Fat 32 partitions deliver data faster than NTFS partitions. So it should give a double benefit using the first 32gb of your drive for your OS formatted as FAT32.
Printable View
Fat 32 partitions deliver data faster than NTFS partitions. So it should give a double benefit using the first 32gb of your drive for your OS formatted as FAT32.
How much faster?
I'd rather stick with NTFS myself.
Its no where near as much as people think.
Besides, you'd be insane to be using FAT32 on the huge drives we have today.
I wouldn't want *any* of my drive formatted FAT32. I just can't see the point :)
Interesting...
Have some more data:
This is a now 3.5 year old PATA 200Gb 7200rpm 8Mb cache Maxtor drive with a windows install that's just as old. The disk manager shot is to show the order of the partitions, which I only really did to keep the windows install away from everything else.
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/k...peedssmall.jpg
Re-testing varies the numbers but the system partition is always faster than the larger one.
Whats the best way to format a 1Tb Samsung F1, bearing in mind that this will be in an external eSata casing and that I will not be booting from this.
3 equal partitions? or some other config?
Try using HDTach to get a profile of how the access rates deteriorate as you get further 'into' the disk. That is the best way to determine the best positions, in my opinion.
Here's my HDTach & HDTune - taken from 1Tb Samsung F1 in an external Icy Box 390 enclosure connected to my XPS M1530 via eSata expresscard.
http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/f...ach-eSata2.jpg http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/f...sta-eSata3.jpg
I'm not really sure what I should be looking for in this to help me set the partitions right (bearing in mind I won't be booting from this and it will be a data drive only). Recommendations / Advise more than welcome... :rockon2:
I don't have HDTach on here, but I think there might be a setting change available to get more readings, and hence a more clear trendline.
What sort of data are you intending to use the drive for? If it is just for regular storage of assorted files, then there is little real point in following Zak's guide. The benefit only really comes when you require extremely rapid access to some files, such as with an operating system or with heavy video and music editing work.
As I'm getting the Western Digital 640GB HDD pretty soon (when my new PC arrives ;o)
I'll be running Vista Ultimate 64-bit on it. I was thinking to make the first partition arround 100GB for my OS and other Applications (like MS Word etc...)
My second partition the games of like 240GB and the third partition the data/files drive of arround 300GB.
Would this be a smart thing to do? If not, what else?
I'm ok to test something, aslong as my OS and my games run fast lol :)
seems good. thats how i did it but on a 250gb though, i used around 60-80gb for the first partition and split the remaining into two partitions. i gotta buy at least a 320gb before i head off to philippines this xmas
Interesting thread. Might try this.
Is this like matrix raid for 1 drive? or am i totally mistaken?
Might be worth having a poll to see who has tried it and the results?
the 1st 40gb partition on my 150gb raptor has lower access time (6.7) but i cant really feel its quicker
Umm I think you will find that the outer parts of the drive are the fastest...
Nope.
Matrix RAID allows the drive's to be split into different forms of RAID - For example, RAID 1 and 0 on the same 2 drives. See http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets...storage_sb.htm
AFAIK, Matrix RAID does nothing to ensure the data is positioned on the fastest area of the disk :)
Bottom line is that Matrix RAID = Speed through a RAID solution
This = Speed through using your disk efficiently, hopefully :)
Oic, I might have a go with this when i get a new wd 640gb
This is a good post. I can't wait to try it^^ for my PC
:):):)