Partition Issue

[kayo]

Hi guys,

Your friendly forum monkey needs another helping hand, if you have the time.

Okay, here's the deal. I recently replaced an older dying HDD with a brand new, 80 GB one.

(side note, I did do an image of my old one, which is stored externally, but it doesn't apply just yet, as I'm not using using it yet)

Ok, so 80GB new drive, a XPSP2 disc ready to be installed.

Kayo starts his first solo clean install.

During the installation procedure, I selected partitioning the drives.

Now, I might have missed something, (probably) but cut a long story short, I selected 16GB for my C: Drive.

Now I have a fully functioning "clean" PC, running a fine edition of XPSP2, and MY Computer/C drive has 16 GB..

Everything fine and dandy, right?

Wrong!

I ONLY have the C drive, and nothing else. Where's my 64GB gone?

Further to this, my housemate has a Powerquest Partition Magic 8.0, which I have now installed, but I have NO clue how to use it, and he's away this week.

can my 63GB be retrieved, ideally without having to Re/install everything, but rather "as is" from the way my cpmputer is now?

I just want the 64GB on one (D:) drive.

Any input would be much appreciated!

EDIT> minor correction in the above and added snapshot.

Did a disk management check (Run: diskmgmt.msc) and this is the snapshot of it.

[endure]

If you right click on the 'Unallocated' section you'll be given the options to partition and format it.

[mocean]

I have the Dutch version of XP, but I'll try to translate on where to go, you can make anaother partition with XP tools:

Go to configuration panel > system management > computer magagement

Select 'disk management' on the left.

There you can create an new partition in the empty part of your harddisk

[cdnvic]

You likely need to format that partition. Can you see the drive in My Computer?

[kayo]

hi.

Vic,

no the 64 gB's are not showing on My Computer.

But as per the snapshot in my O.P it is.

And i just was playing around with it, and I just saw what endure says above and mocean indicates. I must have missed something in the installation.

So it seems simpler then I thought. And this scares me...

Is this safe to do. It won't affect my operating drive C?

edit: again added snap shot, indicating next step, potentially>

ie: thinking "extended partition"

I appreciate your replies guys, and await more

edit 2 actually not sure... i suppose I can just do a "primary partition" ... What's it all about alfie?

edit three.. tidy of this post and another question, which I thought i may as well add while I'm at it.

I haven't done anything yet, but I've been looking at the options, and so it will let me assign a drive letter.

If I assign, for example, D: my Cd/rom drive to another letter?

and if so, will it redirect all my previously installed programs to the correct drive letter.

Or, for example, my external HDD has been E> Will it reassign, so all my programs and music run correctly? Or must I do all this manually?

ALternatively, will it just be simpler to assign a different letter to my new partition. Drive M, for example.. something like that might avoid any issues?

[cdnvic]

It really doesn't matter. The only situation where you must create a primary partition is when you want to boot off it. If you just want a place to store data then either one will do.

I found a guide that will graphically show you the process, so it may give you a bit more confidence while doing it.

http://www.theeldergeek.com/hard_drives_07.htm

[kayo]

good link Vic. Partitioning for Klowns?

thank you.

I also just had a quick glance at his section on assigning drive letters, and he is logical and clear about it, however he only mentions assigning drive letter with a clean drive.

if you've still a moment, however, take a glance at my last edit in above post, as I have already got applications running, and music loaded, that are all drive/letter dependant already.

Ps: forgive my impatient enthusiasm... i love learning, though I fear computers. But also, and i find this quite amusing.. .I'm ready to click download, on a show called "Curb your Enthusiasm" but I have no space to put it because of this!

[cdnvic]

Ok, you have me there as I've not done that before. If it were me, I'd do it all manually just to play it safe.

[kayo]

alright. Cheers mate. I've bookmarked the link you gave me, and I've gone ahead with it/ Thanks to all of you for helping me jump the fear hurdle!

I've split it into two additional primary drives/partitions. One of 40GB and one of 20GB.

C: is my main drive

D: has previously been used for my cdplayer

E: has already been used for my external USB connected HDD and all my music and games is installed from and stored there and I'd rather not risk having to re/assign my entire library, nor r/install or move my games.

F: for my mates external hard drive

so I've assigned the next two in this case G and H for my two new partitions.

It is formatting as we speak, so I'll post again once it's done.

PS: While I'm here, any idea as to why a 80GB drive only shows n accumulated 74.53 GB ?

[cdnvic]

PS: While I'm here, any idea as to why a 80GB drive only shows n accumulated 74.53 GB ?

