Logical and Physical disk drives

Logical disks:

Does it help to partition your 40 Gb C:\ into two 20 Gb partitions (C:\ and
D:\)? If I had an application that only wrote to D:\ (and lets say, for
arguments sake, that the app writes frequently to disk), would the partition
help reduce the likelihood of OS corruption? Would it reduce disk
fragmentation?

Physical disks:

On a related note, does having two physical drives help with the above?
Presumably with file fragmentation it would, but what about helping with OS
corruption?

Thanks,
Alain

Alain Dekker wrote:
> Logical disks:
>
> Does it help to partition your 40 Gb C:\ into two 20 Gb partitions
> (C:\ and D:\)? If I had an application that only wrote to D:\ (and
> lets say, for arguments sake, that the app writes frequently to
> disk), would the partition help reduce the likelihood of OS
> corruption? Would it reduce disk fragmentation?
>
> Physical disks:
>
> On a related note, does having two physical drives help with the
> above? Presumably with file fragmentation it would, but what about
> helping with OS corruption?

If your OS becomes corrupt because of frequent disk writes - you need a
different application than the one that is abusing your system - as it is
badly written.

Think about this simply.

If you have one physical disk - no matter how you partition it - all the
data travels through the same cable.

And you are speaking of - in relative terms - some small disks. If I had a
40GB drive - I would make it my OS and programs drive (maybe partitioned -
probably not considering its size) and all my data would be on a seperate
(physical) hard disk drive.

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Shenan Stanley wrote:
> Alain Dekker wrote:
>> Logical disks:
>>
>> Does it help to partition your 40 Gb C:\ into two 20 Gb partitions
>> (C:\ and D:\)? If I had an application that only wrote to D:\ (and
>> lets say, for arguments sake, that the app writes frequently to
>> disk), would the partition help reduce the likelihood of OS
>> corruption? Would it reduce disk fragmentation?
>>
>> Physical disks:
>>
>> On a related note, does having two physical drives help with the
>> above? Presumably with file fragmentation it would, but what about
>> helping with OS corruption?
>
> If your OS becomes corrupt because of frequent disk writes - you need a
> different application than the one that is abusing your system - as it is
> badly written.
>
> Think about this simply.
>
> If you have one physical disk - no matter how you partition it - all the
> data travels through the same cable.
>
> And you are speaking of - in relative terms - some small disks. If I had a
> 40GB drive - I would make it my OS and programs drive (maybe partitioned -
> probably not considering its size) and all my data would be on a seperate
> (physical) hard disk drive.
>

And a benefit of 2 drives is the heads can seek independent of each
other thus making your system more efficient.

Two physical drives is the better option.
You should get a slight speed improvement by:
1) Placing the pagefile on the second drive.
2) Installing the applications and saving data files on the second drive.

This first and I presume smaller of the two drives would then have only
Windows installed on it.

JS

"Alain Dekker" <alain.dekker@NO.SPAM.loma.com> wrote in message
news:Owoa9yA6IHA.1176@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Logical disks:
>
> Does it help to partition your 40 Gb C:\ into two 20 Gb partitions (C:\
> and
> D:\)? If I had an application that only wrote to D:\ (and lets say, for
> arguments sake, that the app writes frequently to disk), would the
> partition
> help reduce the likelihood of OS corruption? Would it reduce disk
> fragmentation?
>
> Physical disks:
>
> On a related note, does having two physical drives help with the above?
> Presumably with file fragmentation it would, but what about helping with
> OS
> corruption?
>
> Thanks,
> Alain
>

Thanks for the answers, about what I suspected with some useful additional
information.

Thanks,
Alain

"JS" <@> wrote in message news:eC3DZVC6IHA.3784@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Two physical drives is the better option.
> You should get a slight speed improvement by:
> 1) Placing the pagefile on the second drive.
> 2) Installing the applications and saving data files on the second drive.
>
> This first and I presume smaller of the two drives would then have only
> Windows installed on it.
>
> JS
>
> "Alain Dekker" <alain.dekker@NO.SPAM.loma.com> wrote in message
> news:Owoa9yA6IHA.1176@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Logical disks:
>>
>> Does it help to partition your 40 Gb C:\ into two 20 Gb partitions (C:\
>> and
>> D:\)? If I had an application that only wrote to D:\ (and lets say, for
>> arguments sake, that the app writes frequently to disk), would the
>> partition
>> help reduce the likelihood of OS corruption? Would it reduce disk
>> fragmentation?
>>
>> Physical disks:
>>
>> On a related note, does having two physical drives help with the above?
>> Presumably with file fragmentation it would, but what about helping with
>> OS
>> corruption?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alain
>>
>
>

You might want to read this:
How to configure paging files for optimization and recovery in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314482/en-us

Make note of the dump file limitations with a single page file.
That said, I have a single page file located on a second drive
(first partition of the second drive) and it is a fixed size.
Because I the pagefile located on it's own dedicated partition
there is no fragmentation.

