Guest T5 Posted August 18, 2007 Posted August 18, 2007 Hi! I am new here. This is my first post. I am having problem with my HD space. My HD is 320 GB Western Digital SATA-II. I have paritioned it using Windows XP Installation Setup. I have created 40 GB each drive. The problem is that last drive shows only 18 GB of Total Capacity instead of 40 GB. Where is the rest 22 GB?
Guest David Webb Posted August 18, 2007 Posted August 18, 2007 Re: Hard Disk Partition Problem There is no real loss involved, it's simply how the capacity is being measured, using either the binary system or the decimal system. The capacity of your drive, rated at 320 GB in decimal measure, will be shown as 298 GB in binary measure. Either way, it still contains approximately 320,000,000,000 bytes of storage space Read this FAQ for details: "Why is my drive displaying a smaller than expected capacity than the indicated size on the drive label?" http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=615&p_created=1034613413&p_sid=Q1rPf-Vh&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD04MTMmcF9wcm9kcz0mcF9jYXRzPSZwX3B2PSZwX2N2PSZwX3BhZ2U9MQ "T5" <T5@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:91C84E58-C296-4511-9A7F-DB00139833CD@microsoft.com... > Hi! > I am new here. This is my first post. I am having problem with my HD space. > My HD is 320 GB Western Digital SATA-II. I have paritioned it using Windows > XP Installation Setup. I have created 40 GB each drive. The problem is that > last drive shows only 18 GB of Total Capacity instead of 40 GB. Where is the > rest 22 GB? >
Guest Nepatsfan Posted August 18, 2007 Posted August 18, 2007 Re: Hard Disk Partition Problem In news:91C84E58-C296-4511-9A7F-DB00139833CD@microsoft.com, T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > Hi! > I am new here. This is my first post. I am having problem > with my HD space. > My HD is 320 GB Western Digital SATA-II. I have paritioned it > using Windows > XP Installation Setup. I have created 40 GB each drive. The > problem is that > last drive shows only 18 GB of Total Capacity instead of 40 > GB. Where is the > rest 22 GB? A HD labeled 320 GB by the manufacturer actually contains around 298 GB of hard drive space. Take a look at this article for more info. Why is my drive displaying a smaller than expected capacity than the indicated size on the drive label? http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=615&p_created=1034613413&p_sid=-5PFuDYh&p_lva=615&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD04MTUmcF9wcm9kcz0mcF9jYXRzPSZwX3B2PSZwX2N2PSZwX3BhZ2U9MQ**&p_li=&p_topview=1 Just out of curiosity, why did you create 8 partitions? Odds are you're going to be resizing some of those partitions in the future. Good luck Nepatsfan
Guest T5 Posted August 18, 2007 Posted August 18, 2007 Re: Hard Disk Partition Problem Hi! This means Every hard drive in the market don't have actual space which is written on them? I have used 8 partitions to categorize different data, i.e Music, Games, Softwares, Downloads etc on each different drive. "Nepatsfan" wrote: > In news:91C84E58-C296-4511-9A7F-DB00139833CD@microsoft.com, > T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > > Hi! > > I am new here. This is my first post. I am having problem > > with my HD space. > > My HD is 320 GB Western Digital SATA-II. I have paritioned it > > using Windows > > XP Installation Setup. I have created 40 GB each drive. The > > problem is that > > last drive shows only 18 GB of Total Capacity instead of 40 > > GB. Where is the > > rest 22 GB? > > A HD labeled 320 GB by the manufacturer actually contains > around 298 GB of hard drive space. Take a look at this article > for more info. > > Why is my drive displaying a smaller than expected capacity > than the indicated size on the drive label? > http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=615&p_created=1034613413&p_sid=-5PFuDYh&p_lva=615&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD04MTUmcF9wcm9kcz0mcF9jYXRzPSZwX3B2PSZwX2N2PSZwX3BhZ2U9MQ**&p_li=&p_topview=1 > > Just out of curiosity, why did you create 8 partitions? Odds > are you're going to be resizing some of those partitions in the > future. > > Good luck > > Nepatsfan > > > >
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted August 18, 2007 Posted August 18, 2007 Re: Hard Disk Partition Problem It means that hard drive manufacturers use a decimal method to count. 1000 bytes is a KB, 1000KB is a MB, 1000 MB is a GB and 1000GB is a TB. The amount of space written on the drive is correct for the way that space is calculated. Whereas, software counts them in another way, based upon the underlying binary system. 1024 byes is a KB, 1024 KB is a MB, etc. As David said, the actual number of bytes is the same. -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://www.grystmill.com "T5" <T5@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:765EB3C1-F142-40F5-B144-B3CE58BF2E65@microsoft.com... > Hi! > This means Every hard drive in the market don't have actual space which is > written on them? > I have used 8 partitions to categorize different data, i.e Music, Games, > Softwares, Downloads etc on each different drive. > > > "Nepatsfan" wrote: > >> In news:91C84E58-C296-4511-9A7F-DB00139833CD@microsoft.com, >> T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >> > Hi! >> > I am new here. This is my first post. I am having problem >> > with my HD space. >> > My HD is 320 GB Western Digital SATA-II. I have paritioned it >> > using Windows >> > XP Installation Setup. I have created 40 GB each drive. The >> > problem is that >> > last drive shows only 18 GB of Total Capacity instead of 40 >> > GB. Where is the >> > rest 22 GB? >> >> A HD labeled 320 GB by the manufacturer actually contains >> around 298 GB of hard drive space. Take a look at this article >> for more info. >> >> Why is my drive displaying a smaller than expected capacity >> than the indicated size on the drive label? >> http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=615&p_created=1034613413&p_sid=-5PFuDYh&p_lva=615&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD04MTUmcF9wcm9kcz0mcF9jYXRzPSZwX3B2PSZwX2N2PSZwX3BhZ2U9MQ**&p_li=&p_topview=1 >> >> Just out of curiosity, why did you create 8 partitions? Odds >> are you're going to be resizing some of those partitions in the >> future. >> >> Good luck >> >> Nepatsfan >> >> >> >>
