Disk / Partition Status

[303]

Attached is my current disk configuration...

C: is my XP system (obviously) exclusively

D: is just user data / programs

E:, F: and G: are just for media storage

So... why this configuration? Is XP indicating that it's booting from E:?

Edited November 7, 2007 by 303

[ripken204]

i'm pretty sure that's what it means. is that disk plugged into port0 or disk0 on the motherboard?

[nmX.Memnoch]

No, the one labeled (System) under the Status column is the partition that contains the boot files. Are those all partitions on a single drive? If so, you're seriously hurting the performance of your system, not to mention making the drive work harder which will shorten it's lifespan.

Backup your data and dump the partition structure. Just make it one large partition and use folders. It's beyond me why people think they can manage their data better using a separate drive letter than they can just using a folder.

[puntoMX]

No, the one labeled (System) under the Status column is the partition that contains the boot files. Are those all partitions on a single drive? If so, you're seriously hurting the performance of your system, not to mention making the drive work harder which will shorten it's lifespan.

Backup your data and dump the partition structure. Just make it one large partition and use folders. It's beyond me why people think they can manage their data better using a separate drive letter than they can just using a folder.

I saw your question a few times around the forum so let me answer why I do it:

I have computers in public places were I divide the drive in 2; One OS and apps partition and one for the games. The games partition never gets messed up, I deny access for normal users to access it other then using a shortcut (not a high protection, but it works ). The OS/apps partition is backed up by Acronis and only 10GB big, enough for Windows XP, Office 2003 (Exel, Word and Powerpoint), and some smaller apps and drivers. I keep the page file on the games partition too so I can restore faster with Acronis True Image witch has the backup stored local for now.

This is my reason for heaving 2 partitions .

[RJM]

I also, like PuntoMX have partitioned my first drive into two partitions for the reason of keeping my Acronis images small. In addition I have moved my program files folder to my D drive using COA2. Both partitions are FAT32.

My second drive is partitioned into 3 parts, a 3GB swap file FAT32, a 100GB NTFS ( large files and image backups), and a 147GB FAT32 for data.

Both drives are 250GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.10's

Edited November 7, 2007 by RJM

[nmX.Memnoch]

You do understand what I mean by partitions hurt performance and create unnecessary wear on the drive right?

I would much rather have a machine that runs faster while I'm using it than worrying about the size of or how quickly I can restore a drive image (15 vs. 30 minutes restore?). Not to mention the fact that I much prefer clean installs over a restore any day. That's why all of my data is stored on a seperate drive from my OS/apps and I keep backups of just the stuff I would restore (Favorites mainly...and if I lose those it's no big deal).

I would also much rather my drives last longer than generating unnecessary wear.

punto, in your case...seriously, drives are cheap. Put a second drive in those public access system and drop the partition(s). Your drive image should only be as big as the data that's on the drive....not the size of the entire partition. If Acronis creates images that way then I'd look for another drive image app. Also, putting the page file on a second partition of the same drive will hurt performance even further. To open an application the drive has to access both the executable and the page file at the same time, which makes the drive heads move all over the place. With a second partition the drive heads have to move further, which creates both latency and additional wear.

[puntoMX]

punto, in your case...seriously, drives are cheap. Put a second drive in those public access system and drop the partition(s). Your drive image should only be as big as the data that's on the drive....not the size of the entire partition. If Acronis creates images that way then I'd look for another drive image app.

I know drives are cheap, an 80GB will cost me about 40 US$ + TAX here, but I’m starting my business in a few weeks and cash reserves are low now. Time to restore my System drive now will be about 3 minutes vs. the complete drive, including 200-220GB of games, will take me 50 minutes and that’s unacceptable when the internet/cybercafés are full. People will see an empty PC and I need to tell them I don’t have space, so they walk away. Believe me, I have been there .

Also, putting the page file on a second partition of the same drive will hurt performance even further. To open an application the drive has to access both the executable and the page file at the same time, which makes the drive heads move all over the place. With a second partition the drive heads have to move further, which creates both latency and additional wear.

I could throw in more ram and keep the page file smaller too. in this case the page file is stored at the beginning of partition too, so only the head has to skip the first 10GB, not that much. If it were high-performance workstations or server I would do like you suggest. By the way, additional wear isn’t that much bigger, a fragmented drive would be worse and you know it.

Another thing you have to keep in mind is that it’s easier to lock away a complete partition in comparison to just a folder. I was searching for programs that could lock away folders from users with the possibility to access the programs on it by a shortcut, but until now I didn’t find any thing like that. So, what I do know is just hide the drive icon from the users. If you have any ideas on that, I’m wide open for it .

By the way, seems I started to highjack this topic, sorry for that...

[Zxian]

Just a side note about the pagefile and Acronis True Image - the last time I checked, ATI just included it as part of the file structure, but never actually saved the contents of the pagefile data in the image file.

[nmX.Memnoch]

punto, in your case...seriously, drives are cheap. Put a second drive in those public access system and drop the partition(s). Your drive image should only be as big as the data that's on the drive....not the size of the entire partition. If Acronis creates images that way then I'd look for another drive image app.

I know drives are cheap, an 80GB will cost me about 40 US$ + TAX here, but I'm starting my business in a few weeks and cash reserves are low now. Time to restore my System drive now will be about 3 minutes vs. the complete drive, including 200-220GB of games, will take me 50 minutes and that's unacceptable when the internet/cybercafés are full. People will see an empty PC and I need to tell them I don't have space, so they walk away. Believe me, I have been there .

Most games don't actually require a reinstall. For example, most id Software games can just be copied off...some of the newer ones may require importing a registry value for the CD key. In your case you wouldn't even have to do that since you're imaging the OS drive and keep the games on the second drive. Just restore the image and all application install settings would be retained.

