[sanjayc]

Originally Posted by Ponmayilal

Here is an extract from a website on single vs multiple partitions.

"Advantage #3: A drive with multiple partitions allows you to defrag only those partitions that actually need defragging. This saves wear and tear on your drive, and may even help keep it from failing prematurely.

Some users advocate creating a small partition specifically for files that fragment easily. Then they move all these easily-fragmented files and directories there. This keeps your other volumes/drives from fragmenting as much, and makes defragging easier/faster/quicker. I think this is a good idea.

It can take hours to defrag 320-GB worth of fragmented data, not to mention 500 gigs, or 750 gigs. This means you have to plan your defrags much more carefully than you do with a drive containing smaller, multiple partitions. A small partition can be defragged in the time it takes to visit the bathroom.

Single-partition advocates claim that they defrag *overnight*. This is fine, but it needn't be that way. And you shouldn't have to run your PC all night if you don't want to. You shouldn't have to wait until bedtime before defragging, cuz your drive will take hours to finish. And you shouldn't have to defrag 320 gigs worth of data when only a small percentage of it is actually fragmented."

Now think of a 1000 gigs. Take your pick.

Shan2nu will be using the external disk mainly for multimedia contents. If files where contents are updated/added frequently (like xls/doc/dbf) etc, defragmentation occurs since various parts of the file are scattered all over the place. Not so with multimedia files like mp3/avi/jpg/tiff etc..where u just copy and forget about it. At the time of copying if enough contiguous space is avlbl, the files will get copied in a continuous segment..hence never a defragmentation need will arise.

What u are quoting holds true for internal hdds where operating system/program/applications are installed. And u need programs to launch quickly etc etc. With technologies like prefetch etc, you can pretty well forget about defragmentation except say once in a couple of months of so, even with internal hdds, unless you regularly keep adding 1 kb worth of data to an already existing database/list.

Further, defragmentation technology does not depend on hdd size, it depends upon number of defragmented files. The more space free on a particular partition, the faster the defragmentation operation will get completed.

@sant2nu, you need not fret over this too much. Take your pick what u want to do..in future if you find it uncomfortable, there are tons of free utilities which u can use to re-partition without losing data. With todays high speed HDDs, faster processors, more memory and new technologies, partioning bit (for external storage) is the least of all worries.

Bottomline is this:
1. It is easier/faster to move around data between folders in same partition and across partitions - try cut/paste operation of a huge file within the same partition and across different partition - it is instataneous in the first case, whereas it takes same time as if copying between 2 separate hdds.

2. Partioning a hdd does not have any advantage regarding data corruption risks. If that was so, making 100's of partitions would reduce corruption towards zero

3. Defragmentation for external hdds are almost a non-existent issue, particularly if it is going to act as a backup storage/multimedia content.

Hope this clarifies.

[sanjayc]

Originally Posted by SunnyBoi

NTFS does NOT need defragging. Hence I suggested a 30gig partition for PS3 in FAT32 and rest as NTFS.

That's not factually true..NTFS also requires defragmentation, but the way it allows you to format in various segment blocks, the requirement is less.

@sant2nu, also, note that you can use the compression/encryption feature of ntfs to pack in more data (particularly for bmp/txt type of files). The encryption option of ntfs will allow you to keep confidential data always encrypted and in case you hdd conks off, you can get it replaced under warranty without bothering about confidentiality.
With the ntfs security option, you can keep those **exclusive/personal** video/photo contents secured for your use only as well..all these cannot be done in fat32.

[Shan2nu]

Tried connecting the HD to the PS3 but no luck. The system doesn't even detect the NTFS device.

Am downloading the latest firware for the PS3 right now. Will check again once that is updated. If it still doesn't read, i will need atleast 1 partition in Fat32.

Shan2nu

[Ponmayilal]

Originally Posted by sanjayc

........
Bottomline is this:
1. It is easier/faster to move around data between folders in same partition and across partitions - try cut/paste operation of a huge file within the same partition and across different partition - it is instataneous in the first case, whereas it takes same time as if copying between 2 separate hdds.

