Why is moving dat between partitions so slow.

Not sure if this is the right sub-forum so mods, feel free too move if another place is more appropriate.

Something i've been wondering for some time. There's probably a simple explanation but i'm curious why there's no way around it.

The way i see it, after you create partitions on your HDD, moving data between two different partitions takes as much time as moving data between two different (physical) HDD's. Partitions are created with software so why isn't there a way to make data copying/moving between partitions on the same physical drive as fast as from one folder to another in the same partition?

ideas?

 

Ideally, moving would just mean an update to the file system log to know where the data is located and not actually having to rewrite the data to a different group of sectors/platters. It's not the case as far as I understand. Copying involves another group of writes so that makes sense that it takes time.

 

Yeah but why is that different between folders on the same HDD and partitions on the same HDD? I understand it's because certain sectors are assigned to one partition so writing to another partition needs rewriting. For all intents and purposes another partition is in fact another HDD...i'm just curious if they couldn't have found a way around this as it would make a pretty big difference.

 

Almost quote:

That's just how it is. If you want to share folders over partitions, you could try Mklink, but be very careful with it if you aren't using Vista or 7.

 

i know i know I just think i would've been worth developing a technique around this but i guess developing faster and faster drives will eventually cancel the need for it and give other benfits as well

 

You can't improve this without redesigning the whole partition idea.

With a partition you split the drive in different parts, e.g. partition A (Sector 0-1000), B (sector 1001-2000) and C (sector 2001-3000).
So if you move a file from one partition to a different, then you have to physically move it to the new sectors.
If you don't want this, then don't use partitions and stop complaining. That's how partitions work.
You can also create one large partition and create virtual hard drives on it or something else to emulate partitions, which shouldn't have this 'issue' with slow moving between partitions.
Therefore you get other limitations.

 

dude...i'm not complaining....i was just raising a question on a subject i've been wondering about. And yeah i know what is actually causing it. And i was talking about a possible redesign of the partition idea and was just wondering why this hasn't been done or looked into.

 

Basically, when you copy to the same partition, it only updates the MFT. Since you're copying to the same partition, it only has to duplicate/move the MFT. The data doesn't move. If you're copying to another partition, the OS needs to move the actual data to a different part of the HDD.

There's always exceptions to this. E.G multihdd volumes, RAID 0, 5,6, 10, 01, JBOD..etc.

 

Good point.

Also: When you're copying from one hard drive to another, one drive does the reading the other does the writing.

When you're copying from one partition to another, the same drive has to do the reading and writing, which makes it a lot slower.

 

Might also want to add:
If the drive is reading and writing to the same spot on the hdd, the speed remains the same or doubles, whatever you want to call it. HDD can read and write at the "same" time. That's why when overwriting a file, it's almost twice as fast as copy a new file.

 

And I just said that partitions were created to physically split files on a single HDD.
And as already said, if you don't like this idea, then don't use partitions, but use alternative software emulated partitions. I don't know an exact program which does this, but there should be a lot out there.
e.g. this tool:
http://www.virtualdisk.net/

With upcoming SSDs the current partitions are stupid, that's right, there we need some new technology, something you wish.

 

hmmm that is a good point and it proves to be right. Any ideas why copying is faster than moving too by any chance? Now that we're on the subject

 

Moving = copying + deleting the old stuff
Copying = copying

Time wise

copying + deleting the old stuff > copying

 

That's what i thought....funny thing is that it's much faster to first copy and then delete the old files than trying to do it in one command.

 

Depends on your situation.

E.g. I can move 10GB of file instantly on my HDD while it might take you 10 minutes to copy the file and delete the old one.

 

Hmm I tested it, moving and copying takes the same time at my laptop.

Moving might be slightly slower because of the delete action afterwards.

Edit: oops it was already answered.

 

I find it too be slower...or maybe i'm just imagining things

 

Time it then. I timed it.

 

i did now...and you're right