Partition size for OS

[NTBlowz]

Hi I am writing this from school's PC

Today Win XP finally unbootable to normal mode (hangs on the welcome screen) but safe mode works. Which I think I had enough with this hanging B$ (the problem has been around for a few weeks) so I am going to buy a new (120GB) HDD and decide to start from scratch again.

Now the question is if I want to partition a space for OS which one is better? 5GB or 10GB? Will 5GB be enough or 10GB is better? I will also make a backup image of the OS drive to a seperate small HDD (10GB)

[WhiteDragon]

Isn't that too little? once you've installed a couple of games you'll be at full capacity. XP alone is about 1.5Gb. If it's got to be from those two I'd say go for 10Gb, I use about 25Gb myself just with installed stuff (no backup or personal data).

[NTBlowz]

That partitioned drive will be OS only, while games and programs will install on different partition

[Wibber]

move you documents and setting off the drive and you can get by with 5gb easy

[Gh0s7 L3mUr]

My home system has 5GB OS and 15GB Program Files. The rest is storage and space.

[dumass]

I use 7gig for OS + program installs, 750meg partition for the swapfile, and game installs & storage on the rest of the 120gig

[DansteR]

if you move you documents on to another partition youll get away with 5 gig easy.

BUT

when you format, you lose your registery, so most programs dont work with out you reinstalling them.

so why not make your c drive a 20-30 gig partiton and save the rest for storage/backup?

[cadmax]

how i do it with my 120GB hdd
15GB O.S (swapfile here but locked to a max of 1024MB)
15GB games and other installs (all most all games :p)
90GB stuff (all most all of the stuff i'm working on or with at that time)

[Method]

make it 8 gb

That will keep the cluster size low too. Thats the advantage of a small patition for the os. Os has lots of small files ( afaik :D)

[MR_60]

I second Method's 8Gb.

Put your swap file nearest the files read most (if on the same disk); ie your games, that way the disk has less seeking to do.

[=/adrenaline/=]

The best way to do it is to have all your installs & OS on the same partition, thus way your HD has less seeking to do, if you had a 8-10 gig drive for OS etc and then a 120gig drive then that would be the best way to do it, but whatever you do don't install OS and games etc to different partitions.

At the moment I have 40gig for back up with "My Documents" there as well (you can do this with Tweak UI) and 80gig for all the apps and games :) I have alot of apps and games!!! I'm dreading doing a reinstall :D

[MR_60]

adrenaline: after your machine has started up, how much do you think it accesses the system partition?...

I would say little to none, as Windows 32 systems load most stuff into memory (as much as possible) and swap a little out that they aren't gonna use much.

so really the location of the system partition is pretty unimportant in terms of system performance. Startup times, if you are starting stuff on the second partition at the same time as the system is loading, may well be affected but how often are you restarting your 2000/XP system?? when you apply a new security patch maybe.. okay quite a bit then. But still.

What really matters is the swap file. you want that nice and close to the stuff that's being accessed. Even if you have plenty 'o' Ram (TM) then WIN32 will use the swap file, even if just a little.

Optimally, you want the swap file on a seperate (fast) disk from the majority of your data/software.

On the flipside though, it is important to note that modern drives get higher transfer rates towards their outside edge, because of a constant angular velocity and (almost) consistent data density, the data's linear velocity is much higher at the outside. And I believe (can anyone out there confirm?) that the outside gets written first (track 0) So theoretically, data near the 'beginning' of the disk will provide faster transfer rates than data at the 'end'.

For multiple platter disks though, there will be more than one 'sweet spot' - so how can you know for sure ;)

I guess given this, you might be tempted to put everything in one partition, moving your data closer to that outside edge.

But the improved performance from having smaller file systems will probably override any increase in performance from this.

Also it is a 'good idea' (R) to keep your system seperate from your apps and data, because one day when you are leaching hard, and fill your apps drive, you may be thankful it wasn't your system drive as running out of space there can have nasty side effects.

Well that's my solid 10c worth :) I think though, this one's a bit like the toilet paper debate. In reality you know, for a modern home PC, with modern file systems, it's probably a case of pure preference. But us old schoolers will keep our seperate system partitions, thank you ;)

edit: WHEW :p (wipes sweat from brow)

[NTBlowz]

Well in the end I set 10GB for the OS so I can use software to image it on a seperate 10Gb HDD. (while another hdd for backing up important stuff)

Thanx for the suggestion guys :)