2. Partioning a hdd does not have any advantage regarding data corruption risks. If that was so, making 100's of partitions would reduce corruption towards zero

3. Defragmentation for external hdds are almost a non-existent issue, particularly if it is going to act as a backup storage/multimedia content.

Hope this clarifies.

1.In the given instance, where the HDD is to be used purely as an external back-up, when all data is organised category-wise in different partitions, there is absolutely no need to move data around between partitions and therefore it is a non-issue.

2. Data corruption is not being talked about. It has no relation with single or multiple partitions. Status-quo ante.

3.As pointed out by you, defragmentation, which you earlier talked about, is not a serious issue. IMHO, the advantage of multiple partitions in respect of this, still holds at the time when you do want to defragment the HDD, whenever but with a definite schedule. Instead of defragmenting the whole drive, one may defragment only the most defragmented ones, thus saving time and hard disk work-out. ( At the moment, I am beta-testing a popular and acclaimed defrag utility on my Windows 7 Media Center PC, but the non-disclosure agreement forbids me putting up a screenshot of the same doing multiple volume defragmentation most efficiently.Their existing defrag utilities are Microsoft-certified)

Honestly, years back I had created only two partitions on my 250 GB Maxtor Ext. HDD, one FAT 32 and one NTFS. But given a 1TB ext HDD, I would personally prefer multiple partitions for I still consider it to be more appropriate and advantageous and will stick to this unless proved otherwise in practice.

Referring to your earlier posts, for an out and out audiophile even 50 GB of Video or Movie space is a waste. For a videophile even 50 GB of audio space is a waste. So in the final count, it will be the individual who has to decide the appropriate volume for each category, as stated clearly in my post. ( I have many times in the past adjusted the volumes on my primary desktop - not at all an issue.) With abundant real estate, leaving extra space in each volume for a fast defragmentation is not a problem.

The other tweaks one has to do in this scenario are:

1.Turn off System Restore for all volumes in the ext. HDD. ( I have it turned off even in the Internal HDD except the C drive )

2. Allocate Recycle Bin space as you consider appropriate for each volume. (even 0% if you are confident)

The only other file that will be created in the volumes is System Volume Information but that is abysmally minimal - not more than a few KBs, I presume. Not an issue worth bothering about in 1000 Gigs.

With faster operating systems and multicore high speed processors, the extra read time taken by the OS to read the partition table is just just just miniscule and nothing significant. The startup time is influenced hundreds and thousand times more by other factors.

And so here you are Sir @Shan2nu, the cat-fight is over (not really a fight , each one of us have put our thoughts on the subject to the best of our abilities and I do not pretend to be an authority on the subject - jack of all rather)

And sure your PS3 will not read NTFS and if you do want to create a more-than-32 GB Fat32 partition, despair not. Just look here . I have atleast one satisfied BHPian. ( no more smilies left )

[vivekiny2k]

if you are afraid of virus corrupting the data, you can also use linux partitions for static data, say hard drive image. I have a bootable memory card that boots into a tiny linux when I want to restore my hard disk (bios should support usb booting).

partitionmagic (which is on the tiny linux) does an excellent job of resizing partitions if needed. My whole point of partitiong was to encrypt one whole partition that could remain unmounted when not needed.

[Shan2nu]

No, virus is not at all an issue. I wont transfer any file unless it is completely scanned.

The main thing is that it should be easy to maintain and handle. If the same can be done without partitions, im ok with that as well.

Only issue remaining now is the ntfs vs fat32. I need fat 32 for the ps3, but fat32 also comes with its limitations.

Or another option is to use the 8gb pendrive for watching movies. I can easily fit in 11 divx movies at a time.

If a single drive is as safe and stable as having partitions, then its fine.

Shan2nu

[sanjayc]

1.In the given instance, where the HDD is to be used purely as an external back-up, when all data is organised category-wise in different partitions, there is absolutely no need to move data around between partitions and therefore it is a non-issue.

