I'm getting ready to wipe my drive and do a clean install of Windows 7. When I originally built this system over a year ago it was my first experience with Windows 7 so I simply chose to split the drive in half between System and Data but now I'm wondering if that's really the best idea. I've done some research on the net but most of it just contradicts itself so since I've come to trust some of the tech support folks around here I figured that it would be great to see what you all had to offer as advice.

1. How much space should I partition off for the main System (C:\) drive on a 1TB HD assuming that the rest will go to a second partition for the Data (D:\) drive?

2. Should games be installed to the C or the D partition? (I currently install them to the C partition but I've read that installing them to the D partition might be better)

3. Should I move the User folders to the D partition? (I currently have them on the C partition by default but again, I've read that moving them might be best. It should be noted that I don't use any of the User folders for myself. Instead, I have custom folders that I currently use on the Data (D) partition such that I use D:\Documents or D:\Music as opposed to C:\My Documents or C:\My Music...I know that's not the correct pathing but I hope the point remains.

I currently have a 1 TB HD formatted into two 500 GB partitions as such:

C:\System

Games
Program Files
Program Files (x86)
Users (unused "My" folders)
Windows

D:\Data

Archives
Documents
Downloads
Music
Pictures
Support

So essentially I'm thinking of reducing the size of the C partition (thus increasing the size of the D partition) as well as moving the C:\Games & C:\Users to the D partition.

Thoughts? Opinions? Insights? Advice? Warnings?

EDIT: It should be noted that I'll continue to install all non-game applications to their default installation location so this should be considered when gauging the initial size of the C partition. This is where I get a little hung up because I've read to only make the C partition 100 GB but I'm worried that that might not be enough with applications like Office, Photoshop, etc taking up space. Not sure if that matters but it is currently something that I'm considering and I had forgotten to mention in the OP.

Oh, and I didn't post any system specs because I'm not sure if they're relevant but just ask and I'll provide.

You know what, don't bother just leave it as one partition and you'll never have to be concerned with nor deal with load balancing your data across an arbitrary division of the drive for an outdated data security precaution. Especially don't bother if you've got an external drive kicking around that can act as a back up (and if you don't, invest in one: its like the very first thing anyone who genuinely cares about certain data does). But yah with the advent of bootable live CDs and such there's no reason to split up your data like that anymore, its easy to recover from anything short of a drive death (which a partitiont would do nothing to protect anything from any ways).

Well, that's my opinion any ways.

With 1 TB I would recommend:

c: 100gb **
d: 400gb (programs)
e: 450gb (games)
f: 50gb (emergency...in case of 2nd OS etc etc)

** depends on whether or not you use iTunes...iTunes is really buggy and a P.I.T.A to maintain on something other that c: (you can do it, and people have instructions, but it requires a bit of work). Also depends on other games...Sims, for example, if you are dl'ing the software from the EA site, can be a PITA to put on something other than c:. If you use these programs, increase c: accordingly.

In general, I would try to keep your c: drive for OS only as much as possible. I would definitely try to keep games off of it, since you'll be adding mods and god knows what else. I would force any non-game non-OS program (like Office, photoshop) onto that 'programs' drive. That way, even 100gb for c: will be overkill.

I'm with BumpInTheNight on this one, there is nothing to be gained from partitioning your drive.

That is a particular opinion that had lead me to posting this thread. It really does seem that there's point outside of organizational purposes. I'm an organization freak though so I'll at least stick to the two partition system for now since that what I'm used to and am familiar with in terms of keeping organized. This opinion however begs the question for me that maybe I should consider doing the opposite of what I was originally thinking in so much that I'll create a large C partition for everything that's not personal data and I'll make the D partition much smaller. FWIW, I consider personal data to cover just about anything that isn't installed.

Thanks for the response as it has given me something to think about.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that I have 2 external HDs at 500 GB each so backup is essentially covered. Like they say...Data doesn't exist until it exists in three unique locations.


Blah! iTunes...not here anyways as I use MediaMonkey for my music oranization and other sources for my music. But the point has been taken. There are several such examples currently on my system such as Steam, where it can be a PITA to get it to install outside of its default location (at least it was when I first installed it anyways).