Guest Ken Blake, MVP Posted August 18, 2007 Posted August 18, 2007 Re: Hard Disk Partition Problem On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:48:06 -0700, T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > I am new here. This is my first post. I am having problem with my HD space. > My HD is 320 GB Western Digital SATA-II. I have paritioned it using Windows > XP Installation Setup. I have created 40 GB each drive. The problem is that > last drive shows only 18 GB of Total Capacity instead of 40 GB. Where is the > rest 22 GB? There is no other 22GB. Actually you don't have a 320GB drive. You have a 298GB drive, like everyone else who has what's *called* a 320GB drive. All hard drive manufacturers define 1GB as 1,000,000,000 bytes, while the rest of the computer world, including Windows, defines it as 2 to the 30th power (1,073,741,824) bytes. So a 320 billion byte drive is actually a little under 298GB. Some people point out that the official international standard defines the "G" of GB as one billion, not 1,073,741,824. Correct though they are, using the binary value of GB is so well established in the computer world that I consider using the decimal value of a billion to be deceptive marketing. But let me also address another question. You are partitioning a 320GB drive into *eight* different partitions. May I ask why? It seems like enormous overkill to me, and I suspect that your decision to do that is based on misunderstandings of how things work. Please explain what you plan to use each of the eight partitions for. Almost everyone who is not booting multiple operating systems is best off with no more than two partitions--one for Windows and applications, the other for data. More than two is generally a needless complication, and makes things worse, not better. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Guest Nepatsfan Posted August 18, 2007 Posted August 18, 2007 Re: Hard Disk Partition Problem Answered inline. In news:765EB3C1-F142-40F5-B144-B3CE58BF2E65@microsoft.com, T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > Hi! > This means Every hard drive in the market don't have actual > space which is > written on them? That's right. On a side note, WD settled a class action lawsuit last year over this very issue. Western Digital settles hard-drive capacity lawsuit http://www.itnews.com.au/News/NewsStory.aspx?story=34245 > I have used 8 partitions to categorize different data, i.e > Music, Games, > Softwares, Downloads etc on each different drive. > You certainly are free to set up your hard drive as you see fit. That said, it's been my experience that two partition are more than enough. The first contains the OS and installed programs, the second contains data segregated into individual folders. You might want to add this web site to your Favorites. You can download a 30 day trial version of BootIT NG when you have to resize your partitions. It may not happen for some time, but sooner or later one of those partitions will be full. BootIT Next Generation http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/bootitng.html Good luck Nepatsfan > > "Nepatsfan" wrote: > >> In news:91C84E58-C296-4511-9A7F-DB00139833CD@microsoft.com, >> T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >>> Hi! >>> I am new here. This is my first post. I am having problem >>> with my HD space. >>> My HD is 320 GB Western Digital SATA-II. I have paritioned >>> it >>> using Windows >>> XP Installation Setup. I have created 40 GB each drive. The >>> problem is that >>> last drive shows only 18 GB of Total Capacity instead of 40 >>> GB. Where is the >>> rest 22 GB? >> >> A HD labeled 320 GB by the manufacturer actually contains >> around 298 GB of hard drive space. Take a look at this >> article >> for more info. >> >> Why is my drive displaying a smaller than expected capacity >> than the indicated size on the drive label? >> http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=615&p_created=1034613413&p_sid=-5PFuDYh&p_lva=615&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD04MTUmcF9wcm9kcz0mcF9jYXRzPSZwX3B2PSZwX2N2PSZwX3BhZ2U9MQ**&p_li=&p_topview=1 >> >> Just out of curiosity, why did you create 8 partitions? Odds >> are you're going to be resizing some of those partitions in >> the >> future. >> >> Good luck >> >> Nepatsfan
Guest T5 Posted August 18, 2007 Posted August 18, 2007 Re: Hard Disk Partition Problem I myself don't know that why i created 8 drives. Can you please point me in the right direction in this matter. Actually i had 4 drives in my old computer which have 40GB HD . i thought creating more drives is better for larger hard drives!. "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote: > On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:48:06 -0700, T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com> > wrote: > > > > I am new here. This is my first post. I am having problem with my HD space. > > My HD is 320 GB Western Digital SATA-II. I have paritioned it using Windows > > XP Installation Setup. I have created 40 GB each drive. The problem is that > > last drive shows only 18 GB of Total Capacity instead of 40 GB. Where is the > > rest 22 GB? > > > > There is no other 22GB. Actually you don't have a 320GB drive. You > have a 298GB drive, like everyone else who has what's *called* a 320GB > drive. > > All hard drive manufacturers define 1GB as 1,000,000,000 bytes, while > the rest of the computer world, including Windows, defines it as 2 to > the 30th power (1,073,741,824) bytes. So a 320 billion byte drive is > actually a little under 298GB. Some people point out that the official > international standard defines the "G" of GB as one billion, not > 1,073,741,824. Correct though they are, using the binary value of GB > is so well established in the computer world that I consider using the > decimal value of a billion to be deceptive marketing. > > But let me also address another question. You are partitioning a 320GB > drive into *eight* different partitions. May I ask why? It seems like > enormous overkill to me, and I suspect that your decision to do that > is based on misunderstandings of how things work. Please explain what > you plan to use each of the eight partitions for. > > Almost everyone who is not booting multiple operating systems is best > off with no more than two partitions--one for Windows and > applications, the other for data. More than two is generally a > needless complication, and makes things worse, not better. > > > -- > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User > Please Reply to the Newsgroup >
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted August 18, 2007 Posted August 18, 2007 Re: Hard Disk Partition Problem Myself, I usually have a minimum of four partitions. System, TEMP, Data and Storage (for things like downloaded installers, archives in ZIP format... Things that I want to keep but seldom access.) When I was the graphic artist for our business, I had a couple of additional partitions just for that, one being a working partition and the other being for libraries of images, fonts, etc. The reason for keeping Data (user-created files) separate is to make it easier to reconstruct the system if necessary, without risking loss of personal data. While the reason for a separate partition for TEMP is to keep the most volatile files out of the system, that is more an old habit from Win9x days than one that's seriously useful for WinXP. Otherwise, the primary reason for separate partitions is simply comply with my sense of structure. Makes it's easy to, say, transfer all my business files, or my stash of installers, to another machine. I depend on BootIt NG to allow me to resize and reorganize my partitions at will. -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://www.grystmill.com "T5" <T5@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:A1CF3BA2-3E08-420B-8494-5BBDB1AB7FB0@microsoft.com... >I myself don't know that why i created 8 drives. Can you please point me in > the right direction in this matter. Actually i had 4 drives in my old > computer which have 40GB HD . i thought creating more drives is better for > larger hard drives!. > > "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote: > >> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:48:06 -0700, T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> > I am new here. This is my first post. I am having problem with my HD >> > space. >> > My HD is 320 GB Western Digital SATA-II. I have paritioned it using >> > Windows >> > XP Installation Setup. I have created 40 GB each drive. The problem is >> > that >> > last drive shows only 18 GB of Total Capacity instead of 40 GB. Where >> > is the >> > rest 22 GB? >> >> >> >> There is no other 22GB. Actually you don't have a 320GB drive. You >> have a 298GB drive, like everyone else who has what's *called* a 320GB >> drive. >> >> All hard drive manufacturers define 1GB as 1,000,000,000 bytes, while >> the rest of the computer world, including Windows, defines it as 2 to >> the 30th power (1,073,741,824) bytes. So a 320 billion byte drive is >> actually a little under 298GB. Some people point out that the official >> international standard defines the "G" of GB as one billion, not >> 1,073,741,824. Correct though they are, using the binary value of GB >> is so well established in the computer world that I consider using the >> decimal value of a billion to be deceptive marketing. >> >> But let me also address another question. You are partitioning a 320GB >> drive into *eight* different partitions. May I ask why? It seems like >> enormous overkill to me, and I suspect that your decision to do that >> is based on misunderstandings of how things work. Please explain what >> you plan to use each of the eight partitions for. >> >> Almost everyone who is not booting multiple operating systems is best >> off with no more than two partitions--one for Windows and >> applications, the other for data. More than two is generally a >> needless complication, and makes things worse, not better. >> >> >> -- >> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User >> Please Reply to the Newsgroup >>
Guest Gerry Posted August 18, 2007 Posted August 18, 2007 Re: Hard Disk Partition Problem There are two schools of thought on partitioning drives. However, if you partition drives it is best to have a third party partitioning tool as from time to time you usually need to resize partitions. Like Gary I have and use BootIt NG. You find Ken in the opposite camp as he will no doubt tell you shortly. -- Hope this helps. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T5 wrote: > I myself don't know that why i created 8 drives. Can you please point > me in the right direction in this matter. Actually i had 4 drives in > my old computer which have 40GB HD . i thought creating more drives > is better for larger hard drives!. > > "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote: > >> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:48:06 -0700, T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com> >> wrote: >> >> >>> I am new here. This is my first post. I am having problem with my >>> HD space. My HD is 320 GB Western Digital SATA-II. I have >>> paritioned it using Windows XP Installation Setup. I have created >>> 40 GB each drive. The problem is that last drive shows only 18 GB >>> of Total Capacity instead of 40 GB. Where is the rest 22 GB? >> >> >> >> There is no other 22GB. Actually you don't have a 320GB drive. You >> have a 298GB drive, like everyone else who has what's *called* a >> 320GB drive. >> >> All hard drive manufacturers define 1GB as 1,000,000,000 bytes, while >> the rest of the computer world, including Windows, defines it as 2 to >> the 30th power (1,073,741,824) bytes. So a 320 billion byte drive is >> actually a little under 298GB. Some people point out that the >> official international standard defines the "G" of GB as one >> billion, not 1,073,741,824. Correct though they are, using the >> binary value of GB is so well established in the computer world that >> I consider using the decimal value of a billion to be deceptive >> marketing. >> >> But let me also address another question. You are partitioning a >> 320GB drive into *eight* different partitions. May I ask why? It >> seems like enormous overkill to me, and I suspect that your decision >> to do that is based on misunderstandings of how things work. Please >> explain what you plan to use each of the eight partitions for. >> >> Almost everyone who is not booting multiple operating systems is best >> off with no more than two partitions--one for Windows and >> applications, the other for data. More than two is generally a >> needless complication, and makes things worse, not better. >> >> >> -- >> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User >> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Guest Ken Blake, MVP Posted August 18, 2007 Posted August 18, 2007 Re: Hard Disk Partition Problem On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:32:01 -0700, T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > I myself don't know that why i created 8 drives. Can you please point me in > the right direction in this matter. Actually i had 4 drives in my old > computer which have 40GB HD . i thought creating more drives is better for > larger hard drives!. No, it's certainly not automatically "better." In general, partitions are an organizational structure and it's up to you as to how you want to organize your drive. We don't all *have to* do it the same way. But you certainly shouldn't create some number of drives haphazardly. How many to have should be part of a rational plan, and that plan should include knowing what you plan to put on each partition, and making sure that there's a sound technical basis for each separation. Just partitioning into x drives and randomly putting files on whatever drive you think of makes no sense. Here are some general thoughts on how to partition: I think many people over-partition, but that doesn't mean it's always bad to have more than one partition. My view is that most people's partitioning scheme should be based on their backup scheme. If, for example, you backup by creating a clone or image of the entire drive, then a single partition might be best. If, on the other hand, you backup only your data, then the backup process is facilitated by having all data in a separate partition. Except for those running multiple operating systems, there is seldom any benefit to having more than two partitions. Note the word "seldom" rather than "never." I'm sure there are many exceptions. Some people make a separate partition for installed programs, because they think that separating programs from Windows will let them reinstall Windows and keep their installed programs. That's false, since all