The rest is file tables, boot sector, and unusable space such as space remaining in clusters that are allocated to existing data.

[mac.wheeler]

I recommend you use partition magic to resize that 16Gb boot partition to the whole 80Gb. It's a small drive to start with, partitioning it into such a small partition for system use is going to cause you headaches further down the road.

[kayo]

Oh.. Okay. i want a refund from hitachi.. they owe me 5 GB.... WD owe me nine on a 120 GB that only has 111... bastards. :veryangry:

oh well....

Thanks again for the help Vic, and Endure and mocean too.

The 20GB is just finishing formatting now, and the 40 GB presumably will take twice as long.

BBC2 has just switched to ceefax, and my eyes are weary, so back tomorrow.

Oh! BTW, before I go, I hope this can be considered gift of sorts. It's available in pdf that I came across earlier, while attempting to gain some knowledge.

It ontains very basic stuff, but also quite complx stuff (for me, anyway), but also, he uses lots of links to interesting wee programs and websites.

G'nite!

A wee link of gratitude

[kayo]

hi mac. I must have been posting when you wrote the above.

May I ask why the recommendation/what problems would you anticipate?

[duratanium]

hi mac. I must have been posting when you wrote the above.

May I ask why the recommendation/what problems would you anticipate?

Leave the C partition at 16 GB it is well big enough to handle what you need.

I have 10 GBG for XP and have had it there for 2 years now and still have 2 GB space.

As long as you download any new programs to your other partition(s) there will be no problems at all. And fiddling about with partitions one they are in place generally causes more problems than it is worth.

Partition Magic and other such programs are ok if you need to split a drive once it is in use but the sensible way is to do as you have done.

With 80 GB I tend to have 4 or 5 partitions set up. That way if you get a virus/worm on one partition you can easily format it (if you have to) without losing the data on the other drives.

[Guest Reimar]

PS: While I'm here, any idea as to why a 80GB drive only shows n accumulated 74.53 GB ?

The rest is file tables, boot sector, and unusable space such as space remaining in clusters that are allocated to existing data.

It's depend on the bios and it's "translation"!

For those who interested to know more, can download a compressed file from http://pcinfoservice.com which containing 3 files about HDD translation and so. Username and password for the download is both: chkhdd

[mac.wheeler]

hi mac. I must have been posting when you wrote the above.

May I ask why the recommendation/what problems would you anticipate?

Hi Kayo.

The reason is pretty simple really, unless you intend installing applications to the second partition, there is a big chance that you will run out of room by the time you have XP and your software installed. Don't forget windows is going to steal a chunk of that drive anyway to use as a swap file (unless you tell it not too).

I can understand people wishing to create a primary partition that is used for the OS and applications, I don't agree with it but I can understand. If you must go down this route then make sure you leave enough space, 16Gb is not a lot at all. I just took a look at my own HD, if I subtract my documents and files then my OS and applications are taking up 27Gb, all I really have installed is MS office 2007, macromedia studio and photoshop CS2, plus a few smaller things like skype and stuff.

[kayo]

hi mac,

Thanks for the info.

AS i mentioned earlier, I'm up for learning, and all options are open, as far as I'm concerned.

The way it is at the moment. I'm leaving the 16GB C/ drive with basically only O/S, system drivers and other XP installed things etc etc.. on it.

Then I'm using a 20GB (primary) partition for (downloaded) applications. p/shop, macromedia, Speedfan, Mozilla things, openoffice, a bunch of other open source stuff and drivers/installation files for external appliances (so far less than 3GB in use, i think, with most standard things I'm likely to need already in)

leaving a 40GB (primary) partition for data, downloads, and non professional and/or IT related things (games, etc..)

(i use a 120 (111)GB external for backing up and music storage - this is WD USb drive, with flexible backing up software preinstalled on it)

Does that seem sensible?

Thank you again, for helping this klown.

Kayo

PS: numbers in image might not correspond with my above post. I'm still transferring previously installed things from C/ to the new drives

[aznyron]

Hi guys,

Your friendly forum monkey needs another helping hand, if you have the time.

Okay, here's the deal. I recently replaced an older dying HDD with a brand new, 80 GB one.

(side note, I did do an image of my old one, which is stored externally, but it doesn't apply just yet, as I'm not using using it yet)

Ok, so 80GB new drive, a XPSP2 disc ready to be installed.

Kayo starts his first solo clean install.

During the installation procedure, I selected partitioning the drives.

Now, I might have missed something, (probably) but cut a long story short, I selected 16GB for my C: Drive.

Now I have a fully functioning "clean" PC, running a fine edition of XPSP2, and MY Computer/C drive has 16 GB..

