| Author |
Message |
jason
Guest
|
 Posted:
Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:54 am Post subject:
ntfs questions... |
|
|
okay, i've got a few questions, so if this seems jumbled, please bear with
me...
i am about to low level my 80gig seagate, re-partition, and re-install XP
Pro, with an NTFS file system, and i am curious about optimization. i've
seen some examples of how to partition a drive of about that size, but i
really need more than 8-10 gigs for the OS and installed files. i was
thinking of doing partitions of: 30Gig (OS), 30Gig (storage), and 20Gig
(storage), and want to know if this is acceptable? should i do 2, 40Gig
partitions? should i do all partitions on the 80Gig NTFS, or should i leave
the other partitions fat32? not sure if this is of importance, but i keep
my pagefile on a separate HD (ultra-wide scsi), which is formatted fat32.
does this matter, mixing the pagefile on fat32, and the OS on NTFS? is
using the 4Gig good enough for the pagefile? or sould i put it on a larger
partition on the 160gig?
the rest of my system is:
AMD xp2000+ 1.67ghz
1 gig ram (pc3200)
80gig seagate
160gig seagate
2-4gig ultrawide scsi's, for scratch disk and pagefile
Ti4200 128mb
If anyone could provide a little info on maybe how i should set this up
(well, the 80gig at least) that would be great. i'd like to know what's
going to be most optimal, and keep things running smooth.
thanks for any input.
jason |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pat [MSFT]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Apr 06, 2004 6:09 am Post subject:
Re: ntfs questions... |
|
|
I would probably go with a 20GB (System) & 60GB (Data) mix. On the Data
partition, format with 16k stripes (less likely to fragment and generally
more performant for multi-media (.wav, .mpg, mp3, etc. files).
Go with NTFS on all partitions.
For the pagefile, unless you are doing something that requires a lot of
memory (I'm thinking video rendering, in which case you need more RAM too),
4GB is overkill. You could probably get by w/1.1GB. If you are paging out
4GB, you could probably make a sandwich between mouse clicks. I would also
(if possible) stripe (RAID0) the SCSI drives (again 16k clusters) -they are
scratch disks, right? So may as well make them fast access.
Pat
"jason" <jason@infernalhellbox.com> wrote in message
news:%230HRWf0GEHA.3940@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | okay, i've got a few questions, so if this seems jumbled, please bear with
me...
i am about to low level my 80gig seagate, re-partition, and re-install XP
Pro, with an NTFS file system, and i am curious about optimization. i've
seen some examples of how to partition a drive of about that size, but i
really need more than 8-10 gigs for the OS and installed files. i was
thinking of doing partitions of: 30Gig (OS), 30Gig (storage), and 20Gig
(storage), and want to know if this is acceptable? should i do 2, 40Gig
partitions? should i do all partitions on the 80Gig NTFS, or should i
leave
the other partitions fat32? not sure if this is of importance, but i keep
my pagefile on a separate HD (ultra-wide scsi), which is formatted fat32.
does this matter, mixing the pagefile on fat32, and the OS on NTFS? is
using the 4Gig good enough for the pagefile? or sould i put it on a larger
partition on the 160gig?
the rest of my system is:
AMD xp2000+ 1.67ghz
1 gig ram (pc3200)
80gig seagate
160gig seagate
2-4gig ultrawide scsi's, for scratch disk and pagefile
Ti4200 128mb
If anyone could provide a little info on maybe how i should set this up
(well, the 80gig at least) that would be great. i'd like to know what's
going to be most optimal, and keep things running smooth.
thanks for any input.
jason
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Barila
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Apr 06, 2004 9:39 am Post subject:
Re: ntfs questions... |
|
|
"jason" <jason@infernalhellbox.com> wrote in message
news:%230HRWf0GEHA.3940@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | okay, i've got a few questions, so if this seems jumbled, please bear with
me...