How to move the paging file in Windows XP:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307886/

JS


"Alain Dekker" <alain.dekker@NO.SPAM.loma.com> wrote in message
news:OJVBm7C6IHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the answers, about what I suspected with some useful additional
> information.
>
> Thanks,
> Alain
>
> "JS" <@> wrote in message news:eC3DZVC6IHA.3784@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Two physical drives is the better option.
>> You should get a slight speed improvement by:
>> 1) Placing the pagefile on the second drive.
>> 2) Installing the applications and saving data files on the second drive.
>>
>> This first and I presume smaller of the two drives would then have only
>> Windows installed on it.
>>
>> JS
>>
>> "Alain Dekker" <alain.dekker@NO.SPAM.loma.com> wrote in message
>> news:Owoa9yA6IHA.1176@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> Logical disks:
>>>
>>> Does it help to partition your 40 Gb C:\ into two 20 Gb partitions (C:\
>>> and
>>> D:\)? If I had an application that only wrote to D:\ (and lets say, for
>>> arguments sake, that the app writes frequently to disk), would the
>>> partition
>>> help reduce the likelihood of OS corruption? Would it reduce disk
>>> fragmentation?
>>>
>>> Physical disks:
>>>
>>> On a related note, does having two physical drives help with the above?
>>> Presumably with file fragmentation it would, but what about helping with
>>> OS
>>> corruption?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alain
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

>> "Alain Dekker" <alain.dekker@NO.SPAM.loma.com> wrote in message
>> news:Owoa9yA6IHA.1176@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> Logical disks:
>>>
>>> Does it help to partition your 40 Gb C:\ into two 20 Gb partitions (C:\
>>> and
>>> D:\)? If I had an application that only wrote to D:\ (and lets say, for
>>> arguments sake, that the app writes frequently to disk), would the
>>> partition
>>> help reduce the likelihood of OS corruption? Would it reduce disk
>>> fragmentation?
>>>
>>> Physical disks:
>>>
>>> On a related note, does having two physical drives help with the above?
>>> Presumably with file fragmentation it would, but what about helping with
>>> OS
>>> corruption?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alain


> "JS" <@> wrote in message news:eC3DZVC6IHA.3784@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Two physical drives is the better option.
>> You should get a slight speed improvement by:
>> 1) Placing the pagefile on the second drive.
>> 2) Installing the applications and saving data files on the second drive.
>>
>> This first and I presume smaller of the two drives would then have only
>> Windows installed on it.
>>
>> JS


"Alain Dekker" <alain.dekker@NO.SPAM.loma.com> wrote in message
news:OJVBm7C6IHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the answers, about what I suspected with some useful additional
> information.
>
> Thanks,
> Alain


Alain:
Let me offer you a contrary view...
1. There is virtually nothing to be gained either in performance or security
by multi-partitioning your 40 GB HDD so that one partition contains your
operating system and the other your programs and/or user-created data.

2. You do *not* need two "physical drives" to achieve better performance
and/or security because of "placing the pagefile on the second drive" and
"installing applications/data files" on that drive. You will *not* gain a
"slight speed improv(e)ment" of any consequence by doing so.

3. And your system will *not* be made more efficient because there's "a
benefit of 2 drives (because) the heads can seek independent of each other"
as another responder to your query has indicated. There is simply no
"real-world" benefit to this, period.

Allow me to suggest, Alain, that what you *should* be considering is
establishing & maintaining a comprehensive backup system, e.g., a
disk-cloning or disk-imaging program and use that program on a routine
systematic basis to "clone" (or disk-image) the contents of your *single* 40
GB HDD which contains your OS, your programs & applications, and your
user-created data. You can organize your programs and user-created data
through folders and not suffer any loss of efficiency in doing so. To that
end you could install another HDD to serve as the recipient of the clone or
disk-image.
Anna

Alain Dekker wrote:
> Logical disks:
>
> Does it help to partition your 40 Gb C:\ into two 20 Gb partitions (C:\
> and
> D:\)? If I had an application that only wrote to D:\ (and lets say, for
> arguments sake, that the app writes frequently to disk), would the
> partition
> help reduce the likelihood of OS corruption?

No.

> Would it reduce disk fragmentation?

Only if the specific partition were being used less, but it's no big deal.

> Physical disks:
>
> On a related note, does having two physical drives help with the above?
> Presumably with file fragmentation it would, but what about helping with
> OS
> corruption?

No.

The only time what you're saying is faster than the default location of the
swapfile, is when, in addition to what you've noted, the bus the second hard
drive is located on can be simultaneously accessed when the first hard drive
is accessed. To my knowledge, this only exists for true scsi systems, not
pseudo scsi...ide or otherwise sorta but not really scsi in windows. The OP
is obviously speaking of ide only.

--
Dave

Bailout: Friend, relative, business acquaintance
paying a sum to get the accused
out of jail until court is ready to proceed.