I'm assuming that the D partitions (programs) would be for anything that installs to Program Files or Program Files (x86) by default. Would I just choose this new location when installing or is there a way to move those system folders to a seperate partition all together (like you can do with the Users folder)?

Thanks again for the responses.

That's what I do.

The non-partitioned approach has benefits and merit...but I'm a bit of a compartmentalizing nut and over-paranoid about files getting messed with (I have a wife, you see) so it is easier to make drive-specific permissions on my network than by folder.

The more I'm digging around my current C partition I'm noticing just how much programs like to scatter themselves. It's not uncommon for a program to have files in 3 or more locations so I'm starting to lean more towards a single partition for anything that gets installed. This would mean that my current setup is probably going to work best for me in the long run. Having said that, I'm still going to consider just how large each partition really needs to be so in the end it will probably be about a 80/20 split. The fact is that my D partition is just my first line of backups (the info gets saved on 2 external drives as well so I only keep what I really want access to on the D partition and not much more. Therefore, I'm leaning towards the compartmentalized, yet much larger system drive approach.

Thanks again for all the insight. It's much appreciated.

Making partitions will make your virus scaning,searching,defragmentation and other partition specific programs to finish thier jobs faster imo.

That's a great point. Blah! I might just flip a coin as I'm just about ready to begin.

Off Topic: I'm running a User account with Admin priveliges but I read that the best route for a single user to go is by activating the hidden Administrator account and go with that. This of course sounds risky so I'm wondering if there's any merit to the claim. This system is on a local network with three other systems that only I can access...if any of that matters.

Note to self: Fix avatar...looks like [censored] without a custom color profile running.

I'm uh, not entirely sure how splitting up the same amount of files/disk size across several partitions would speed up anything except searching for a particular file that you already know is within partition 'x', but likely anyone with a penchant for organization already knows how to find it without resorting to such barbaric measures. Btw if you do go the partition route and discover you're running low on space on a particular partition you can employ things like softlinks to get around that creatively...but if you didn't bother with partitions this wouldn't be an issue, nothing would be an issue since its the most efficient use of your drive's space.

Wanna get into a really fractional advantage of single partition as well? Windows & NTFS know that for HDDs the inner core of the drive can read/write at a little bit faster of a rate then the outter ridge, windows will attempt to keep programs and the OS itself as close to the inner edge and raw data out at the far edge because of this. Partitions breaks that since windows can no longer decide for itself based on your hardware where the best physical location for the stuff to reside. I mean this is small but its still valid. SSDs of course it doesn't matter at all, but we're not talking about them right now.

ED: You know what I'd do? I'd take one of those 500GB externals you've got, pop it out of its enclosure and throw it in along with your 1TB drive, use the 500GB for user data and ensure your other external is setup to make copies of it and then use the 1TB for everything else. No partitioning but you still get the defined containers and bonus points because now with two drives you can shift stuff from one to the other at standard rate rather then half (due to reading and writing to the same disk is double the work vs reading from one while writing to the other).

You're making way too much sense

I already keep one of the externals constantly plugged in via USB. It's literally the size of a pack of playing cards and it just always sits on top of my case. Would taking the cover off and putting it inside have any benefit outside of hiding it from view? Is there another way to connect it to the system other than USB? I have absolutely no knowledge of the inner workings of external hard drives. I pretty much use it just like you mentioned but with the D partition as a stepping stone between the System and the External Backup. It makes sense however, with how you describe the situation, that it would be best if I cut out the middle man.

It's funny how I've gone from 50/50 to 80/20 to 70/30 and back down to 50/50 only to end up at 100% C drive, 100% Data external drive (always connected), and 100% Backup external drive all within a couple of hours. Cool. Thanks for the help.

If you'd like to check out how the external would end up yah pop it open and look at the two connectors on the 'butt' of it, one is going to be power and the other is the data interface, they have to match with what's possible with your computer's motherboard's abilities. There are three families of them really and two of the three are supported by any modern motherboard with just the same cabling as your regulars (IDE and sata). Advantages: Garaunteed that either IDE or Sata will get better performance out of the drive then USB 2.0, significantly better.

