Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Partition Strategy

Options
  • 13-04-2011 12:49am
    #1
    Stainless_Steel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭


    Hi everyone,

    Will be doing my new build over the coming days and am looking for opinions regarding HD partitioning.

    Rather than restricting your thinking to what physical disks I have, I'd like opinions for an 'ideal' partition strategy....in saying that a 500GB SSD won't be considered! ;)

    My current thinking is:

    Physical Disk 0 - 60GB SSD
    - 20GB Partition - Windows 7 OS
    - 40GB Partition - Applications

    Physical Disk 1 - 1TB HDD
    - 1TB Partition - Games

    Physical Disk 2 - 1 or 2TB HDD
    - 1/2TB Partition - Personal data and Media

    I am aware some practicalities haven't been fully thought through with the above strategy!

    For example - how easy is it to keep Applications/Games installed on separate partitions/drives? If one was to re-install the OS, would one be able to migrate registry settings easily???

    I know it all may seem like overkill....but sure what else would we be doing if we weren't doing stuff like this ;)

    Thanks!


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Moon54
    Registered Users Posts: 1,242 ✭✭✭Moon54


    I don't think it is a good idea to partition the SSD. My windows folder alone is 18GB :eek:

    IMO, the best way is to use the SSD for what it's good for, fast OS & fast running applications.
    I'd recommend keeping a single partition with OS and apps as normal.
    This will make your c: drive 50%-75% full, which is perfectly fine.

    I found the best, easiest way to stop the c: drive filling up, is to the
    LOCATION feature on each of your Libraries folder options, to move things
    like my docs,my pics, my music etc to the other hard drive. That keeps the
    c: drive space under control nicely.

    As regards games, I have my large Steam folder of games on a seperate
    drive and it works great, no worries there :)


  • Options
    #3
    Monotype
    Registered Users Posts: 6,710 ✭✭✭Monotype


    The best reason to partition on a HDD is to keep the OS and regularly accessed files at the beginning of the drive, which is the fastest area. This is not relevant to SSDs since they do not have variable speeds across the drive.

    You'll probably run into trouble with only 20GB for the OS when drivers and various programs demand C-drive installation. You would also have to wait for files moving between the two partitions.

    Leave the SSD as one partition.


  • Options
    #4
    Stainless_Steel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭Stainless_Steel


    Thanks! Sounds good to leave the SSD as one partition.

    So regarding games on a separate disk - do you have to re-install all games if you re-install your OS? Do you install steam itself on the separate disk?


  • Options
    #5
    PogMoThoin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,874 ✭✭✭✭PogMoThoin


    Doubt You really need 1TB for games


  • Options
    #6
    Stainless_Steel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭Stainless_Steel


    PogMoThoin wrote: »
    Doubt You really need 1TB for games

    Probably not....but have a few 1TB F3 drives to use so may as well.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    PogMoThoin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,874 ✭✭✭✭PogMoThoin


    Stainless_Steel wrote: »
    Probably not....but have a few 1TB F3 drives to use so may as well.

    Make a 200GB partition and use the rest for data, its easier keep defragged this way.


  • Options
    #8
    Monotype
    Registered Users Posts: 6,710 ✭✭✭Monotype


    Some games are above the 20GB mark now. I think a heavy gamer would need more than 200GB. 1TB is a bit overboard for most people though.
    Stainless_Steel wrote: »
    So regarding games on a separate disk - do you have to re-install all games if you re-install your OS? Do you install steam itself on the separate disk?

    You'll have to install a lot of them since all the registry entries will be gone. There's a pretty good chance that you won't have to redownload the steam games as it'll just check the files and update them (depending on what mood steam is in).

    You can put steam wherever you like but you will need to set up links if you want them on different drives.
    http://www.traynier.com/software/steammover

    IMO - put steam with all your games on a HDD. Most of the load time is more dependent on your internet connection than drive speed for logging onto steam.
    Any games which are played very regularly should be moved to the SSD and linked.