Everything fine and dandy, right?

Wrong!

I ONLY have the C drive, and nothing else. Where's my 64GB gone?

Further to this, my housemate has a Powerquest Partition Magic 8.0, which I have now installed, but I have NO clue how to use it, and he's away this week.

can my 63GB be retrieved, ideally without having to Re/install everything, but rather "as is" from the way my cpmputer is now?

I just want the 64GB on one (D:) drive.

Any input would be much appreciated!

EDIT> minor correction in the above and added snapshot.

Did a disk management check (Run: diskmgmt.msc) and this is the snapshot of it.

why bother to partition a 80 gig HDD get a second hdd and use it as the slave your much better off

[kayo]

small laptop mate.

[mac.wheeler]

I would just leave the whole drive as a single partition to be honest.

Let me try and explain with a little story.

Fred is a graphic artist, he goes for an interview, this is what happens.

The interviewer tells Fred it's a simple interview, they just want him to display his skill as an artist, he then hands Fred a piece of A4 paper and a pencil, he explains Fred will be given one chance, one piece of paper only. He tells Fred he must just go and ask his boss what he would like Fred to draw and leaves the room. He comes back a few minutes later.

Interviewer: Fred, we would like you to draw us a picture of the king of Thailand, it must be at least 10 inches tall.

Fred: I can't do that I am afraid.

Interviewer: Why? Is it beyond your skill?

Fred: No, it's because I tore the piece of paper into two pieces, I thought I could use one piece for the drawing and save the other piece in case you changed your mind and wanted me to draw something else.

You see my point? Why partition a drive now when you have no real idea of how it will be used in the long term? 80Gb is very small to start with, if you need to keep your files segregated then use folders.

[cdnvic]

You see my point? Why partition a drive now when you have no real idea of how it will be used in the long term? 80Gb is very small to start with, if you need to keep your files segregated then use folders.

You get better performance, less fragmentation, and drive maintenance is far easier. Plus, having your programs installed on a separate partition means reinstalling the OS doesn't mean you have to reinstall programs and reset their preferences and settings. You really shouldn't be packing your drive full to the max anyway so a few gigs of slack space is not such a big deal.

[mac.wheeler]

You see my point? Why partition a drive now when you have no real idea of how it will be used in the long term? 80Gb is very small to start with, if you need to keep your files segregated then use folders.

You get better performance, less fragmentation, and drive maintenance is far easier. Plus, having your programs installed on a separate partition means reinstalling the OS doesn't mean you have to reinstall programs and reset their preferences and settings. You really shouldn't be packing your drive full to the max anyway so a few gigs of slack space is not such a big deal.

Sorry to say man, and don't take this the wrong way, but you are incorrect on most counts.

Performance: Will be lower, you will be forcing your HDD to seek more often as you move or access data back and forth across partitions, the more seek time you have the less likely it is your drive is going to achieve it's maximum sustained transfer rate. This is the reason we defrag drives, to keep related data close together so that the drive spends less time seeking.

Fragmentation: Saving files to a smaller partition means there is less chance of the OS finding contiguous free space to save the whole file, thus causing the OS to save a fragmented file in any space it can find.

Maintenance: Small partitions will lead to more regular requirement for a defrag and slower defrags (the OS will have less space to use for temporary storage during the defrag process on a smaller partition). Additionally, creating a simple backup regime will be more difficult as you will have to remember yourself where you put everything valuable rather than just backing up your My Documents folder.

Applications: Re-installing the OS will change the registry significantly, whilst some applications will continue to function normally you will find that it is not a 100% result (far from it depending on how well your application suite is written). Also, certain apps make extensive use of certain user related system files, many of which are overwritten upon a fresh install. Additionally consider the fact that some (more and more) applications require a certain version of the .NET framework (upto 3.0 now I believe?) to work, which will not be present after a virgin XP install, this has potential problems with self repairing application installations (although they are few and far between still).

Filling the drive: So what do you do when you have a 5Gb file to save and you don't have 5Gb free on any of your partitions? Imagine you had to fill a container with liquid, you can tip in only 1 full glass of liquid at a time and you cannot use a part glass, which do you think will leave less wasted space? 1 large bottle or two small ones?

I'm being straight with you here man, my second from last job in the UK was managing a public facing PC helpdesk, some of the most time consuming customer visits my engineers made were to deal with illogical partition scenarios created by badly informed users. They were fairly frequent as well.

[cdnvic]

Well, for all that experience you still have it wrong. There are so many scenarios that make partitioning a plus. It's also something that is recommended pretty much industry wide, and many OEM computers ship with the HD already partitioned. Better security, better disk management, easier backups.