installed programs (except for an occasional trivial one) have pointers to them within Windows, in the registry and elsewhere. So if Windows goes, the pointers go with it. Since programs have to be reinstalled if Windows does, this rationale for a separate partition for programs doesn't work. Some people erroneously think that having the page file on a separate partition will improve performance. That of course is also false; it hurts performance, because it increases head movement to get back and forth from the page file to the other frequently-used data on the drive. Some people make a separate partition to store backups of their other partition(s). People who rely on such a "backup" are just kidding themselves. It's only very slightly better than no backup at all, because it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original and backup to many of the most common dangers: head crashes and other kinds of drive failure, severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks, even theft of the computer. In my view, secure backup needs to be on removable media, and not kept in the computer. Separating different kinds of files on partitions is a organizational technique, but so is separating different kinds of files in folders. The difference is that partitions are static and fixed in size (their size can only be changed with special third-party software), while folders are dynamic, changing size automatically as necessary to meet your changing needs. That generally makes folders a much better way to organize, in my view. What frequently happens when people organize with partitions instead of folders is that they miscalculate how much room they need on each such partition, and then when they run out of room on the partition where a file logically belongs, while still having lots of space left on the other, they simply store the file in the "wrong" partition. Paradoxically, therefore, that kind of partition structure results in *less* organization rather than more. > "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote: > > > On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:48:06 -0700, T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > I am new here. This is my first post. I am having problem with my HD space. > > > My HD is 320 GB Western Digital SATA-II. I have paritioned it using Windows > > > XP Installation Setup. I have created 40 GB each drive. The problem is that > > > last drive shows only 18 GB of Total Capacity instead of 40 GB. Where is the > > > rest 22 GB? > > > > > > > > There is no other 22GB. Actually you don't have a 320GB drive. You > > have a 298GB drive, like everyone else who has what's *called* a 320GB > > drive. > > > > All hard drive manufacturers define 1GB as 1,000,000,000 bytes, while > > the rest of the computer world, including Windows, defines it as 2 to > > the 30th power (1,073,741,824) bytes. So a 320 billion byte drive is > > actually a little under 298GB. Some people point out that the official > > international standard defines the "G" of GB as one billion, not > > 1,073,741,824. Correct though they are, using the binary value of GB > > is so well established in the computer world that I consider using the > > decimal value of a billion to be deceptive marketing. > > > > But let me also address another question. You are partitioning a 320GB > > drive into *eight* different partitions. May I ask why? It seems like > > enormous overkill to me, and I suspect that your decision to do that > > is based on misunderstandings of how things work. Please explain what > > you plan to use each of the eight partitions for. > > > > Almost everyone who is not booting multiple operating systems is best > > off with no more than two partitions--one for Windows and > > applications, the other for data. More than two is generally a > > needless complication, and makes things worse, not better. > > > > > > -- > > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User > > Please Reply to the Newsgroup > > -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Guest Ken Blake, MVP Posted August 18, 2007 Posted August 18, 2007 Re: Hard Disk Partition Problem On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 23:19:44 +0100, "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote: > There are two schools of thought on partitioning drives. However, if you > partition drives it is best to have a third party partitioning tool as > from time to time you usually need to resize partitions. Like Gary I > have and use BootIt NG. You find Ken in the opposite camp as he will no > doubt tell you shortly. LOL! Yes, I'm in the opposite camp. I believe that if you plan carefully up front, there should be no need to repartition. In fact I believe that the need to repartition usually comes about as a result of overpartitioning in the first place. I've never used BootItNG, since I've never needed to repartition, and thus never needed to use any third-party partitioning tool. However, I've heard enough good things about it that if I were looking for such a tool, that's the one I'd try first. > T5 wrote: > > I myself don't know that why i created 8 drives. Can you please point > > me in the right direction in this matter. Actually i had 4 drives in > > my old computer which have 40GB HD . i thought creating more drives > > is better for larger hard drives!. > > > > "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:48:06 -0700, T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >>> I am new here. This is my first post. I am having problem with my > >>> HD space. My HD is 320 GB Western Digital SATA-II. I have > >>> paritioned it using Windows XP Installation Setup. I have created > >>> 40 GB each drive. The problem is that last drive shows only 18 GB > >>> of Total Capacity instead of 40 GB. Where is the rest 22 GB? > >> > >> > >> > >> There is no other 22GB. Actually you don't have a 320GB drive. You > >> have a 298GB drive, like everyone else who has what's *called* a > >> 320GB drive. > >> > >> All hard drive manufacturers define 1GB as 1,000,000,000 bytes, while > >> the rest of the computer world, including Windows, defines it as 2 to > >> the 30th power (1,073,741,824) bytes. So a 320 billion byte drive is > >> actually a little under 298GB. Some people point out that the > >> official international standard defines the "G" of GB as one > >> billion, not 1,073,741,824. Correct though they are, using the > >> binary value of GB is so well established in the computer world that > >> I consider using the decimal value of a billion to be deceptive > >> marketing. > >> > >> But let me also address another question. You are partitioning a > >> 320GB drive into *eight* different partitions. May I ask why? It > >> seems like enormous overkill to me, and I suspect that your decision > >> to do that is based on misunderstandings of how things work. Please > >> explain what you plan to use each of the eight partitions for. > >> > >> Almost everyone who is not booting multiple operating systems is best > >> off with no more than two partitions--one for Windows and > >> applications, the other for data. More than two is generally a > >> needless complication, and makes things worse, not better. