Advantages of Multi-Partition Drives

Advantage #4: [my favorite] Imaging: A drive with multiple partitions allows you to easily create & restore images using programs such as Norton Ghost.

These programs won't allow you to write an image to [create an image of] the source partition [when it's selected as "destination"].

In other words, the image's source & destination partitions cannot be the same. If you only have one partition, they can't be different.

If they *were* the same, you'd be changing the contents of the partition as you created the image .. which is not allowed. If it were, you'd eventually/quickly run out of space.

See here to learn more about creating & restoring images. The ability to create & restore back-up images of you system is definitely a skill you want to include in your bag of digital tricks.

Even if you don't use images for disaster recovery, it helps to have a separate partition dedicated for your Operating System .. for those times when you want/need to re-format your system drive. A separate partition allows you to re-format your boot/system drive/partition without wiping out everything else on the drive [such as your downloads, back-up files, MP3s, digital photos, video footage, etc.].

There are other back-up options, such as registry back-ups and Microsoft's own System Restore, but *none* of these are as comprehensive as an image [which contains *everything* in your boot partition].

Both Ghost & DriveImage allow you to burn/write images directly to CD-R/W and DVD discs. This is fine for a smaller partitions, which don't contain much data. But it's not practical for large partitions .. that contain lots of data. It would take a long time and many discs to burn/write 320-gigs worth of data .. no matter how fast your burner is.

Likewise, it would also take a long time to restore 320-gigs worth of data stored on CD-R or R/W discs. Not to mention that CD R/W discs are not the most reliable storage method [CD-Rs are touted as being more reliable than R/Ws, but are still not the most reliable storage medium].

Advantage #5: Multi-boot. Like mentioned earlier, if you want to dual- or multi-boot different operating systems, you *must* create separate partitions for each O/S. Even if you don't plan to dual-boot right now, it's always better to create an extra partition [or two] when initially partitioning the drive .. just in case you decide later you want to dual-/multi-boot. I currently quad-boot like so:

WinXP: for all normal PC-rated functions [where I am now]
WinXP: dedicated solely for video-editing [only apps related to editing video are installed]
Win2000: back-up O/S in case I have problems with WXP system
One partition for beta versions of Windows, such as Windows Vienna

I had installed both Mandriva (back when it was called Mandrake) and Caldera (now part of SCO) on my old system, but Linux doesn't seem to like the Intel 945P chipset of my new system, especially its ATA controllers. I could not get it to install on the new system. This was a while ago. Newer versions of Linux might work, but I haven't tried recently.

Advantage #6: Security. The vast majority of people install Windows to their C drive. Hackers know this and target the C drive. You are less likely to be hacked if Windows resides on a drive other than C. And you will need more than one partition to get a drive letter other than C.

I have NO copies of Windows installed to my C drive. Admittedly, this is a minor point, and it won't preclude you from ever getting hacked. But it is one more layer of protection, in addition to anti-virus and a firewall. Hopefully the hacker will move on to an easier target. Any security-savvy user will tell you that installing to the default directory is the *least* secure option.

Admittedly, this is a minor point. I'm sure most virii are able to locate your O/S, no matter WHICH drive you install it to. But, fact is that some of the cruder virii specifically target the C drive, which means, to some extent (however small), C is the most vulnerable drive. Some folks even load a "dummy" O/S there: one they never use.

Since a virus can have devastating consequences, I feel this consideration is worth mentioning.

Re-sizing Partitions

While applications like Partition Magic allow you to resize and create new partitions on used hard drives, without destroying data, it's better to do it right the first time. There have been reported cases of people losing precious data when they tried to resize partitions with Partition Magic. Admittedly, this represents only a small percentage of users.

If you must use Partition Magic to re-size a drive you're currently using, make sure you first back-up everything. This seems like common sense, but you'd be surprised to learn how few people actually do. I have used PM many times myself and never had a problem.

