Does having multiple partitions slow down your computer?

Let's say I have 1 OS installed, and 1 partition for data.

Will I get any slowdown or no? I find it useful for installing some games, especially those via steam because it doesn't get fragmented when installing on my main drive.

 

Yes, you'll get a bit to a lot of slow down because hdd doesn't have the same throughtput on all of its recording surface. The throughtput on the outeredge of the disk is much faster than on the inner edge. The difference could be as much as 50% difference. Whether you notice this difference or not is totally dependant on ther user and other components of the computer. Having 2 partitions means your 2nd partition has slower throughtput than your other partitions. Depending on where you start your 2nd partition, the throughput in the 2nd partition could be as much as 50% slower than the 1st partition.

 

not so you would notice it

 

I didn't know that!
i have 5 partitions know , one for vista, one for xp, one for apps ,....
so you mean that I have lost more than of %50 of my com. performance?
so if I repartition my HDD to two partitions then I will see a big improvement in my perfomance?

 

Nope.

cheers ...

 

Be careful.
Partitions can increase performance but also slow down.

As jackluo923 said, the HDD has the highest transfer rates and the fastest access times on the outeredge. So if you have a HDD with 100GB and create 10 partitions then the first 10GB is the fastest partition, the last 10GB the slowest.

To know this can be useful.
Now imagine you create a single 100GB partition and install the OS, programs and copy the data on it. Then you don't know if critical files are located at the end or at the beginning of the HDD, you also can't define it. Maybe files you don't need often are located at the outeredge, files you need often are located where the HDD is slow. So this is a poor solution and not recommended.
Now let's create a partition with 10GB, one with 30GB and one with 60GB.
The 10GB, if the first, is the fastest. If you install the OS on it then you know that critical files are always located at the beginning of the HDD, thus always stay fast. Install the Games on the 30GB partition and you know that those games are also on a fast area placed. The remaining 60GB can be used for data, there it's not that important if the access times are 18ms or only 22ms, if the transfer rate is 80MB/s or 60MB/s.

So using partitions wisely can increase performance. Using partitions without knowning that can reduce performance.

Just take a look at the benchmark results HDTune gives you. You see that the transfer rate and access time isn't constant. It varies depending on the position the data is located.

Together with useful partitions you can use defragger which allow you to define where you want to place some files, e.g. you have a lot of movies then you can define to place them at the end of the partition, at the slower part of the partition so that the fast area is free for files which are more often used and which need faster transfer rates.

 

Just get an ssd. It'll be fast no matter where you install anything. Your game will see a boost too (loading time onlly).

 

I stand by my original answer....for most people, most of the time, you are chasing benchmarks with partition planning. You may gain or lose a tiny percentage of performance, but in real world use you are hardly going to notice it.

I don't disagree with what Frank or Jack have said (well, the 50 percent I do--never sen any kind of performance loss like that), but read the OPs post and see WHAT he is doing.

He is putting his OS on one and DATA on the other.

For what he is doing, there is no real world loss of performance. You guys are answering an simple organization issue with advanced theoretical harddisk scenarios.

As I said, I stand by my original answer

 

Ok, to keep it simple:
You currently have a pretty small and slow HDD compared with current disks.
Creating two partitions is a good idea and this way you will, as you said, reduce disc fragmentation and keep your OS fast.
To put the data on the second partition is the best thing you can do.
To install the games on the second partition is, even if they will load slightly slower than if you put them on the first partition, the best thing you can do, because they are large, need a lot of space, ...

So your current solution is the best solution.

If you buy a larger HDD sometime, then you can think about creating a 40GB partition for the OS and programs, a second partition with 100GB or so for the games and the rest for data.

All you can do to improve performance is to take a look at the Defrag post here somewhere which explains how to optimal defrag a HDD and force the defragger to place frequently used files on faster places.
This way you could place the games at the beginning of the second partition, the data at the end.
But only do this if you have a lot of free time and don't know what else to do

Performance:
People think they notice a difference between 7200RPM and 5400RPM drives.
Well the difference between installing the OS on the first partition or on the last partition is much more noticeable than the difference between the two different rotation speeds.
So before someone buys a more expensive, louder, ... 7200RPM drive he can also try to structure his HDD more efficient.