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User > >> Please Reply to the Newsgroup > -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Guest Gerry Posted August 19, 2007 Posted August 19, 2007 Re: Hard Disk Partition Problem Ken The counter argument as you know on separate pagefiles. How to configure paging files for optimization and recovery in Windows XP http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314482/en-us -- Regards. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ken Blake, MVP wrote: > On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:32:01 -0700, T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com> > wrote: > >> I myself don't know that why i created 8 drives. Can you please >> point me in the right direction in this matter. Actually i had 4 >> drives in my old computer which have 40GB HD . i thought creating >> more drives is better for larger hard drives!. > > > No, it's certainly not automatically "better." In general, partitions > are an organizational structure and it's up to you as to how you want > to organize your drive. We don't all *have to* do it the same way. > > But you certainly shouldn't create some number of drives haphazardly. > How many to have should be part of a rational plan, and that plan > should include knowing what you plan to put on each partition, and > making sure that there's a sound technical basis for each separation. > Just partitioning into x drives and randomly putting files on whatever > drive you think of makes no sense. > > Here are some general thoughts on how to partition: > > I think many people over-partition, but that doesn't mean it's always > bad to have more than one partition. My view is that most people's > partitioning scheme should be based on their backup scheme. If, for > example, you backup by creating a clone or image of the entire drive, > then a single partition might be best. If, on the other hand, you > backup only your data, then the backup process is facilitated by > having all data in a separate partition. > > Except for those running multiple operating systems, there is seldom > any benefit to having more than two partitions. Note the word "seldom" > rather than "never." I'm sure there are many exceptions. > > Some people make a separate partition for installed programs, because > they think that separating programs from Windows will let them > reinstall Windows and keep their installed programs. That's false, > since all installed programs (except for an occasional trivial one) > have pointers to them within Windows, in the registry and elsewhere. > So if Windows goes, the pointers go with it. Since programs have to be > reinstalled if Windows does, this rationale for a separate partition > for programs doesn't work. > > Some people erroneously think that having the page file on a separate > partition will improve performance. That of course is also false; it > hurts performance, because it increases head movement to get back and > forth from the page file to the other frequently-used data on the > drive. > > Some people make a separate partition to store backups of their other > partition(s). People who rely on such a "backup" are just kidding > themselves. It's only very slightly better than no backup at all, > because it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original > and backup to many of the most common dangers: head crashes and other > kinds of drive failure, severe power glitches, nearby lightning > strikes, virus attacks, even theft of the computer. In my view, > secure backup needs to be on removable media, and not kept in the > computer. > > Separating different kinds of files on partitions is a organizational > technique, but so is separating different kinds of files in folders. > The difference is that partitions are static and fixed in size (their > size can only be changed with special third-party software), while > folders are dynamic, changing size automatically as necessary to meet > your changing needs. That generally makes folders a much better way to > organize, in my view. > > What frequently happens when people organize with partitions instead > of folders is that they miscalculate how much room they need on each > such partition, and then when they run out of room on the partition > where a file logically belongs, while still having lots of space left > on the other, they simply store the file in the "wrong" partition. > Paradoxically, therefore, that kind of partition structure results in > *less* organization rather than more. > > > > > >> "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:48:06 -0700, T5 >>> <T5@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I am new here. This is my first post. I am having problem with my >>>> HD space. My HD is 320 GB Western Digital SATA-II. I have >>>> paritioned it using Windows XP Installation Setup. I have created >>>> 40 GB each drive. The problem is that last drive shows only 18 GB >>>> of Total Capacity instead of 40 GB. Where is the rest 22 GB? >>> >>> >>> >>> There is no other 22GB. Actually you don't have a 320GB drive. You >>> have a 298GB drive, like everyone else who has what's *called* a >>> 320GB drive. >>> >>> All hard drive manufacturers define 1GB as 1,000,000,000 bytes, >>> while the rest of the computer world, including Windows, defines it >>> as 2 to the 30th power (1,073,741,824) bytes. So a 320 billion byte >>> drive is actually a little under 298GB. Some people point out that >>> the official international standard defines the "G" of GB as one >>> billion, not 1,073,741,824. Correct though they are, using the >>> binary value of GB is so well established in the computer world >>> that I consider using the decimal value of a billion to be >>> deceptive marketing. >>> >>> But let me also address another question. You are partitioning a >>> 320GB drive into *eight* different partitions. May I ask why? It >>> seems like enormous overkill to me, and I suspect that your >>> decision to do that is based on misunderstandings of how things >>> work. Please explain what you plan to use each of the eight >>> partitions for. >>> >>> Almost everyone who is not booting multiple operating systems is >>> best off with no more than two partitions--one for Windows and >>> applications, the other for data. More than two is generally a >>> needless complication, and makes things worse, not better. