Solved multiple data partitions or just folders?

[soon2bexpat]

I am putting a new build together and it will have a 128 GB SSD for the C: drive and a 640 GB SATA2 HDD for data (D).

The data consists of 1) infrequently accessed stuff (Office files mostly and music), 2) frequently accessed photos, and 3) DVD rips (which will be deleted once burned to a DVD).

Is there any performance advantage to partitioning the HDD into 3 (D,E,F), one for each of the above, rather than just having 3 folders on the D: drive?

 

[bassfisher6522]

For me personally, I see no need to partitioning. I just create folders and store my data in the said folders. There are those out there that like to partition their drives. The only time I partition a drive is when I dual boot an OS. It's a personal choice at best.

 

[Ztruker]

More disadvantage than advantage I think. Partitioning means you limit the size files can be on each partition. If you keep one drive and use folders than any file can be as big as the free space on the drive. Probbly not a problem with a 640GB drive but may be after it's partitioned. Some DVD rips can be quite large.

 

[Bare Foot Kid]

Hello mate.


You don't have to be limited to the MS Primary partition limits; personally I prefer partitions for most everything, have a look at Method Two in this tutorial linked below.

Partition / Extended : Logical Drives
​

 

[Wrend]

For me personally, I've never really found it to be worth the hassle of having multiple partitions on one drive.

I suppose under certain specific circumstances you might get a marginal performance increase on your HDD, but not enough to be worth it in my opinion. Just defrag your HDD when it needs it. If your SSD has a long life expectancy and enough room, I'd probably keep the temp DVD files there.

 

[soon2bexpat]

Thanks. I think I'll go with the folders only option. And I'll try ripping to the SSD.