So I'd yah just pop it open and see if it matches what youre motherboard and power supply can offer for cabling, if so then yah you can just find a bay and hook it in with a screw or two. You said pack of cards eh? Likely a 2.5" 'notebook' size drive then, so let's hope its sata otherwise its the 2.5" class IDE and fraid not all motherboards sport that interface by default. (sata are smaller ended with an L shaped connector, power cables for those drives look very similar. IDE is much larger with ribbon cabling and the power connectors are those infernal molex 4 pin hard plastic things).

Before I jump into opening this thing up here are the specs on both of my externals:

1. http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10517

2. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822154273

I thought that they were both 500 GB but apparently not. I only use the second one as a tertiary backup unit.

Hrm, well USB 3.0 is already plenty fast so shifting it to an internal bay would only be to the benefit of not having some little box lingering around at this point. I can also pretty safely bet since its a USB 3.0 based setup that the drive itself is gonna be sata though on that front as well so it would very likely be possible to shift to just using it as an internal drive. Seems kind of a shame to pull apart a USB 3.0 based external just to get another 500GB drive in your system when its already pretty much same capability but with the bonus of being portable and all that. Provided your motherboard actually has USB 3.0 ports that is of course.

Perhaps keep to the strategy of 'regular stuff' on a single 1TB partition on the system disk and reserve the 500gb for your more important data but retaining it as an external through that interface.

ED: Also wanted to say its too bad about that flooding a few months back that all the HDD makers are using as an excuse to jack up the prices on those things, you used to be able to buy 500GB drives for 50$ but now they're roughly double that, if that wasn't the case I'd say just go buy another drive.

First I would recommend installing Steam to its own folder, not in Program Files.

I have mine in C:\Games\Steam

As to the question of drive partitioning, it all comes from trying to boost a clean and optimised file system, and increase performance with a page file (it used to be recomended to have your page file on its own HDD).

I use my 1TB hard drive and have it as 1 partition (technically 2 as windows 7 creates a small partition for system use that you cannot see).

I also have a 500gb hard drive for all my movies and tv shows, and other stuff rarely accessed (software files, folder/file backups).

As long as you do regular defrags you shouldn't need to split your HDD into many partitions. Also clean your registry often using a program like ccleaner (which is free). And for defrags use auslogics (free version) to defrag and optimise.

The only downside ive come across is Disk Check takes a long long time with a 1tb partition.

My motherboard supports 3.0 and all signs point to it working properly. If I'm to understand the basic default 3.0 speeds it should be around 3 mb / 2 sec & if that's the case then I should be able to transfer 200 GB in roughly 4 hours, which I did in under that the other day. I could be completely wrong on the numbers though so please forgive me if I am. Regardless, I've always felt that the transfer times were always quicker than I could expect. I've been quite pleased with this little drives performance and I really don't mind it staying on top (kinda looks cool anyways) just because I like to take it with me to work, school, etc.

Yeah, I noticed that prices have gone up considerably. I paid just over $50 for the 500 GB external and now they're over $100 for the same thing. I think between the three drives I should have enough space for my purposes...remember the days of fighting 10 GB hard drives for more space? What I'd really like to look into is an SSD drive but I really can't be spending any more cash at the moment so it'l have to wait.

Off Topic: I decided that they're really can't be any solid reason for simply taking over the hidden Administrator account as opposed to creating a User account with Admin privliages. Seems to me that too many things can go wrong, what with all the reports of user accounts going corrupt it would really svck if it was the main account that gets hit.

On another note, I've become more interested in doubling my RAM at some point and I was wondering if I should just double my current 4 GB (2x2) with identical 6-8-6-24 settings or if I should go another route? I'd love to get down to 6-6-6 but if not would going all 8-8-8 or 9-9-9 be any sort of improvement? I understand that all dimms need to be the same but I'm not clear on how the numbers actually compare (hope that makes sense). I'm also not clear on whether or not having 8 GB (4x4) would be an advantage over 8 GB (2x2)x2.

At any rate, I'm off to start formatting the drive and getting Windows back up as quickly as possible, without making any stupid mistakes along the way of course. Thanks again.

