Partitioning multiple drives

[Dudster]

Hi all

I'm seriously thinkin of doing a format n reinstall (at least 3 days work ) so I can use my 7200rpm drive (IBM 75GXP 30GB) as primary instead of my 5400rpm (WD 10GB). After reading some threads, I'm convinced that it'll be worth it. Thing is I wanna partition both of the drives (3 or 4 on the IBM and 2 on the WD. currently single partition on the WD and 2 on the IBM which makes drives C, D and E). I don't remember any of the details but I remember reading another thread some time ago about how partitioning more than one drive could cause problems (something about both drives having a primary partition causing partitions to get muddled-up).

So er... I'm guessing I can actually partition both drives but... is it a problem if the partitions get mixed up drive letters (they'll all be different sizes so I will know which is which) or is there something different I should do other than just Fdisking them as I would a single drive (like I did with them both originally)?

If anyone wants to know what the partitions are for (and maybe some suggestions ):

IBM Primary:
2GB - OS (Win98SE) - Should this be smaller? bigger?
17GB - Games
7GB - Apps
4GB - Storage


WD secondary:
2GB - Swapfile (1GB minimum and no max)
1GB - Temp Internet files (a bit big I know but don't want a partition less than 1GB in size )
7GB - Storage (including duplicate of other storage partition)

Edit: changed partitions a bit.

[howste]

I've never had any problems with multiple partitions on multiple drives. As far as the drive letters getting mixed up, here's the way they will be assigned:

c: 1st hard drive's primary partition
d: 2nd hard drive's primary partition
e: 1st hard drive's 2nd partition
f: 1st hard drive's 3rd partition
g: 1st hard drive's 4th partition
h: 1st hard drive's 5th partition
i: 2nd hard drive's 2nd partition

[Dudster]

Oh right! Thanks

So the only way it's a problem is if someone doesn't want them getting mixed-up, good stuff.

Right then, I'm gonna start thinkin about actually doin this.

[howste]

The main complaint I've seen when people do this is if they later remove the 2nd hard drive. All of the drive letters will change (move up one letter) because d: will no longer be there.

<edit>
BTW I've heard that if you don't have a primary partition on the 2nd hard drive, then it won't take the d: drive letter. I've never tried to do it though.

[Dudster]

Ah, hadn't thought of that. Well, the only reason one'd get removed is if one died. If the IBM died (probably more likely as it's a 75GXP ), I'd just put a new one in and reinstall with the same amount of partitions. If the WD died, I'd not use it till I got a replacement so I could just carry on anyway. So all in all, that's not a problem for me. Thanks for pointing it out though

[Dudster]

Quote:

BTW I've heard that if you don't have a primary partition on the 2nd hard drive, then it won't take the d: drive letter

Yeah, I spose that would be better... but if one drive did die, I wouldn't really want to use it anyway till I got a new one (my PC is just for leisure so no real problems if I couldn't use it for a few days).

If someone posts the method before I dive in and do it, then I'll do it with no primary partition on the secondary drive. Otherwise, I'll just do it

[MegalosSkylaki]

A newbie question, perhaps, but why do you want to put the 'swapfile' on the primary partition of the secondary drive?
Would than in any way either speed up or slow down the works?

Are there technical reasons that mandate it on a primary partition?

I mean rather than leaving it on the primary physical drive in some secondary partition or even on the primary of the Primary physical drive?

The reason I ask is that I have an almost identical problem on one computer, ANd plan to install two drives on a modern machine i am home-buiding.

Thanx and it is the Swapfile I am primarily interested in.

Best Wishes on your endeavors!

Yes it seems like a lot of work--but one thing I learned is never try to predict how long something on computers will take. I tell people who read the boxes on SW/HW in stores or friends:Never go by their "optomistic" predictions and never make any changes before bedtime--you might be up 'til 4:00 AM.

PARTITIOND G

[Dudster]

The reason for putting the swapfile on another drive is that IDE drives can't multitask (AFAIK, SCSI drives can). So if an application was calling for some file or other (or writing to the drive) at the same time as reading/writing on the swapfile, it slows down. If the swapfile's on another drive, it can do both at the same time so even though my secondary drive is a bit slower than my primary drive, it'll still be faster overall (though of course it would be better if the secondary drive was as fast as the primary).

An important part of it though is that the drive with the swapfile on it isn't sharing the IDE cable that the primary drive is on. Then not only is it not worth doing, it'd be worse than just leaving it on the primary drive. Ideally, the drives shouldn't be sharing IDE cables whatsoever. To do that you need more than 2 IDE ports so either a motherboard with 4 IDE ports (like mine) or one with just 2 and a PCI card with another 2 ports on it. I only have 3 IDE devices at the mo (2 HD's and a CD drive) so I've got an IDE port to spare.

The reason for putting the swapfile on the first partition is that the start of the drive is the fastest part. This is because the start of the drive is physically on the outside of the drive which is spinning faster than the inside of the drive. That's why my games will be nearer the start of the drive than my applications as they have more of a performance need (in my case, games are what this whole thread is about ).

With only one hard drive, the best thing is to put the swapfile at the start of it. It's it a bit tricky to give it it's own partition though as Windows will want to install to the first partition. Oh yeah, the reason for giving the swapfile it's own partition is to stop it getting fragmented and mixed-up with other files which makes it less efficient and slower. I think the usual way is to make the swapfile a fixed size and then use a third-party utility to move it to the start of the drive. Then because the swapfile is a fixed size, it can't get fragmented.

You can get a better and more detailed explanation from here (click next at the bottom of the page to advance through the article).

Quote:

Best Wishes on your endeavors!

Thanks I'll be glad when it's done.

Quote:

Yes it seems like a lot of work--but one thing I learned is never try to predict how long something on computers will take. I tell people who read the boxes on SW/HW in stores or friends:Never go by their "optomistic" predictions and never make any changes before bedtime--you might be up 'til 4:00 AM.

[Dudster]

Well I worked out how to stop the first partition on the secondary drive becoming drive D. When I Fdisked the secondary drive (the WD), I only created an extended partition (no primary partition). I never thought it would be that easy

This installation of Windows has gone a bit pear-shaped though so I'm gonna have to format and start again from where I was Sunday evening

[Psycho_Logical]

Some things to consider:

You will gain absolutely nothing by putting the swapfile on a different physical drive unless that drive is also on a separate IDE controller. If both drives are on the same controller (as master and slave), performance will suffer because the drives cannot be accessed simultaneously.

If you do keep the swapfile on the same partition as Windows itself, you cannot move the swapfile's physical location (to the outermost tracks, for example) within that partition unless you use Norton SpeedDisk or maybe other utilities. Windows itself has no way to do this.

Since Win98 will install itself on the first primary partition that is set as active (normally C:) by default, you gain very little if anything by having a separate swapfile partition on that same physical drive, because any additional partitions on that drive will be even further away from the outside (fastest) tracks.

There may be other situations, like saving HD space by sharing a swapfile between Win9x and Win2K/XP, that enter into consideration, but you have to consider the trade-off -- space vs. speed/performance.