Partition Windows Xp - Is This The Best Way of partitioning?

[larasa]

Im about to re-install windows XP PRO onto my system and I would like to Know the best way to partition the system? Im aiming for performance as well as data security.

The system is running 4 SATA hard drives. Two of the drives are normal and the other 2 are running Raid 1 which mirror each other. This is how i plan to re-install windows XP:

Disc 1 - non raid

C: Windows XP

D: Documents and Settings

Disc 2 and Disc 3 - Raid 1 Mirror

E: Paging File

F: Program Files

G: Data Files ( My documents, My pictures, My music)

H: Downloads

Disc 4- non Raid

I: Norton Ghost Backups & Backups

- I chose to keep the "Document and Settings" folder separate from my data files. From what ive seen, most viruses tend to end up in this folder (temp folder , internet folder)

- Paging file on first partition of second Disk for performance. Separate from XP.

- Program Files on second partition of disk 2 for performance? and more importantly if windows crashes, I still have my program files info. I.E. Which programs I have installed and my customized user settings for each program. I understand that on OS re-install the programs wont function but it should be possible to overwrite the program settings after re-installing the programs.

- Data Files such as my documents and my pictures on the second drive as its Raid 1. Should one drive go belly up, the documents will be safe on the mirror drive.

- Downloads on a separate partition to data files in disk 2 just in case i download some virus and nasties.

- Backups on their own dedicated Disk as Norton Ghost images tend to be Big Files and also to be independent from the system and data files in case of problems.

What do you think? and how would you do it differently?

Edited September 25, 2007 by larasa

[adamt]

I would recommend a RAID 5 setup with 3 disks if you want performance and fault tolerance. Mirroring won't improve the performance at all.

[Ponch]

Mirroring won't improve the performance at all.

Mirroring does improve read performance.

[fraquar]

Fault tolerance (redundancy) and speed are diametrically opposed. I can tell you what I wouldn't RAID 1 though - when in an integrated system:

1) Downloads - if you are an avid p2per (i.e you download a lot) you will have a lot of writing - which is the bane of a RAID 1 system. Lots of fragmentation can occur on these types of partitions when deleting files as well (and we all have downloaded stuff we later wondered why we downloaded it in the first place). When you know you have something you wish to keep long-term (and after you have scanned it and made sure it's clean) - then move it to the RAID. Fault tolerance on a potential virus makes absolutely no sense. Use removable media for your fault tolerance - or archive downloads on an ISO and access them from a virtual CD on the RAID drive (read only).

2) Swap File - this should be on either a dedicated drive or a drive which has minimal I/O. One which also stores archives is fine (no I/O during normal use) - one which houses virtual CD's or media files not so good - lots of reading. Having a Swap File on a RAID 1 drive with a lot of I/O is the worst possible scenario. Besides, a swap file is just temporary storage for OS memory access - which changes every time you reboot your computer - so why is fault tolerance (redundancy) even needed for this?

3) TEMP Files: Which by their very nature imply that redundancy isn't needed.

Edited September 28, 2007 by fraquar

[Gearrion]

I would keep the ghost image on a external drive, and use the third drive for a RAID 5 instead of a RAID 1.

If you are going to Image the system setup a schedule with software Like acronis to make a differential backups every twelve hours on the third drive, and then make a RAID 0 for the other two disk.

Disc 1 - non raid

C: Windows XP

D: Documents and Settings

Disc 2 and Disc 3 - Raid 0

E: Paging File

F: Program Files

G: Data Files ( My documents, My pictures, My music)

H: Downloads

Disc 4- non Raid

I: ACRONIS with differential backups

Therefor the fault tolerance would be only twelve hours. If the drive is large enough you can make it every four hours. If it is really Big make it every other hour. It runs in the background and does not hinder performance.

Personally I backup only once a month.

[larasa]

Thanks to everyone that responded. I have already re-installed windows as per the first post on one of my systems and im keeping a close eye on how it goes. So far so good. I still have to re-install on another 2 systems and im thinking of using either Raid 0 or Raid 5 instead of Raid 1 on those as suggested, but need to look into it...decisions decisions

Are there any differences on using Acronis vs Norton Ghost for the backup images? Norton images are very big and the process can take 2-3 hours (backing up once a week - incremental backup) slowing the whole system at the same time...

Edited October 12, 2007 by larasa

[Andromeda43]

Thanks to everyone that responded. I have already re-installed windows as per the first post on one of my systems and im keeping a close eye on how it goes. So far so good. I still have to re-install on another 2 systems and im thinking of using either Raid 0 or Raid 5 instead of Raid 1 on those as suggested, but need to look into it...decisions decisions

Are there any differences on using Acronis vs Norton Ghost for the backup images? Norton images are very big and the process can take 2-3 hours (backing up once a week - incremental backup) slowing the whole system at the same time...

There's no reason I can think of why Ghost, run properly (From a DOS boot Disk) should ever take more than just a few minutes. Unless of course, your C: drive is horribly bloated.

By careful drive maintenance I manage to keep my C: drive file-load to around 7 gigs, or less.

Doing a Ghost Backup using fast compression, run from my Ghost boot floppy, CD or Flash Drive, I do a Partition to Image backup in less than five minutes, using my SATA 2 HD's.

It's NEVER necessary to load the entire Ghost GUI onto the HD, or run it from within Windows. That's completely redundant.

With Ghost 2003 or 8.3 that runs from a DOS boot disk, you can backup any number of PC's without ever breaking the licensing by installing one copy to multiple PC's. As a technician working on hundreds of PC's that may require making a backup before service can begin, I find Ghost 8.3 on a Boot Disk a great Service Tool.

I use it several times a week to backup my own computers.

By keeping all my HD's and partitions in FAT-32 mode, I'm able to also run cleanup batch files from my Ghost boot disk to remove almost 3 gig's of junk from my C: drive before doing the actual backup. That cleanup includes the Pagefile, old restore points and of course all temp files, etc.

Everything on my Ghost boot disk is run from an Ansi-Color (DOS) menu. The disk will backup any system from DOS to Vista and I'm told, by my webmaster, that it also can backup a Linux HD.

My latest trick is to run Ghost from a bootable SD Flash Memory Card and save the compressed image file to my 6 gig Flash Drive.

Following a weekly backup with Ghost 8.3, I verify the image and then do an immediate Restore.

After rebooting into Windows and running Windows Defrag/Analyze, my hard drive looks like this:

I've not seen one defrag program that can reorder an XP drive as well as that.

So, I guess you can well surmise that my vote goes to Ghost.

Cheers Mates!

Andromeda43 B)