Hard drives are so cheap these days I don't bother with partitioning individual drives.

I have 3 drives on my present desktop, 2 500 gigs and 1 tb. C: drive with 500 gig is for my windows OS, Microsoft Office, school, work stuff etc etc. D: drive with 500 gig is for my games and e: 1tb is for my storage, movies, backups, etc etc.

Thanks for offering up your insights. I appreciate it.

I was already planning to do just that with Steam this time around. I love having all my games in C:\Games and it always bothered me that I couldn't originally do that when I first installed it (at least I didn't know how at the time).

I knew about the hidden partition and often wondered about getting rid of it as apparently there are methods but things like that always seemed like more risk vs reward. And the same applies to the page file in a sense that I used to keep it on a seperate drive (not just partition) back in the day but it seems like now there's not any reason to.

Thanks for the heads up on the defrag program. I was going to look into a third party replacement once I re-installed as I've always felt that Windows Defrag has continued to hide more and more from me over the years. Having said that, I do a defrag often and more regularly depending on my install / uninstall habits at any given moment. Oh, and I use CCleaner as well but any registry tampering can cause problems even under the best of situations so I try to limit that to once a month or so. I still use HiJackThis as well but that has become less useful over the years and while I have tried HijackFree it's just not the same.

Good times Btw USB 3.0 is much faster then 2-3MB/sec or at least between it and the average external drive it should be more in the 50-75MB/sec range, once you're back up and running make sure you've got the USB 3.0 controller's drivers working otherwise yah it could be its only running at USB 1.1 speeds (which are abyssmal).

This is btw an awesome time to buy ram, its never been cheaper and all the stores are trying to dump their lower capacity stock to make room for the ridonculous sized 16/32/64GB sets, if you can find a matching set (and yah it really should be an identical matching set) of the same ram as you've currently got then for sure going to 8 is great. Now depending on which chipset/board type you've got the 4 vs 2 is usually moot, the newest guys there with the quadchannel memory will love the four sticks vs just the two but say you've got a traditional double rate memory controller then the 2 vs 4 is usually identical abilities. With the advent of DDR3's speeds the timing isn't nearly as crucial as it used to be, lower timing is of course still nice but its very insignificant performance wise for the day to day operations and even gaming at this point. I won't get into what each value represents but yah 'lower is better' is still a good mantra but again, really doesn't mean much anymore. Now the hot thing with memory is the chipsets that offer the triple band and quad band vs the traditional double band, but even then memory speed doesn't *really* help much past a threshold that regular DDR3 dualchannel meets already.

Moar memory is always good, the system will find some use for it even if its not a very useful use, win7 does do some pretty intelligent caching of what it predicts you like to use so it'll occupy any genuinely spare memory with pre-cached versions of your popular apps which increases their load times considerable. The dif betwen clicking on your browser and hearing the disk crunch for a second or two vs 'pop' oh there it is instantly. But yah, ram is _cheap_ right now, I picked up my 16GB kit for 90$ back in November, I mean that's just ridiculous.

ED: On the note of defrag: At this point the NTFS version that win7 uses + win7's defrag methods is pretty much optimal. Its taken them some time to get it right but at this point I really can't recommend any 3rd party versions anymore, the default is very good at predicting when its 'safe' to do it without interupting what you're doing and its very smart about what it does as well.
ED ED: Don't touch that hidden partition, you really don't wanna mess with that boot loader unless you specifically want to do something like dual booting, suffer with the -50mb from your 1000000mb available

Looks like I won't be partitioning these either. I'm going with:

C:\System (1 TB Internal)...OS, Applications, Games (anything that actually gets installed)

D:\Data (500 GB External USB 3.0)...Documents, Downloads, Music, Pictures (anything that doesn't actually get installed)

E:\Backup (250 GB External USB 2.0)...anything and everything that is backup.

Sounds great

Well, it's been a long night and I thought that I'd update this thread in case anyone was interested in how things are going. It took roughly 3 hours to install windows plus all updates (except for the Graphics Card and Monitor drivers since I like to get those right from the source...oh, and of course I left IE9 where it belongs). The time could have been quicker but I was multitasking around the house so there was more downtime than usual but I still think the time frame works just about right. Regardless, everything installed without a hitch so I'm happy. I even flashed the BIOS!