Also, when using Partition Magic, only perform one operation at a time. PM allows you to que multiple options/tasks, but the more things you try to get it to do in concert, the greater your chances for problems. It will take longer to do each operation individually, but you'll have less chance of screwing something up.

FDISK

If FDISK intimidates you [its DOS-based interface intimidates a lot of people], check out Doc's FDISK Partitioning Guide. It addresses every aspect of using this utility. FDISK is not as difficult to learn/use as some people make it out to be. Doc's guide includes references to common problems you should watch for.

If you add a second/additional hard drive to your system, you can avoid the problems associated with drive-letter changes by creating no primary partitions. Simply create an extended partition that takes up the entire drive, and create logical DOS drives inside that extended partition.

If your drive-letters assignments *do* change, there are utilities such as Partition Magic's Drive Mapper utility that can help. I've tried many partitioning utilities. Regarding drive-letter changes, they all work 99% of the time. But it's that last 1% that causes you just enough grief that you usually end up having to reformat and re-install your OS.

Moral of the Story: do it right the first time, when you initially install the drive. Trying to change things later can cause problems.

Ext2/3 are native file systems for Linux. Windows will not see these partitions. In other words, Windows will not assign a drive letter to an ext2 /3 partition. This means that, if you add an Ext2 partition (for installing Linux), it will not change your current (Windows) drive-letter assignments.

This is good. The same thing applies when you create a Linux SWAP partition. I've had the most success when installing Linux to Ext2/3 partitions that were created on the primary-master drive, on *primary* (not extended) partition, under cylinder #1024 [roughly the 8-GB point].

Most new versions of Linux are now able to be installed above cylinder #1024, but why take the chance if you don't have to?

Space Saving Considerations

Notice I did not mention space saving as one of my advantages of multiple partitions. While it is true that smaller partitions offer smaller cluster sizes, and therefore more efficient file storage, this advantage is negligible compared to the other I've already mentioned.

By default, FAT32 partitions less than 8GB in size use a 4kb cluster. FAT32 partitions between 8- and 16-GB use an 8kb cluster. Partitions between 16- and 32-GB get 16kb clusters, etc. You see the pattern. This info is contained in the manual that comes with Windows [the one nobody reads].

NTFS partitions use 4kb as the default cluster no matter what size the partition. You can change this but I recommend leaving the cluster at its 4kb default. Some programs, such as defraggers have problems with NTFS partitions that are a different size than the default.

Since no two files can occupy the same cluster, if you have a partition larger than 32-GB, then a 1kb file, which is typical of many operating system files, would occupy 32kb of space, wasting 31kb .. or roughly 96% of the space in that cluster.

The more small files you have, the more space you'll waste. But again, I don't consider this a valid reason for breaking large drives into smaller partitions. Other however, do. If you have a 320-gig drive, you're not going to worry about a gig or two .. especially not when you can buy another for less than US$100.

Personally: I break up my 320-GB drives into four 80-GB partitions. I break up my 36-GB [SCSI] drives into two 18-GB partitions. There are exceptions to every rule, but that's my general approach.

As mentioned earlier, this method allows me to store rarely-used files in partitions at the far end of the drive, where performance is worst. Files that are used most frequently, such as those used by the operating system, applications, swap/page files, go in the first/fastest partition. Files that fall somewhere between these two extremes [games, for example] are stored in the middle.

Organization

Many people claim multiple partitions allow them to organize their data & files better. While I heartily agree, this position is merely personal preference. I therefore won't include it as an official advantage.

There's not much (organizational) difference between 100-gigs of MP3s stored on a separate drive, or kept in a folder labeled 'MP3s' on you C_drive. Now, if you have 1-TeraByte worth of MP3s (lucky you), then you *need* a separate drive for those files.

I've been considering the purchase of a 750-GB drive, where I can store both a lossless version & an MP3 version of every song I own, like some of my friends do.