SSD:
Until now they slow down even more than a HDD. With Win 7 and new SSDs this problem will be solved, but why shall someone spend that much money for not finished hardware.
And sorry, but what can you do with your 30GB SSD. 30GB is just enough for the OS and the programs. Now try to install a game on it which needs 10GB.
And at the moment SSDs are too expensive and too small for a normal user.

 

Any slowdown is certainly not going to be 50% (in terms of what measurement, anyways?); it would likely be negated by the fact that an OS/Data partition system cuts down on file system fragmentation that is such a pain in Windows.

 

Didn't I say "up to" or "as much as" 50%? That means anywhere between 0%-50%.

Also, the benefits of partitioning can be achieved simply by defagging. With regular defrag tool, think of it as a dynamic partition. It compacts the data and move them to the edge of the disk for faster throughtput and reduced access time. With a more advanced defragging tool, it'll move the most frequently used data to the outter edge of the disk to give you the maximum throughput. Thus if you "optimize" your hdd by defragging, then it'll yeild better performance than simply making partitions on a disk.

 

if you start an app on d: (say your steam game), and this game needs libraries from your system (say, like directx, and a jpeg file loader, etc) on c:, then this will mean increased moving of your disks head, resulting in high latencies going from system to game files and back.

so it could lead to performance losses.

and it is, in the end, an arbitary fixation for your system, where it can't optimize by itself (or with some defragmentation tool) to it's own very best sorting. instead, you force some structure onto it which it doesn't know much about.

just use a simple c:\ for everything, never have to think about "oh crap, my D:\ is full, now i just save to c:\" or similar. get some external backup as you need it anyways, making any reason for D:\ mood, espencially performance reasons.

and, if you want best game loading performance, and never care about defragmentation ever again, get an ssd

 

That all depends on what you consider a benefit of partitioning. If the benefit is to segregate data for whatever reason, then there is no alternative to partitioning.

Here's my $.02 on partitioning. I'm a firm believer in using at least two partitions - one for the system and one for data. I do this for two reasons: speed and security of my data. If I have to nuke my OS, my data is safe on the second partition. Speed is faster because of the following reasons. The first partition created is always on the outer/fastest edge of the drive. If the system resides there, it's going to be on the fastest part of the drive, since the read/write heads won't have to move to the farthest ends of the drive. That reduces seek time. The larger the drive, the less physical space is taken up by the first partition - if you have a 320GB drive in your laptop, and you create a 50GB system partition, the OS will exist on the outer 15% of the drive. That same system partition on a 1TB drive will be on the outer 5% of the drive, which reduces head travel even more. You can't argue with science on this one - keeping the OS on the first partition will increase speed by decreasing seek time. Plus, if you've ever been on a merry-go-round, you'll know that standing in the middle is a lot slower than being out on the edge!

There are a few times when a single large partition is better. Anyone doing a lot of video capturing, video editing, or multimedia streaming would not benefit from partitioning - one single partition that is defragged regularly will keep the files at the outer edge of the drive. In those cases, a second hard drive would be better, with one single partition.

But, as is true with nearly everything else in this world, partitioning is up to the end user. There is no right or wrong when it comes to partitioning. If it works for you, use it.

 

problem is, the system doesn't care about "system files" and "data files" and has to "toggle" between them all the time, resulting in quite a lot of cases with worst-case latencies. so your performance gains are mostly losses.

and for security, well, disks fail much more than an os fails without being able to repair it with some simple fixmbr. an dthen, you're ****ed anyways. an off-system backup is much better *hugs his winhomeserver*

 

daverpermen, who tells the system to place the system file next to the game file? Maybe between those two files is a large, useless movie? And if both files are placed close together, who tells that the game file from a further file is placed next to the other two?

A single partition with both data and OS is the worst solution.
The OS is not able to optimize the files as you say, especially not if you use the standard defragger.