Mileage will differ based on usage and end-user. The assumption here is that the enduser has already decided what to place where. In practice however (at least in my case), let's take an real-world example. I have a 1 TB HDD with a single partition with a MultiMedia folder and various subfolders like Music/DVDRips/TVShows/Photos etc etc. In addition I have a "UnCategorized" folder where I just dump all types of contents, which I have not yet decided what to do with, like say camcorder recordings, just captured photos from a recent trips etc etc. At leisure, I will review these, edit if required and then finally move the same into appropriate categorized folders. Whenever you venture into editing content, I guess everybody likes to have the original content left untouched till at a later date when those can reviewed and purged. This is where speed of moving huge files between folders in the same partition/diff partitions come into play. Moving files in the same partition, since it involves, changes to file pointers in the NTFS/FAT table, it is instataneous, whereas across different partitions, it is like copying between 2 separate hdds..in fact lot slower in diff partitions in the same hdd.

2. Data corruption is not being talked about. It has no relation with single or multiple partitions. Status-quo ante.

Amen!

3.As pointed out by you, defragmentation, which you earlier talked about, is not a serious issue. IMHO, the advantage of multiple partitions in respect of this, still holds at the time when you do want to defragment the HDD, whenever but with a definite schedule. Instead of defragmenting the whole drive, one may defragment only the most defragmented ones, thus saving time and hard disk work-out. ( At the moment, I am beta-testing a popular and acclaimed defrag utility on my Windows 7 Media Center PC, but the non-disclosure agreement forbids me putting up a screenshot of the same doing multiple volume defragmentation most efficiently.Their existing defrag utilities are Microsoft-certified)

Honestly, years back I had created only two partitions on my 250 GB Maxtor Ext. HDD, one FAT 32 and one NTFS. But given a 1TB ext HDD, I would personally prefer multiple partitions for I still consider it to be more appropriate and advantageous and will stick to this unless proved otherwise in practice.

Given the benefits of defragmentation vis-a-vis the immediate benefits you get in terms of performance, this is another one of those hyped up stuffs. Until you are working with huge sequential databases or in a server kind of scenario, where every nano-second of performance matters, I will prefer sticking to Windows-inbuilt defrag app rather than invest in a 3rd party one. Agreed that keeping an uptodate defragged hdd will not only give a slight performance boost, and also, better chance of recovery of data in case of crashed hdds, but in a overwhemingly multimedia content based hdd, where even slight corruption may render a photo/mp3 useless, I will not loose much sleep over regular defrag and do it only once in a blue moon.

Referring to your earlier posts, for an out and out audiophile even 50 GB of Video or Movie space is a waste. For a videophile even 50 GB of audio space is a waste. So in the final count, it will be the individual who has to decide the appropriate volume for each category, as stated clearly in my post. ( I have many times in the past adjusted the volumes on my primary desktop - not at all an issue.) With abundant real estate, leaving extra space in each volume for a fast defragmentation is not a problem.

This is exactly the point I am trying to make. If the number of partitions are less, there is less wastage of space. Suppose I have to copy 50GB of HD-video recordings from my camcorder..but I find that 20GB is avlbl in one partition and 45GB in another partition..in spite of total 65gigs free, I still can't copy the 50GB file! What do i do? Resort to moving files (as in 1 above) across partitions to free up space! In a single partition scenario, I always have the last bit of byte avlbl to me, thus squeezing out every byte of space at my disposal.

With faster operating systems and multicore high speed processors, the extra read time taken by the OS to read the partition table is just just just miniscule and nothing significant. The startup time is influenced hundreds and thousand times more by other factors.

Not if you have to deal with millions of files (I have a situation where '000s of multipage tif files have to be split into each page and saved into individual tifs)..but this should not be a issues in Shan2nu's case, so no sweat.
But from a more practical point of view, suppose you have are using a desktop which has 2 hdds with a total of 4 partitions, and drive letters assigned as C,D,E,F add to that CD/DVD Drive as K, add to that smart card readers where sometimes, even if no card is inside, it will be assigned drive letter, so another G,H,I,J. Now, if you attach couple of usb external hdds, and god forbid, if you have not assigned fixed drive letters to these, soon the OS will run out of drive letters, in case too many partitions are created. On top of that, if fixed drive letters are not assigned, this will be assigned randomly, and soon you will loose track which drive letter belongs to which hdd. Workaround like naming the vol names judiciously are there, but for a normal user, mostly they do not bother about all such things. So you will end having a disk tree on the left explorer pane as New Disk 1 (C),New Disk 2 (D),New Disk 3 (E) and so on (sometimes more weird). Go Figure!