Now it's time to install all the driver updates for my ASUS motherboard (P7P55D-E Pro). They have already been downloaded and extracted so it's just a matter of going through the motions at this point. It will go pretty much like this:

• Intel Chipset (v9.1.1.1020)
  
• USB 3.0 Host Controller (v2.0.4.0)
  
• USB 3.0 NEC Controller (v1.0.19.0)
  
• IDE: Marvell 61xx SATA (v1.2.0.7100)
  
• SATA: Marvell 9123/9120 Controller (v1.0.0.1042)
  
• SATA: JMicron JMB36x Controller (v1.17.51.2)
  
• VIA Audio (v6.0.1.8700a)

I'm pretty sure those are all the current versions as I got them off of the ASUS website (not the packaged installation disk). What was different this time around though is that I didn't need to install the Realtek LAN Drivers from the disk like I had to the first time in order to connect to the web and get Windows updated. Windows 7 installation took care of that as well as hooking me up on my homegroup so I was Internet and Network connected right from the first boot...and loving it.

Hopefully everything continues to run smoothly so that I can get back to gaming by this evening. Although, looking at the list I just made of everything that needs to be re-installed and configured I might be lucky to be gaming by next week.

Thanks again to everyone for taking the time to post. I appreciate it.

FTR: not having a graphics driver installed and surfing the web through IE8 just about svcks.

without repeating the similare things ..


There is only THREE major advantages to partitioning your drive up into multiple partitions....

Significantly Reduced Fragmentation and seek/random access within a partition system being improved (but likely unnoticeable).... and lastly, SPEED.

Heres the deal, creating one big fat partition for everything is fairly inefficient but good for anyone that doesn't undestand let alone care... with huge hardrives today that sport fast data read/writes.. the problem not mention is there rapid falloff as the the data is written or read from the outside edges (FASTEST) to the inside (SLOWEST).

Additionally as i mentioned, seperating up a few partitions to keep files mostly seperated and organized will reduce file fragmentation CONSIDERABLY, shorter defrags in the future, overall longer "life" in terms of preventing data entanglement.

Partitioning your drive is best like this for the most absalute best speeds... and it will be noticeable.

Basically from my testing and from users i've setup with the system, not to mention the benefits if something goes "wrong" for some of them.... the idea is to keep your primary programs and windows on the first partition.. make certain it is small, very small..... small enough that when your done installing windows and the NECESSARY "programs" that the main drive will not have a whole lot of room left over (1/2-3/4 space used on that partition).... The smaller the primary partition the faster it'll be to boot up, load the primary programs, access function and features that reside in there and it'll prevent the drive from slapping those critical files at the end of the drive.

Followed by games, usually this is going to be a large partition, depending on how much data you have or intend to use for games, best to make this likely anywhere from the 1/4 of the total drive size or larger.... you'll have to decide.

The last partition is usually all the user files like Documents and pictures and video and downloads and stuff like that, that don't REQUIRE a large amount of bandwidth or speed.

My drive solution with a 1tb setup (when i ran it) was like this

1: 50gb For Windows and Program Files
2: 250gb for Games
3: 700gb for "Other" which include user files/video/music/torrents/downloads/etc.

With a 50gb windows and programs installed, i was left with usually about 20gb of free space.


About installing the drives and crap..

NEVER install the ones from the disk OR off the manufacturers website that aren't their own specific product drivers before going for the referrence ones. ALWAYS check the referrence manufacutrers website FIRST.

In the case of your motherboard looking at it's specs....

First thing you want to do is:

Go to intel's website and download the latest Intel INF Update Utility

http://www.intel.com/p/en_US/support/highlights/chpsts/inf

Next After you install those, and restart (you'll likely have to reboot)

Go and get this, the latest Intel Rapid Storage controller Driver.

http://www.intel.com/p/en_US/support/highlights/chpsts/imsm

You should be running the intel controller in ACHI or RAID mode.. NOT IDE.... pointless and totally counter productive to run in IDE mode.. Just download the non "F6" version..