Whatever you did at the help desk doesn't equal 25yrs working with the machines, and the advice of manufacturers and the industry in general.

[mac.wheeler]

Well, for all that experience you still have it wrong. There are so many scenarios that make partitioning a plus. It's also something that is recommended pretty much industry wide, and many OEM computers ship with the HD already partitioned. Better security, better disk management, easier backups.

Whatever you did at the help desk doesn't equal 25yrs working with the machines, and the advice of manufacturers and the industry in general.

Actually, most large manufacturers charge extra if you want the disk partitioned, go check Dell's website for some proof of this.

I'm not sure where you get the 'and the advice of manufacturers and the industry in general' part from, it's been recognised as bad practice in the corporate world for a long time.

I wasn't taking a pop at you cdnvic, and you are quite right, I cannot claim to have 25 years experience working with the machines, I only run to 24 years experience in IT, it wasn't even known as IT back then.

The original poster was asking for opinions and help, I have given my opinion based upon past experience, my training and general best practice guidelines. I have given him many valid reasons backed up with factual information why a multi-partition disk is less than optimal for his use. It's up to him if you choose to take that advice or not.

You say I am wrong in my summation of how a partition will effect your disk performance and manageability, yet you state no facts to support this as I did when making my case, care to extrapolate 'You are wrong' into a coherent argument for your opinion?

[cdnvic]

There's no degrading in performance from the head jumping around because you have a disk that is much better organized and less fragmented. Your disk also performs better because you don't have a huge MFT for it to go through all the time.

You can encrypt partitions to keep information secure without slowing down performance on the rest of the disk.

You can share a partition with a network rather than having to set specific permissions on every folder.

You can reformat a partition without losing the contents of the rest of the disk.

Partitioning can limit damage caused by malware.

A disk that's easy to backup is more likely to be backed up. Make it complicated by having to flag individual folders and people give up on it.

The ease in organizing your files, and not having to monkey around needlessly with individual folders speeds up productivity.

I honestly haven't heard anyone in the know suggest not partitioning and instead deal with things on a folder by folder basis. It's not productive, it leads to a sloppier disk structure, and that's why I stand behind what I said, and that's why so many people do it. It doesn't make any sense the way you suggested.

[mac.wheeler]

There's no degrading in performance from the head jumping around because you have a disk that is much better organized and less fragmented. Your disk also performs better because you don't have a huge MFT for it to go through all the time.

Wrong, seek time is the largest contributing ovehead to HDD performance, why do you think we defrag drives?

You can encrypt partitions to keep information secure without slowing down performance on the rest of the disk.

What's wrong with encrypting at folder level? Same overhead in resources.

You can share a partition with a network rather than having to set specific permissions on every folder.

Share a parent folder and propegate the permisions downward (can be done at the time if setting up the share on the folder), no need to use a partition for this.

You can reformat a partition without losing the contents of the rest of the disk.

Why would you need to reformat it? Just delete everything on it, you can do the same with a folder.

Partitioning can limit damage caused by malware.

Malware prevention is a better option, stop the malware and you don't need to fix damage.

A disk that's easy to backup is more likely to be backed up. Make it complicated by having to flag individual folders and people give up on it.

Moot point, one folder is just as easy to backup as one partition.

The ease in organizing your files, and not having to monkey around needlessly with individual folders speeds up productivity.

So instead of remembering which folder you saved stuff in you need to remember which drive instead? Same same.

I honestly haven't heard anyone in the know suggest not partitioning and instead deal with things on a folder by folder basis. It's not productive, it leads to a sloppier disk structure, and that's why I stand behind what I said, and that's why so many people do it. It doesn't make any sense the way you suggested.

Why does it lead to sloppier disk structure? I know a lot of people still do it, but it's a throw back, it stems from the fact people have been doing it for too long because originaly they were forced to do it. They need to change their ways.

Here is a link to an old M$ article on the issue of disk partitioning http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/s..._partition.mspx the interesting thing to note here is that the guy has 2 HDD, the only real technical gain he achieves with his partition setup is moving the swap file away from the system drive (note I said drive and not partition, moving it to a partition on the same drive as the system partition would slow things down). He gives no other valid argument as to why a partition should be created to increase system performance or managebility.

My comments in blue

[cdnvic]

You completely miss the point on many issues but I'm not running a class here so good luck with your methods.

[mac.wheeler]

I'm not running a class here

Trust me, that is perfectly evident.

[Tywais]

Per OP request, issue resolved with thanks to all for the input and topic now closed.