And so here you are Sir @Shan2nu, the cat-fight is over (not really a fight , each one of us have put our thoughts on the subject to the best of our abilities and I do not pretend to be an authority on the subject - jack of all rather)

What is the fun in wasting hours of our valuable time in such forums if we do not get into some heated debate After all, we are supposed to put our opinions here, isn't it? Not treating this at all as a cat-fight or dog-fight, for that matter. And, same here, neither, I claim to be a know-all dude! Far from it!

In fact, I was a fan of this mutiple partition system earlier, till I got a Dell XPS 420 system, with 3 HDDS, 1 DVD Writer, 1 DVD reader, 13-in-1 card reader and 8 usb ports. In addition to that, if I connected my HP Photosmart All-In-One, which itself had a 8-in-1 card reader, some 4 more dirve letters got added whenever the printer was attached to the usb port. Being a software developer, I had multiple partitions for multiple OS, right from Win2k to Win7, alongwith Windows server systems. These innumerable drive letters started driving me crazy.

So finally, it boils down to Mr. Sant2nu..time for cost-benefit analysis now.

[heavy_foot]

I use a Fat32 80 GB external HDD with my PS2. Only downside i guess is slower speed to copy to the harddisk.

[sanjayc]

Originally Posted by vivekiny2k

you can also use linux partitions

There yuo go..linux vs windows debate

Originally Posted by Shan2nu

Only issue remaining now is the ntfs vs fat32. I need fat 32 for the ps3, but fat32 also comes with its limitations.

Or another option is to use the 8gb pendrive for watching movies. I can easily fit in 11 divx movies at a time.

If a single drive is as safe and stable as having partitions, then its fine.
Shan2nu

Boss, whoever told you that you cannot have multiple partitions. I only had tried to point out that making too many partitions does not have any significant advantage, and may have quite a few drawbacks, considering your particular usage.

You can always create a FAT32 partition, of say, 100 GB and rest 900GB as a single NTFS partition.
Just keep in mind the foll.:
1. In FAT32, files cannot have >4GB in size.
2. Provided you have only say around 20-30 GB of mp3's, you can always keep a master copy in the NTFS partition and sync the FAT32 mp3's periodically. I know this is only a workaround and not the best option, but then you need to swap PS3 with an XBOX otherwise;-}
3. For Videos, you can keep a master copy in the NTFS, and just copy those to FAT32 which you want to view at the moment. Delete from Fat32, the next time you want to view some others. Not a very big issue I think.
4. You can reserve some portion in fat32 for your favorite videos which you may need to view every other day! Surely you can sacrifice some space for such type of videos..ain't it?
5. Based on the amount of content, you can determine the ratio between the fat/ntfs partitions.

6. Lastly, as I said earlier, sweat not over this too much. There are tons of utilities which can convert between one format to other on the fly without losing data.

And, hey, buy another 1TB to take a backup of the existing 1TB, before proceeding with the experimentation. Don't tell me I did'nt warn

[Ponmayilal]

@sanjayc, Given an EDIT button, I would have modified the one paragraph like this.( modification in bold )

And so here you are Sir @Shan2nu, the cat-fight is over (not really a fight , each one of us have put our thoughts on the subject to the best of our abilities and our own perspective ..............)

You speak as a professional user, the problems you face/d dealing with an ocean of data and multiple machines with redundant features that add up to become unmanageable. I do not think an ordinary Home User will ever encounter such a situation. Any further discussion on this aspect (Professional vs Home) may sound OT and so I stop here and only listen further .( And I have nothing more to add on the subject of partitions anyway. )