If your not using any of the other Controllers like the Marvel IDE or SATA or JMicron SATA.... AT ALL.. (which most people never do and don't need to)... i highly recommend going into your motherboard bios and DISABLING them.

You should be able to go to via's website and download the latest Audio device drivers from them.

As for your USB.... you can check NEC... but most likely you'll have the least amount of issues with the asus version.

So where were you last night DH...Before I already did the re-install? Seriously though, thank you for the insight as it has given me some more to think about. I'm not sure that I'll start back over at this point but I do believe that for my purposes the non-partitioned drive should work out well. The only real difference between what you described and what I have configured between my internal and external drive is that the games won't be separate and the "other" files will be on a seperate external USB 3.0 drive instead of a partition of the main internal drive. The only items that will end up on the main drive is the OS, Applications, and Games (anything that gets installed) while everything else won't. I'm guessing that I'll probably only use up about 200-300 GB on the main tops.

I'll stick to what I have for now but I'll mentally compare performance over the next month while I consider re-doing the whole thing over again if necessary.

I'll have to read up on RAID drives as I've always avoided the issue considering that in the past they were always troublesome. I'm sure they're much easier and more beneficial to get rolling now-a-days so I'll start the research after making this post.

I still haven't installed any drivers yet simply because I ended up crashing (me, not the system) right after my last post so I'll get on over to Intel and VIA's websites for the latest drivers. You mentioned a Rapid Storage Controller but alas I've never heard of that either so I'll have to look into that as well. As far as the other items that you mentioned disabling within the BIOS...I'll have to look into those as well consider I'm not even sure that I'm using any of those.

At any rate, thanks again. Any difference of opinions is great since it makes me think and figure it all out for myself. Of course I say all that now before my head begins to hurt.

Here's my system specs in case it matters:

Case: Cooler Master 690 II Advanced
PSU: Corsair 850TX
Motherboard: ASUS P7P55D-E Pro
CPU: Intel Core i7-860 Lynnfield 2.8GHz
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper N520
RAM: Mushkin Enhanced Ridgeback 4GB (2x2) DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) 6-8-6-24 (1.65v)
Graphics Card: EVGA nVidia GeForce GTX 460 (Fermi) Superclocked EE 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16
Hard Drive: Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB 64MB 6GPS
Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit 1-Pack for System Builders - OEM
Keyboard: Logitech G510
Mouse: Logitech G9x Lasar
Monitor: Acer X223W Black 22" Widescreen (1680x1050)

Just to clarify....

Setting the SATA controller to raid.. but not actually having raid is what i was referring to.... ACHI/RAID mode enables full SATA 1/2/3 modes with NCQ and numerous other speed enhancing functions that sata can provide.... running in IDE mode basically trashes all these functions and reduces the bandwidth to a IDE compatibility type of mode....

I usually just setup the systems with RAID mode enabled.. it's just like ACHI.... but also gives you the option of slipping another drive in and either mirroring it.. or if you want... creating any other type of raid array in the future if need be... It's just the all in one solution if you do or do not do raid... doesn't matter.

Although i do like running Raid 0 arrays consisting of 2 or more drives (i've ran 6 500/640gb drives in raid 0 over the years)....

BUT i think the better... MUCH better solution would rather be investing in a Solid State drive as your primary drive. Trust me.... there is NO raid 0 array out there using even 15,000 rpm hardrives that can touch a solid state drive.

120gb is a squeeze for me... as i've got mine set to a 35gb partition with no page file and no hibernation file.... (this leaves me with all my program files installed and about 7.5-12.5gb of room on the partition).... the remaining 80ish gb is strickly for games.... not much..

On the other hand running 2x of the 120gb ssd's in raid 0... produces obviously more room.... i still ended up going for a 35gb primary partition with the remaining left specifically for games.

I should also note that i use the games partition for Fraps recording as it doesn't matter if i've one or 6 standard high performance WD caviar black 64mb cache sata III drives in raid 0 or not..... fraps at my resolution kills drives abilities to actually record at the massive data rate required.

btw.. good choice on parts...