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User >>> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Guest Lil' Dave Posted August 19, 2007 Posted August 19, 2007 Re: Hard Disk Partition Problem "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message news:otrec35p3pfeq3k27kpa2vtude6o6rhi6o@4ax.com... > On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:32:01 -0700, T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com> > wrote: > >> I myself don't know that why i created 8 drives. Can you please point me >> in >> the right direction in this matter. Actually i had 4 drives in my old >> computer which have 40GB HD . i thought creating more drives is better >> for >> larger hard drives!. > > > No, it's certainly not automatically "better." In general, partitions > are an organizational structure and it's up to you as to how you want > to organize your drive. We don't all *have to* do it the same way. > > But you certainly shouldn't create some number of drives haphazardly. > How many to have should be part of a rational plan, and that plan > should include knowing what you plan to put on each partition, and > making sure that there's a sound technical basis for each separation. > Just partitioning into x drives and randomly putting files on whatever > drive you think of makes no sense. > > Here are some general thoughts on how to partition: > > I think many people over-partition, but that doesn't mean it's always > bad to have more than one partition. My view is that most people's > partitioning scheme should be based on their backup scheme. If, for > example, you backup by creating a clone or image of the entire drive, > then a single partition might be best. If, on the other hand, you > backup only your data, then the backup process is facilitated by > having all data in a separate partition. > If the windows partition goes south, and personal data is on that partition, so goes the personal data. A separate partition for personal data is always a sound idea. That personal data partition should be backed up as well. > Except for those running multiple operating systems, there is seldom > any benefit to having more than two partitions. Note the word "seldom" > rather than "never." I'm sure there are many exceptions. > > Some people make a separate partition for installed programs, because > they think that separating programs from Windows will let them > reinstall Windows and keep their installed programs. That's false, > since all installed programs (except for an occasional trivial one) > have pointers to them within Windows, in the registry and elsewhere. > So if Windows goes, the pointers go with it. Since programs have to be > reinstalled if Windows does, this rationale for a separate partition > for programs doesn't work. > Couldn't agree more. > Some people erroneously think that having the page file on a separate > partition will improve performance. That of course is also false; it > hurts performance, because it increases head movement to get back and > forth from the page file to the other frequently-used data on the > drive. > One exception I've found. On another physical hard drive connected to another bus system that isn't so picky about interruptions. Front load that swapfile partition to that hard drive, and should be at least as fast as the hard drive where windows is loaded. Example - window partition on ide, swapfile on scsi. Other methods are a waste of time, perhaps in the end, slow the system down. > Some people make a separate partition to store backups of their other > partition(s). People who rely on such a "backup" are just kidding > themselves. It's only very slightly better than no backup at all, > because it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original > and backup to many of the most common dangers: head crashes and other > kinds of drive failure, severe power glitches, nearby lightning > strikes, virus attacks, even theft of the computer. In my view, > secure backup needs to be on removable media, and not kept in the > computer. > An onboard partition for storing partition images is for quick recovery. Much like factory hidden partition for recovery. And, another location for sourcing images. External location of partition images is always needed in event of hard drive failure. Similar with cloning an entire hard drive. An entire clone of a normally used hard drive to an onboard one is okay if there is no power glitch that kills both, and, the cloned partitions are all hidden. A clone, normally kept out of the PC, is the best. One can do both if one can afford the extra hard drive, and the extra time for cloning. > Separating different kinds of files on partitions is a organizational > technique, but so is separating different kinds of files in folders. > The difference is that partitions are static and fixed in size (their > size can only be changed with special third-party software), while > folders are dynamic, changing size automatically as necessary to meet > your changing needs. That generally makes folders a much better way to > organize, in my view. > Folders are part of one partition. If the partition goes south, so do the folders. If kept on the OS partition, and NTFS, the average user could have a problem for recovery depending on what went wrong. Usable file space should not be a problem for most people. Underestimating that use is common though. Whether its 3rd party software, pictures, videos, and so forth; its common. Overestimating needed available file space is not that common. Not anticipating enough usable file space while using a PC in a day to day basis is usually seen, but ignored until its a problem. > What frequently happens when people organize with partitions instead > of folders is that they miscalculate how much room they need on each > such partition, and then when they run out of room on the partition > where a file logically belongs, while still having lots of space left > on the other, they simply store the file in the "wrong" partition. > Paradoxically, therefore, that kind of partition structure results in > *less* organization rather than more. > You're right. This takes experience to get it right with partitions for an intended purpose. So does selecting the hard drive with amount of capacity needed to accomodate that. Even if its just one partition with many personal folders and subfolders. I can't see using seven 40GB partitions and one smaller partition to any substantial separate use without overflow on perhaps one or two, or, only see superfluous use of a couple at the very least. As far as the way I use a PC anyway. And well beyond overall hard drive capacity that I need. A person that makes such a mistake should stick with one partition, and an offboard clone. Or, make a plan for more genuine use of a more limited number of partitions and their sizes. Have 3rd party partitioning software (bootable) available if needed for resizing. Not recommended if one can't plan it to any degree of accuracy as partition resizing should be kept to a minimum. Dave > > > > >> "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote: >> >> > On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:48:06 -0700, T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > >> > > I am new here. This is my first post. I am having problem with my HD >> > > space. >> > > My HD is 320 GB Western Digital SATA-II. I have paritioned it using >> > > Windows >> > > XP Installation Setup. I have created 40 GB each drive. The problem >> > > is that >> > > last drive shows only 18 GB of Total Capacity instead of 40 GB. Where >> > > is the >> > > rest 22 GB? >> > >> > >> > >> > There is no other 22GB. Actually you don't have a 320GB drive. You >> > have a 298GB drive, like everyone else who has what's *called* a 320GB >> > drive. >> > >> > All hard drive manufacturers define 1GB as 1,000,000,000 bytes, while >> > the rest of the computer world, including Windows, defines it as 2 to >> > the 30th power (1,073,741,824) bytes. So a 320 billion byte drive is >> > actually a little under 298GB. Some people point out that the official >> > international standard defines the "G" of GB as one billion, not >> > 1,073,741,824. Correct though they are, using the binary value of GB >> > is so well established in the computer world that I consider using the >> > decimal value of a billion to be deceptive marketing. >> > >> > But let me also address another question. You are partitioning a 320GB >> > drive into *eight* different partitions. May I ask why? It seems like >> > enormous overkill to me, and I suspect that your decision to do that >> > is based on misunderstandings of how things work. Please explain what >> > you plan to use each of the eight partitions for. >> > >> > Almost everyone who is not booting multiple operating systems is best >> > off with no more than two partitions--one for Windows and >> > applications, the other for data. More than two is generally a >> > needless complication, and makes things worse, not better. >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User >> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup >> > > > -- > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Guest Patrick Keenan Posted August 19, 2007 Posted August 19, 2007 Re: Hard Disk Partition Problem "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message news:%23CKJMum4HHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message > news:otrec35p3pfeq3k27kpa2vtude6o6rhi6o@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:32:01 -0700, T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I myself don't know that why i created 8 drives. Can you please point me >>> in >>> the right direction in this matter. Actually i had 4 drives in my old >>> computer which have 40GB HD . i thought creating more drives is better >>> for >>> larger hard drives!. >> >> >> No, it's certainly not automatically "better." In general, partitions >> are an organizational structure and it's up to you as to how you want >> to organize your drive. We don't all *have to* do it the same way. >> >> But you certainly shouldn't create some number of drives haphazardly. >> How many to have should be part of a rational plan, and that plan >> should include knowing what you plan to put on each partition, and >> making sure that there's a sound technical basis for each separation. >> Just partitioning into x drives and randomly putting files on whatever >> drive you think of makes no sense. >> >> Here are some general thoughts on how to partition: >> >> I think many people over-partition, but that doesn't mean it's always >> bad to have more than one partition. My view is that most people's >> partitioning scheme should be based on their backup scheme. If, for >> example, you backup by creating a clone or image of the entire drive, >> then a single partition might be best. If, on the other hand, you >> backup only your data, then the backup process is facilitated by >> having all data in a separate partition. >> > > If the windows partition goes south, and personal data is on that > partition, so goes the personal data. A separate partition for personal > data is always a sound idea. That personal data partition should be > backed up as well. I'll have to comment here. In the majority of failures I've been called on in the last few years, partitioning was not a factor as the drive itself failed, usually electrically. All partitions on those drives were equally inaccessible. Any further access to the data required engaging the services of a data recovery specialist with a clean room and the gear to disassemble the drive and attach the platters. The only way to work around this is to increase the number of points of failure - use more physical disks, including disks that aren't physically attached to that system. And, back up to more than one removable disk. I have found this kind of failure to be common enough to concude that, in terms of system reliablilty, partitioning one drive may only provide a false sense of security. HTH -pk <snippage>
Guest Lil' Dave Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 Re: Hard Disk Partition Problem "Patrick Keenan" <test@dev.null> wrote in message news:u8yRW3n4HHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message > news:%23CKJMum4HHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message >> news:otrec35p3pfeq3k27kpa2vtude6o6rhi6o@4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:32:01 -0700, T5 <T5@discussions.microsoft.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I myself don't know that why i created 8 drives. Can you please point >>>> me in >>>> the right direction in this matter. Actually i had 4 drives in my old >>>> computer which have 40GB HD . i thought creating more drives is better >>>> for >>>> larger hard drives!. >>> >>> >>> No, it's certainly not automatically "better." In general, partitions >>> are an organizational structure and it's up to you as to how you want >>> to organize your drive. We don't all *have to* do it the same way. >>> >>> But you certainly shouldn't create some number of drives haphazardly. >>> How many to have should be part of a rational plan, and that plan >>> should include knowing what you plan to put on each partition, and >>> making sure that there's a sound technical basis for each separation. >>> Just partitioning into x drives and randomly putting files on whatever >>> drive you think of makes no sense. >>> >>> Here are some general thoughts on how to partition: >>> >>> I think many people over-partition, but that doesn't mean it's always >>> bad to have more than one partition. My view is that most people's >>> partitioning scheme should be based on their backup scheme. If, for >>> example, you backup by creating a clone or image of the entire drive, >>> then a single partition might be best. If, on the other hand, you >>> backup only your data, then the backup process is facilitated by >>> having all data in a separate partition. >>> >> >> If the windows partition goes south, and personal data is on that >> partition, so goes the personal data. A separate partition for personal >> data is always a sound idea. That personal data partition should be >> backed up as well. > > > I'll have to comment here. In the majority of failures I've been called on > in the last few years, partitioning was not a factor as the drive itself > failed, usually electrically. > > All partitions on those drives were equally inaccessible. Any further > access to the data required engaging the services of a data recovery > specialist with a clean room and the gear to disassemble the drive and > attach the platters. > > The only way to work around this is to increase the number of points of > failure - use more physical disks, including disks that aren't physically > attached to that system. And, back up to more than one removable disk. > > I have found this kind of failure to be common enough to concude that, in > terms of system reliablilty, partitioning one drive may only provide a > false sense of security. > > HTH > -pk > > <snippage> > Hi Mr. snippage, I also mentioned an offboard image or clone is still a requirement. Onboard is for quick recovery. The former should be done and available first. If affordable, the latter for quick recovery. Thanks for snipping that part out. Dave