Also, putting the page file on a second partition of the same drive will hurt performance even further. To open an application the drive has to access both the executable and the page file at the same time, which makes the drive heads move all over the place. With a second partition the drive heads have to move further, which creates both latency and additional wear.

I could throw in more ram and keep the page file smaller too. in this case the page file is stored at the beginning of partition too, so only the head has to skip the first 10GB, not that much. If it were high-performance workstations or server I would do like you suggest. By the way, additional wear isn't that much bigger, a fragmented drive would be worse and you know it.

More RAM isn't going to solve anything unless the machine is running out of memory. Do not confuse physical memory with virtual memory. Windows does use virtual memory regarless of how much physical memory you have (cluberti...your turn to chime in ).

And of course a fragmented drive is worse. But if you aren't running any sort of defrag software all you've done with multiple partitions is compound the problem. Diskeeper 2008...install it and forget it, literally. It defrags files and folders in real time. It will even keep the MFT from fragmenting.

Another thing you have to keep in mind is that it's easier to lock away a complete partition in comparison to just a folder. I was searching for programs that could lock away folders from users with the possibility to access the programs on it by a shortcut, but until now I didn't find any thing like that. So, what I do know is just hide the drive icon from the users. If you have any ideas on that, I'm wide open for it .

No it's not easier at all. Folders can be locked down very easily. That's what NTFS permissions are for and there are several tools available to do that. You can either:

1. Do it with the GUI options available on a folders properties under the Security tab

2. Do it using the command line using the built in CACLS command

3. Get the extended version of CACLS (XCACLS)

4. Use SubInACL, yet another Microsoft tool with even more functionality than CACLS or XCACLS

How do you think server shares are secured? I certainly don't create a new partition every time I need to create a new share on one of my servers.

Also, if you really want to keep the machine clean and locked down you should look into using the something like either Windows SteadyState (the latest version of teh Shared Computer Toolkit...handbook link...technical FAQ link) or something like SiteKiosk, which was designed specifically for internet/cyber cafes.

By the way, seems I started to highjack this topic, sorry for that...

I don't think it was highjacked...I think we just got further into discussions about partitions is all.

[puntoMX]

Thanx for the info,

I know virtual memory is different then a swap file, even if you would have 16GB installed, most programs require a swap file.

Will take a look at the new Diskeeper, I’m sure they have a trail version somewhere .

The problem I had with CACLS is that people need to access the programs with shortcuts, but never got it right set, eg. Shortcut gave an "access denied" or similar error. Never tried XCACLS, so I could try that.

The cybercafés don’t have servers by the way, so software like SiteKiosk and others will not work (Still planning to use it in the future).

The page file, is stored on the system partition again by the way, I checked what zxian posted and it’s true indeed; it doesn’t cost me more space nor will it take more time to restore the image...

[nmX.Memnoch]

Will take a look at the new Diskeeper, I’m sure they have a trail version somewhere .

Definitely give it a look. And yes, they have trial versions available. You shouldn't need anything higher than the Professional version. Once you get a server going at the cafe you may also want to look into purchase a license for the Admin Edition. It'll let you control settings on all of the machines remotely, plus it has reports so you can monitor the fragmentation status of each machine.

The problem I had with CACLS is that people need to access the programs with shortcuts, but never got it right set, eg. Shortcut gave an "access denied" or similar error. Never tried XCACLS, so I could try that.

A lot of people tend to get confused with NTFS permissions. It's easy to do at first. The main thing you need to make sure of is that the folder isn't inheriting permissions from the parent folder. Once you turn that setting off you can then customize your permissions and enforce them down the tree on all sub-folders below the restricted one (any new folders will automatically inherit). CACLS is very limited so you definitely want to look at either XCACLS or SubInACL. Careful with SubInACL though...it's got some crazy syntax rules.

The cybercafés don’t have servers by the way, so software like SiteKiosk and others will not work (Still planning to use it in the future).

I know for a fact that you don't need a server just to run SiteKiosk. Now if you get into using the actual SiteCafe features then you might. It's definitely made to help manage and enforce a customer's usage time on the cafe machines though.

The page file, is stored on the system partition again by the way, I checked what zxian posted and it’s true indeed; it doesn’t cost me more space nor will it take more time to restore the image...

Glad we got that one straightened out.

[303]

Are those all partitions on a single drive?

ohhh newwww neww newww...

Drive 1: 320GB SATAII - C: and D:. XP is on C:, user data / programs and swap file are on D:

Drive 2: 500GB SATAII - E:, F: and G:. Contains media files.

I did all of this because I've read if you keep the patitions under 137GB (well, mine's around that), then you get the increased speed/reliability. Correct me if I'm wrong.

So I guess I'm just not fully understanding the information provided by Windows help about labels of partitions / types of volumes.

[nmX.Memnoch]

I did all of this because I've read if you keep the patitions under 137GB (well, mine's around that), then you get the increased speed/reliability. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Not sure where you read that at but I've never heard that before. Again, I would say the opposite is true. A drive formatted as a single partition with a good defrag program will always perform better than a drive split into multiple partitions.

[puntoMX]

I´m sure 303 is talking about the block size, but that would effect FAT32 more then NTFS...

[303]

I did all of this because I've read if you keep the patitions under 137GB (well, mine's around that), then you get the increased speed/reliability. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Not sure where you read that at but I've never heard that before. Again, I would say the opposite is true. A drive formatted as a single partition with a good defrag program will always perform better than a drive split into multiple partitions.

I guess I was wrong about SATA and the 137GB thing.

So, what about the labels in parenthesis... ?