Before Mulholland chips in...Not as old as me!! :)
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 6:10 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question I said "USED TO BE". I'm old. :) Regards, Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:02 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question Interesting, I see your point. Still though, the head would be jumping around a lot less. Wouldn't that contribute to some gains? ________________________________ From: Steve Moffat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of NTSysAdmin Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:58 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question >From a friend of mine at Fujitsu. There is no longer any point to short stroking a drive. Modern Drives have recording density zones that basically change with the distance from center. I am not sure there's been a non-zoned drive made in about a decade...:) S From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:44 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question Not funny at all, actually; it used to be quite common to avoid "full stroke" access. You never wanted a disk to use more than 20% of its stroke time in order to maximize performance. I saw this in mainframes, in large database rollouts, in large Exchange rollouts, etc. Regards, Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange From: Steve Moffat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of NTSysAdmin Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:40 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question Lol...that's too funny!!! From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:31 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question I say yes. What if you create a partition on the faster, outer edge of the drive platters, and put your most accessed system files there, or the whole OS? And less accessed files toward the inside of the drive. ________________________________ From: Kennedy, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:56 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question Performance no, perhaps even a small hit to performance. But you can keep the data on another partition to keep it from filling and crashing the whole OS if it were just all on one partition. From: Bill Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:57 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Basic Drive Partition Question We've been arguing here...and I can't find anything definitive on Google... Is there any gain in performance if you have a single (NTFS) drive in two partitions? One partition for the OS and the other for everything else? I say no but it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong. Bill Lambert Windows System Administrator Concuity A healthcare division of Trintech, Inc. Phone 847-941-9206 Fax 847-465-9147 [cid:image001.gif@01C93929.FD67CB10] NASDAQ: TTPA The information contained in this e-mail message, including any attached files, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive information for the recipient) you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message. Thank you. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
<<inline: image001.gif>>
