System Partition

[ChrisK2972]

I have a few questions:

I have been having a God awful time with my computer for the last month. The ole' NTLDR missing error among others. I think I have finally worked out the kinks and I am about ready to set everything back up. I want to make a system partition that will contain all my OS and related files. That way, if I crash again, I will only lose my OS. Is this logical? Anyway, is 10GB enough? Or, can I go smaller?

Right now, I have C=20G, D=36, E=20. I would just resize C and put the extra space to E. Another question: I have two 40G HDD's set up on a RAID 0 confiruration. The array is a little over 76GB large. Does it sound right that I would lose aprox. 2 GB per disc after partitioning and formatting? I know that 40GB disc does not necessarily mean 40GB. But, 2000MB seems excessive to me. Am I doing something wrong? BTW, the file allocation unit size is 4096 Bytes. Is this ok? Or, should I change it?

Last question: I recently formatted partition D and E by right clicking on the drive in My Computer and clicking on format. The only option is to do a quick format. Does this method leave anything behind or is there a better more efficient method?

one more: is there a place online where I can upload files to be stored in case I have another crash? I lost allot of data that I did not have backed up(my stupidity). Now, from memory, I have search the internet for all those little freeware proggies that i liked and enjoyed. It would be nice to have a place online to store that stuff so that I don't have a dozen disc to sort through if this happens again. I know there are places for pictures, but, i was wondering about files.

Thanks!

ChrisK

[meese]

1) Anyway, is 10GB enough? Or, can I go smaller?

I would not go below 10GB. Its better to have more space then not enough.

2) Another question: I have two 40G HDD's set up on a RAID 0 confiruration. The array is a little over 76GB large. Does it sound right that I would lose aprox. 2 GB per disc after partitioning and formatting?

I wouldn't sweat over the 2GB. I don't think you did anything wrong.

3) BTW, the file allocation unit size is 4096 Bytes. Is this ok? Or, should I change it?

4096 should be fine.

4) Does this method leave anything behind or is there a better more efficient method?

Quick format should be ok.

I only use 4-6GB for my OS. But, I don't play a lot of games, if you do, then think about 8-10GB.

Industry std. is 1000MB=1GB, we all know it's actually 1024MB=1GB, that's why you lose after you format.

An allocation unit of 4096 is just default. Depending on what your'e using the array for, you would have to do some benchmarking to see if you get any real improvemtn. The bigger the files you're handling, the bigger the allocation you want. You should be able to change your allocation units in your RAID setup menu. If you're fomatting FAT32, I don't think it will do anything but 4KB, NTFS should do all sorts of different sizes.

When you format, you write 0's over your old data, a "quick" format just rewrites the FAT (File Allocation Table)

[DoctorReno]

I can send you to some links from some extreme power users and they say that an 8 gig C: partition is larger than they will ever use and recommend that as the upper end for the primary partition. If they can't fill it I doubt you will.

[ChrisK2972]

Originally posted by EvilRick
I only use 4-6GB for my OS. But, I don't play a lot of games, if you do, then think about 8-10GB.

Industry std. is 1000MB=1GB, we all know it's actually 1024MB=1GB, that's why you lose after you format.

I think I will go with either 8-10. I do some gaming, but, not al whole lot. I just don't want to have a bunch of space just sitting there that could used for other things. I mean, you usually just keep your OS related files and drivers on this partition, right? Is there anything else that you put there besides those?

Originally posted by EvilRick
An allocation unit of 4096 is just default. Depending on what your'e using the array for, you would have to do some benchmarking to see if you get any real improvemtn. The bigger the files you're handling, the bigger the allocation you want. You should be able to change your allocation units in your RAID setup menu. If you're fomatting FAT32, I don't think it will do anything but 4KB, NTFS should do all sorts of different sizes.

Yeah, I saw that there were allot of options. I use a mixture of files, so, I would say that my average file size is medium. So, I might just go back and do a 1024 instead. I mean, no need to waste space. One question though: if you set this unit to its' smallest setting, wouldn't you save the most space regardless of the file size? Is there some kind of performance reason why it is not best to do this? Is it that the more units there is to read the more time it takes to do so? Is my thinking right here?

Originally posted by EvilRick
When you format, you write 0's over your old data, a "quick" format just rewrites the FAT (File Allocation Table)

I thought you only wrote zeros if you did a low level format. In your opinion, since I did not do that with these two partitions, will I have any problems related to any previous files that were on the partitions? I don't want anything hanging around from previous programs.

Thanks for the help, everyone! DoctorReno, I would like to see the links that you mentioned. It would be good reading at least.

Low-level formatting is a term that was used "way back when" with older drives. New drives today CANNOT be low-level formatted, it would render them useless.

Nowadays, people use the phrase low-level formatting when you write 1's and 0's to the drive.

A regualr format writes 0xF6 over all the data. I told you incorrectly about the 0's.

[DoctorReno]

I gotta disagree with you Evil... A format does NOT write zeros over everything. That is only done when you use a zero fill format utility. You are completely correct about the low level format being a misnomer and when people say low level they are referring to a zero fill.

More precisely a full format rewrites the FAT and then performs a verification, which is looking for and recording bad sectors, which takes time. However, nothing... not 0's.. nothing..... is written over the data. In fact a copy of your old FAT is created and hidden unless you use the unconditional switch. Using the DOS utility Unformat you can restore your drive to pre-format status in seconds after you have formatted. Note we are talking DOS based not NT.
A quick format just rewrites the FAT and does not do the verification hense the term Quick.

Chris, to read a bit about primary partition size go to Fred Langas "LangaList" and read the last few issues.

Actually, you CANNOT do a true low level format as it would destroy the drive. Utilities nowadays allow a type of non-factory LLF. For more read this.

But even in the "older" days, I personally think it was never necesssary to do this. It unnecessarily strains/stresses the drive for hours and doesn't achieve much.

An uncondiional full format (format /u) is enough.

[DoctorReno]

shahani,
If you go back and reread the posts no one says you CAN do a true low level format. That was something for ancient drives. I was making the point that many people including a couple of drive mfgs utilities, incorrectly refer to a zero fill as a low level format.

As far as a zero fill stressing a drive I would have to disagree, since when does writing to sectors stress a drive. In most circumstances a zero fill may be unnecessary but if there is any question of a boot sector virus or numerous other nasties that are often undetected by most anti virus utiities and even if detected often unremovable.... a zero fill is the best and only way to absolutely, unconditionally remove the critters.

Something I failed to mention in my previous post is that after a zero fill format then the drive must be Fdisked and formatted before it is usable because a zero filled drive is raw.

[ChrisK2972]

Originally posted by DoctorReno
Chris, to read a bit about primary partition size go to Fred Langas "LangaList" and read the last few issues.

Thanks all for you info and help. Doc, I appreciate the reference!

ChrisK