  • Options
    #9
    PogMoThoin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,874 ✭✭✭✭PogMoThoin


    Monotype wrote: »
    You'll have to install a lot of them since all the registry entries will be gone. There's a pretty good chance that you won't have to redownload the steam games as it'll just check the files and update them (depending on what mood steam is in).

    Very few games write to the registry, I've reinstalled Windows lots of times and kept game installs as they're on a seperate partition. You just need to create a new shortcut on the desktop. You don't get the start menu entry, but does that matter. With Steam all you got to do is reinstall it from the location its in, the Steam installer is in the folder, just double click the Steam application .exe and it will install, games won't need to be downloaded again.


  • Options
    #10
    Stainless_Steel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭Stainless_Steel


    OK guys thanks for the input.

    Taking your comments on board, my strategy has changed to this now:

    Physical Disk 0 - 60GB SSD
    - 60GB Partition - Windows 7 OS & Apps

    Physical Disk 1 - 1TB HDD
    - 500GB Partition - Games
    - 500GB Partition - Data (I think this should be enough for me now)

    Physical Disk 2 - 1TB HDD
    - X Partitions - playing with Linux etc.

    Any more refinements you could suggest?


  • Options
    #11
    Unregistered.
    Registered Users Posts: 3,532 ✭✭✭Unregistered.


    Stainless_Steel wrote: »
    Any more refinements you could suggest?
    Yes. Get a bigger SSD.

    Based on what I have in place now, come summer time (when i pick up a shiny new SSD) I shall be utilising my drives as follows:

    120GB SSD:
    75GB - 80GB: Windows Partition.
    30-40GB: Linux Partion.
    4GB: Swap.
    1-5GB+: Shared Profiles and settings - Firefox, Email, etc. Any files used by programs both on Linux and Windows.

    HDD:
    Everything else.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Stainless_Steel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭Stainless_Steel


    Unregistered. wrote: »
    Yes. Get a bigger SSD.

    Based on what I have in place now, come summer time (when i pick up a shiny new SSD) I shall be utilising my drives as follows:

    120GB SSD:
    75GB - 80GB: Windows Partition.
    30-40GB: Linux Partion.
    4GB: Swap.
    1-5GB+: Shared Profiles and settings - Firefox, Email, etc. Any files used by programs both on Linux and Windows.

    HDD:
    Everything else.

    Maybe a bigger SSD is the way!

    Would you think a swap partition is necessary with say 4GB physical RAM?


  • Options
    #13
    PogMoThoin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,874 ✭✭✭✭PogMoThoin


    Unregistered. wrote: »
    Yes. Get a bigger SSD.

    Based on what I have in place now, come summer time (when i pick up a shiny new SSD) I shall be utilising my drives as follows:

    120GB SSD:
    75GB - 80GB: Windows Partition.
    30-40GB: Linux Partion.
    4GB: Swap.
    1-5GB+: Shared Profiles and settings - Firefox, Email, etc. Any files used by programs both on Linux and Windows.

    HDD:
    Everything else.

    Don't put swap on an SSD, not advisable as they have limited writes. You can just not bother in linux, it'll give one error while installing but will work fine. Windows will bitch and moan about not having one though, best add one on another drive


  • Options
    #14
    Unregistered.
    Registered Users Posts: 3,532 ✭✭✭Unregistered.


    Stainless_Steel wrote: »
    Maybe a bigger SSD is the way!

    Would you think a swap partition is necessary with say 4GB physical RAM?
    Yes. It's good practice. 4GB may be a lot of physical memory and you may never use the swap partition. However you wouldn't want to be caught needing one unexpectedly. It's also worth noting that some distributions use the swap space (whether it's a file or a separate partion) for hibernation. With swap on the SSD, hibernating linux and resuming Windows and back for example should be fairly swift. Acclerated boot times are SSD's forte really.
    PogMoThoin wrote: »
    Don't put swap on an SSD, not advisable as they have limited writes. You can just not bother in linux, it'll give one error while installing but will work fine. Windows will bitch and moan about not having one though, best add one on another drive
    Sigh. Old argument is old. The limited writes for non-server environments is not significant enough for most consumers to worry about. It's better to have it on SSD for performance.


Advertisement