And even if you could optimize it the way you described it, well, then it's fast with starting the game, but still slow with loading the levels or booting the OS at all. To keep all the system files at the fastest position is the easiest and best solution to keep the system performance up, the easiest way to do this is to partition the HDD.

 

Or you can have best of both options, get a good defragging tool such as diskeeper. You get better performance by optimizing and placing the frequently used files on the outer edge of the disk, minimize access time, as well as the ability to use the entire drive under 1 partition.

 

Actually, most of the time you aren't accessing data files. Most of the time the system is just chugging along. Keeping the OS in the fastest partition will result in performance gains. Of course there will be system delays when the read/write head has to bounce from the outer ring to an inner ring. As for OS failures, I didn't mention a failure - I said "If I have to nuke my OS".

The OP asked if there would be a performance hit if more than one partition is used. The answer is no.

 

Until its full of course, then he will need to be using W7 and have his SSD support TRIM, otherwise he will lose out quite a bit on the extravagant performance he paid for.

 

The 50% reduction number being bandied about is a bit of hyperbole. I'd like to see some benchmarks to back that up. Yes I saw the "up to" part. But that implies someone actually saw at least a 49% reduction. I don't buy that number at all.

Gary

 

Run hdtune and you'll see the throughput graph yourself.

Now, if you wanted to test it yourself, make 2 partitions.
make 2 10GB partitions on a hdd on the beginning and the end of the disk. Install 2 copies of vista on both partitions. Start a game or semidemanding program and you'll see the difference clearly.

To further emphisize the performance difference, put your data on a different partition and make your program use them. Your multitasking ability on your computer will decrease significantly.

 

Exactly where did I suggest there would be NO difference? What I am calling BS is the 50% number. You made the claim, back it up with some real benchmarks or it is a NOOMA.

BTW I do have my data on one partition and my apps & OS on another and your claim of "Your multitasking ability on your computer will decrease significantly" is also total BS. Hell, I have a database engine running in the background during development work. The engine (and all apps for that matter) run from C: the database and all documents including the code I am compiling are on D:. Any decrease in "multitasking performance" is totally imperceptible.

Got any REAL benchmarks to back that "decrease significantly" claim up either?

Again, take careful note, I never claimed there is NO decrease, only that it is so slight as to be totally insignificant in day to day use.

Gary

 

well, when ever you load or save a file, the system updates it's index files and similar => it accesses c: and d: at the same time, then. and there you have losses.

depending on your usecases, actual, feelable losses (i had such back in my xp days). not 50% losses, but the increased chance for highest disk latencies showing up are feelable. think about it, a 12ms latency (something ordinary for a disk) means 12ms to d: to the file, and 12ms BACK to c: to the index, resulting in 24ms. soon in the visible and notable delay range actually, where gamers detect "input lag".

with an intelligent defraggler, your data files are near the app and index files that get used often together, resulting in lowest possible latencies.

so it has losses, but about no gains. a normal, good defragmentation tool should handle the data better than a partition-split.

 

I was referring to extreme cases where it would lose up to 50% performance.
e.g. that's why i asked you to compare 2 vista installation installed on the beginning and the end of the hdd.



As you can see here, the inner edge is about 50% slower than the outter edge's transfer speed. 60MB/s vs 30MB/s.

The access time of the inner edge is more than 100% slower (10ms vs 25ms)than the outter edge.

In extreme cases where the hdd has to go back and forth between the slowest part of the hdd and the fastest part, the average throughtput should be less than 10-20MB/s. I can test this out by copying a file from another drive to the hdd on both the inner edge and the outter edge at the same time, e.g initiate 2 transfers at the same time. Depending if your hdd and your computer supports ncq, the transfer speed might be a lot lower or higher.

This is like using an hdd from 5 years ago.

I have tried installing windows vista on a PATA maxtor 9 hdd. Vista lags a lot on my quadcore computer with 4GB of ram when doing hdd intensive program such as video editing. This symptom does not appear when I use my faster SATA 500GB hitachi drive.