Bailout: U.S. taxpayers paying a sum of
money for some critical business failure
that was fleecing the taxpayer to begin
with.
Somehow, the word "bailout" seems
very different.
"JS" <@> wrote in message news:uKRYMDD6IHA.2348@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> You might want to read this:
> How to configure paging files for optimization and recovery in Windows XP
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314482/en-us
>
> Make note of the dump file limitations with a single page file.
> That said, I have a single page file located on a second drive
> (first partition of the second drive) and it is a fixed size.
> Because I the pagefile located on it's own dedicated partition
> there is no fragmentation.
>
> How to move the paging file in Windows XP:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307886/
>
> JS
>
>
> "Alain Dekker" <alain.dekker@NO.SPAM.loma.com> wrote in message
> news:OJVBm7C6IHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks for the answers, about what I suspected with some useful
>> additional information.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alain
>>
>> "JS" <@> wrote in message news:eC3DZVC6IHA.3784@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> Two physical drives is the better option.
>>> You should get a slight speed improvement by:
>>> 1) Placing the pagefile on the second drive.
>>> 2) Installing the applications and saving data files on the second
>>> drive.
>>>
>>> This first and I presume smaller of the two drives would then have only
>>> Windows installed on it.
>>>
>>> JS
>>>
>>> "Alain Dekker" <alain.dekker@NO.SPAM.loma.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Owoa9yA6IHA.1176@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> Logical disks:
>>>>
>>>> Does it help to partition your 40 Gb C:\ into two 20 Gb partitions (C:\
>>>> and
>>>> D:\)? If I had an application that only wrote to D:\ (and lets say, for
>>>> arguments sake, that the app writes frequently to disk), would the
>>>> partition
>>>> help reduce the likelihood of OS corruption? Would it reduce disk
>>>> fragmentation?
>>>>
>>>> Physical disks:
>>>>
>>>> On a related note, does having two physical drives help with the above?
>>>> Presumably with file fragmentation it would, but what about helping
>>>> with OS
>>>> corruption?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Alain
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

You haven't factored in drive overhead or pagefile fragmentation.

The slowest thing in the CPU food chain is the hard drive,
better to have two servants, one to take away the empty plates and
the other to serve the next even if they must use the same hallway.

JS

"Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message
news:ueG03VM6IHA.1192@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> The only time what you're saying is faster than the default location of
> the swapfile, is when, in addition to what you've noted, the bus the
> second hard drive is located on can be simultaneously accessed when the
> first hard drive is accessed. To my knowledge, this only exists for true
> scsi systems, not pseudo scsi...ide or otherwise sorta but not really scsi
> in windows. The OP is obviously speaking of ide only.
>
> --
> Dave
>
> Bailout: Friend, relative, business acquaintance
> paying a sum to get the accused
> out of jail until court is ready to proceed.
>
> Bailout: U.S. taxpayers paying a sum of
> money for some critical business failure
> that was fleecing the taxpayer to begin
> with.
> Somehow, the word "bailout" seems
> very different.
> "JS" <@> wrote in message news:uKRYMDD6IHA.2348@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> You might want to read this:
>> How to configure paging files for optimization and recovery in Windows XP
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314482/en-us
>>
>> Make note of the dump file limitations with a single page file.
>> That said, I have a single page file located on a second drive
>> (first partition of the second drive) and it is a fixed size.
>> Because I the pagefile located on it's own dedicated partition
>> there is no fragmentation.
>>
>> How to move the paging file in Windows XP:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307886/
>>
>> JS
>>
>>
>> "Alain Dekker" <alain.dekker@NO.SPAM.loma.com> wrote in message
>> news:OJVBm7C6IHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> Thanks for the answers, about what I suspected with some useful
>>> additional information.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alain
>>>
>>> "JS" <@> wrote in message news:eC3DZVC6IHA.3784@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> Two physical drives is the better option.
>>>> You should get a slight speed improvement by:
>>>> 1) Placing the pagefile on the second drive.
>>>> 2) Installing the applications and saving data files on the second
>>>> drive.
>>>>
>>>> This first and I presume smaller of the two drives would then have only
>>>> Windows installed on it.
>>>>
>>>> JS
>>>>
>>>> "Alain Dekker" <alain.dekker@NO.SPAM.loma.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:Owoa9yA6IHA.1176@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Logical disks:
>>>>>
>>>>> Does it help to partition your 40 Gb C:\ into two 20 Gb partitions
>>>>> (C:\ and
>>>>> D:\)? If I had an application that only wrote to D:\ (and lets say,
>>>>> for
>>>>> arguments sake, that the app writes frequently to disk), would the
>>>>> partition
>>>>> help reduce the likelihood of OS corruption? Would it reduce disk
>>>>> fragmentation?
>>>>>
>>>>> Physical disks:
>>>>>
>>>>> On a related note, does having two physical drives help with the
>>>>> above?
>>>>> Presumably with file fragmentation it would, but what about helping
>>>>> with OS
>>>>> corruption?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Alain
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>