Guest Ken Blake Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 Re: Hard Disk Partition Problem "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message news:%23CKJMum4HHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message > news:otrec35p3pfeq3k27kpa2vtude6o6rhi6o@4ax.com... >> I think many people over-partition, but that doesn't mean it's always >> bad to have more than one partition. My view is that most people's >> partitioning scheme should be based on their backup scheme. If, for >> example, you backup by creating a clone or image of the entire drive, >> then a single partition might be best. If, on the other hand, you >> backup only your data, then the backup process is facilitated by >> having all data in a separate partition. >> > > If the windows partition goes south, and personal data is on that > partition, so goes the personal data. Only if there is no backup for it. *Many* people do as you suggest, and think of that separation as a asubstitu8e for backing up. They are kidding themselves > A separate partition for personal data is always a sound idea. I don't agree, as I said. Although I don't think it's a terrible thing to do, if you back up as needed , that separate partition isn't at all nessary > That personal data partition should be backed up as well. Of course. But if it's backed up, the argument in favor of having it separated pretty much goes away. > Similar with cloning an entire hard drive. An entire clone of a normally > used hard drive to an onboard one is okay if there is no power glitch that > kills both, "If" is the key word here (and power glitches aren't the only think that can kill both). It's because of the "if"that I recommend against it. > and, the cloned partitions are all hidden. A clone, normally kept out of > the PC, is the best. One can do both if one can afford the extra hard > drive, and the extra time for cloning. I have no serious objection to doing both (although I wouldn't recommend it myself), as long as it's recognized that the external one is the *real* backup and the internal just an extra. My guess, however, is that very few people do both, and almost everyone who clones or does any form of backup to an internal drive, stops there and mistakenly thinks he's protected. -- Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User Please reply to the newsgroup
Guest Lil' Dave Posted August 21, 2007 Posted August 21, 2007 Re: Hard Disk Partition Problem "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message news:urOm2M24HHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message > news:%23CKJMum4HHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > >> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message >> news:otrec35p3pfeq3k27kpa2vtude6o6rhi6o@4ax.com... > >>> I think many people over-partition, but that doesn't mean it's always >>> bad to have more than one partition. My view is that most people's >>> partitioning scheme should be based on their backup scheme. If, for >>> example, you backup by creating a clone or image of the entire drive, >>> then a single partition might be best. If, on the other hand, you >>> backup only your data, then the backup process is facilitated by >>> having all data in a separate partition. >>> >> >> If the windows partition goes south, and personal data is on that >> partition, so goes the personal data. > > > Only if there is no backup for it. *Many* people do as you suggest, and > think of that separation as a asubstitu8e for backing up. They are kidding > themselves > > >> A separate partition for personal data is always a sound idea. > > > I don't agree, as I said. Although I don't think it's a terrible thing to > do, if you back up as needed , that separate partition isn't at all > nessary > > >> That personal data partition should be backed up as well. > > > Of course. But if it's backed up, the argument in favor of having it > separated pretty much goes away. No. Any partition should be backed up as an image or part of clone if used for personal data. A separate partition does not rely on the windows partition, AND, windows XP working for the home user to access that data. There's no need to recover any personal data. Its still there. Not everyone, including myself, images a personal data partition every time there's a change. Nor does this happen automatically before the windows partition decides to go south. Its not a perfect world. That separate personal data partition contains the most up to date personal data. File oriented backups, imaging, or clones are always past tense to the newest personal file data. > > >> Similar with cloning an entire hard drive. An entire clone of a normally >> used hard drive to an onboard one is okay if there is no power glitch >> that kills both, > > > "If" is the key word here (and power glitches aren't the only think that > can kill both). It's because of the "if"that I recommend against it. > > >> and, the cloned partitions are all hidden. A clone, normally kept out of >> the PC, is the best. One can do both if one can afford the extra hard >> drive, and the extra time for cloning. > > > I have no serious objection to doing both (although I wouldn't recommend > it myself), as long as it's recognized that the external one is the *real* > backup and the internal just an extra. > > My guess, however, is that very few people do both, and almost everyone > who clones or does any form of backup to an internal drive, stops there > and mistakenly thinks he's protected. > > -- > Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User > Please reply to the newsgroup > You're right. Not many people keep an onboard backup, and offboard backup of any shape or form. Nor do many both make an invisible onboard clone and and onboard image. Nor do many make both an offboard clone, and offboard image. Some may make varying combinations of these. If the windows partition is NTFS carrying all the personal files, and not recognizable, personal data may require expensive recovery services. XP cannot always be fixed, even if the hard drive is sound. Most users have no concept of file backup, imaging, or cloning. Not smart. I don't understand why anyone would promote this kind of situation for a home PC user. No empathy for the home user is what I see. Makes no sense to me. Any form of backup aside, that is why I believe you are incorrect in maintaining personal files within a windows partition. Dave
Recommended Posts