS, applications, temp files & the swapfile, & store the
recovery stuff in with the data. Boot from a floppy or CD & 99% of the
time, the data partition is OK, even if the OS partition is toast.

Just a couple of cent's worth.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Geoff]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message

Julien BH wrote:

Ultimately, with an SSD in your notebook, you'll see
somewhat better system responsiveness and a positive
change in the way the system

What worries me about SSDs is the "50,000 writes before
it dies" kind of spec. They will improve, of course...

They are really talking about changing the same spot 50,000 times, not
changing any part of the drive 50,000 times.

Yep. You don't find that a worry ?

geoff

[Geoff]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Why? Just because partitioning sounds "cool"?
Unless you have some good reason to partition
ANY drive, it is more trouble than it's worth.

First of all, partitioning is trivial to do. No big deal.

One of the minor advantanges of partitioning is that the clusters are
smaller. If you have lots of "small" files, this gives slightly
greater storage.

If you are accessing video and audio from differnt partitions of one dirve,
that makes for a very busy read-head transport.

geoff

[Geoff]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
I will be reinstalling an audio computer's Windows XP OS
soon. This gives me a great excuse to rethink about that
computer's hard disk drive partitions.

No, it is a good time to forget about partitions, all together.

The anti-partition people must be folks who have essentially
"nothing" on their computers. I like being able to find things
without having to root through one huge drive.

Rooting through several is somehow easier ?

geof

[William Sommerwerck]

I have two drives, but the second is used to periodically
create a bootable copy of the main drive.

Good move.

This is the best backup protection * you can have -- if the
main drive fails, you're up and running again in a few minutes.

The only thing that is better in a practical sense, is a RAID array. A
drive
fails, and you can keep running, admittedly without backup. You have a hot
backup drive that is a 100%, up-to-the millisecond backup as long as the
array is complete.

Unfortunately, the BIOS doesn't support RAID, and I'm not ready to buy a new
computer.