i am about to low level my 80gig seagate, re-partition, and re-install XP
Pro, with an NTFS file system, and i am curious about optimization. i've
seen some examples of how to partition a drive of about that size, but i
really need more than 8-10 gigs for the OS and installed files. i was
thinking of doing partitions of: 30Gig (OS), 30Gig (storage), and 20Gig
(storage), and want to know if this is acceptable? should i do 2, 40Gig
partitions? should i do all partitions on the 80Gig NTFS, or should i
leave
the other partitions fat32? not sure if this is of importance, but i keep
my pagefile on a separate HD (ultra-wide scsi), which is formatted fat32.
does this matter, mixing the pagefile on fat32, and the OS on NTFS? is
using the 4Gig good enough for the pagefile? or sould i put it on a larger
partition on the 160gig?
|
If the partitions are on the same spindle, they only add overhead. It's not
like the separation between the partitions protects one partition from a
failure in another. Just make one partition per spindle. Although you
could RAID0 stripe the 80 against one half of the 160, you really increase
the risk of losing the whole data set if you lose the wrong sector, and you
increase the load on the 160 spindle, so the benefit of the stripe is
dimished a lot.
Since you have two 4 GB drives, take Pat's advice and stripe them RAID0 and
put your %temp% and swapfile on there. Since you have an 80 and 160 GB, use
the faster (newer) one for your boot drive, and the other one for your extra
storage. If you happen to know that you have greater data storage
requirements (like you plan on downloading and saving lots of movies from
the alt.* groups) you might use the 80 for the system drive, even if the 160
is the faster.
Phil
--
Philip D. Barila Windows DDK MVP
Seagate Technology, LLC
(720) 684-1842
As if I need to say it: Not speaking for Seagate.
E-mail address is pointed at a domain squatter. Use reply-to instead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeff Goldner [MS]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Apr 20, 2004 7:08 pm Post subject:
Re: ntfs questions... |
|
|
You will not be able to get a crashdump with that configuration (assuming
you removed the pagefile on C: which would be necessary to take advantage of
the SCSI stripe). Not sure how important that is to you.
Jeff [MSFT]
"Phil Barila" <PBarila@Barila.com> wrote in message
news:zeOdnT1aR5hb2u_dRVn-jg@4dv.net...
| Quote: | "jason" <jason@infernalhellbox.com> wrote in message
news:%230HRWf0GEHA.3940@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
okay, i've got a few questions, so if this seems jumbled, please bear
with
me...
i am about to low level my 80gig seagate, re-partition, and re-install XP
Pro, with an NTFS file system, and i am curious about optimization. i've
seen some examples of how to partition a drive of about that size, but i
really need more than 8-10 gigs for the OS and installed files. i was
thinking of doing partitions of: 30Gig (OS), 30Gig (storage), and 20Gig
(storage), and want to know if this is acceptable? should i do 2, 40Gig
partitions? should i do all partitions on the 80Gig NTFS, or should i
leave
the other partitions fat32? not sure if this is of importance, but i
keep
my pagefile on a separate HD (ultra-wide scsi), which is formatted fat32.
does this matter, mixing the pagefile on fat32, and the OS on NTFS? is
using the 4Gig good enough for the pagefile? or sould i put it on a
larger
partition on the 160gig?
If the partitions are on the same spindle, they only add overhead. It's
not
like the separation between the partitions protects one partition from a
failure in another. Just make one partition per spindle. Although you
could RAID0 stripe the 80 against one half of the 160, you really increase
the risk of losing the whole data set if you lose the wrong sector, and
you
increase the load on the 160 spindle, so the benefit of the stripe is
dimished a lot.
Since you have two 4 GB drives, take Pat's advice and stripe them RAID0
and
put your %temp% and swapfile on there. Since you have an 80 and 160 GB,
use
the faster (newer) one for your boot drive, and the other one for your
extra
storage. If you happen to know that you have greater data storage
requirements (like you plan on downloading and saving lots of movies from
the alt.* groups) you might use the 80 for the system drive, even if the
160
is the faster.
Phil
--
Philip D. Barila Windows DDK MVP
Seagate Technology, LLC
(720) 684-1842
As if I need to say it: Not speaking for Seagate.
E-mail address is pointed at a domain squatter. Use reply-to instead.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in