Win 7 install on SSD

[pulpwood007]

With HDD's I would partition (multiple), format, and install Win. Apparently with the SSD's it sounds like it is necessary to let Win 7 do everything from scratch so that it will properly "align" the SSD partition(s).

Is there a way to do this and eliminate the 200mb hidden system partition while maintaining alignment? Also, at what point do you divide the SSD up into multiple partitions?

I know this can't be that difficult but it's just different than working with a HDD.

 

[ignatzatsonic]

If you don't want that 200 mb "system reserved" partition, you should use Diskpart to make your partitions.

If you have a traditional Windows install disk, you access diskpart with Shift F10 early in the installation----at the screen where you are asked about your chosen language.

You can make all desired partitions in diskpart or you can just make C and then make the others using Disk Management after Windows is installed.

Windows 7 should sense that you have an SSD and make a few needed adjustments---such as confirming proper alignment.

Disconnect any other drives before beginning.

 

[whs]

Have a look at this tutorial. You can avoid the small active partition if you predefine an active, primary aligned partition. And than the partitions behind it would be automatically aligned.

This tutorial explains the alignment steps: http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/113967-ssd-alignment.html?ltr=S

 

[pulpwood007]

Excellent. thanks for the info. Quite a change from the way I did it in XP.

Using Diskpart, if I make the entire disk "drive c:" can I later come back and reduce the size of C: and make a couple of smaller partions? Or do I initially make a smaller drive C: and then use disk manager to fill up the rest of the disk? I'll look closer at the tutorial. Just want to make sure I get the alignment issue correct.

 

[whs]

The smart approach is NOT to cover the whole drive with C: leave unallocated what you do not currently need. Extending the partition later is easy. There are 2 reasons:

1. It will be difficult later to shrink a big chunk off the partition because the system puts the MFT (master file table) high up into the partition. And that cannot be moved - at least not with Disk Management.

2. The more unallocated space you have on the SSD, the easier it is for the SSD's garbage collection to function. That is something specific to SSDs which you might want to read up on via Google. E.g. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_collection_(SSD)#Garbage_collection

 

[pulpwood007]

The smart approach is NOT to cover the whole drive with C: leave unallocated what you do not currently need. Extending the partition later is easy. There are 2 reasons:

1. It will be difficult later to shrink a big chunk off the partition because the system puts the MFT (master file table) high up into the partition. And that cannot be moved - at least not with Disk Management.

2. The more unallocated space you have on the SSD, the easier it is for the SSD's garbage collection to function. That is something specific to SSDs which you might want to read up on via Google. E.g. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_collection_(SSD)#Garbage_collection

Sorry, by later I meant immediately after creating the initial Drive C: partition. In other words use Diskpart to allocate the entire SSD to one partition (Drive C and then after formatting come back with Disk Manager and reduce C: by creating D: and E:. Hope I'm not complicating this simple process, and since I'm not used to Diskpart I might be able to accomplish everything I want from there.

And thanks for the comment about leaving an unallocated space. I've read that the rule of thumb if possible is 20% of the drive's capacity.

 

[whs]

The problem you will face if you want to shrink the original partition later is that you may only be able to shrink very little (because of the MFT). That's why it is better to start small - or at least not more than you initially plan to use. Then allocate a dummy partition behind C: which will serve for later expansion. And that followed by another data partition.

Reason for the dummy is that the freespace has to be adjacent to the right of the partition if you want to expand. And that you can eventually get by deleting the dummy partition.

 

[ignatzatsonic]

Sorry, by later I meant immediately after creating the initial Drive C: partition. In other words use Diskpart to allocate the entire SSD to one partition (Drive C and then after formatting come back with Disk Manager and reduce C: by creating D: and E:.

If you know what size you want C to be, you are better off making a C of that size in Diskpart, rather than making C take up all of the drive and then later shrinking C in Disk Management after Windows is installed.

Why? Because if you attempt to shrink C in Windows Disk Management, it may refuse to shrink it as much as you would like--and you would then be forced to use a third party tool----Partition Wizard. It works, but why bother with it if you can set the final desired size of C in Diskpart?

It doesn't matter one way or another whether you make D and E in Diskpart. You could make both in Diskpart, or you could make only C in Diskpart (leaving the rest of the drive as "unallocated space") and then make D and E in Disk Management after Windows is installed--without having to shrink C.

 

[pulpwood007]

WHS:

After reading your linked Wiki article I'm rethinking my strategy. Looks like best option is to just use one partition (drive C: only) and just make it large enough for immediate needs. If I'm understanding you and the article, the portion of the drive that is unallocated and obviously unformatted is used in the garbage collection process. This is really a new learning process after years of using spindle drives. much thanks

Ignat:

thanks good info and makes sense. If I do end up go with the 3 partitions I'll just do it in Diskpart

 

[whs]

I think Ignat is right. You are better off to create those other partitions with Disk management. And do not forget the buffer dummy for possibla C extension because else you will have trouble later extending it.

Btw: why do you plan so many partitions on the SSD. Usually one would only have C and the rest (for user data) on the spinners. How big is this SSD.

 

[pulpwood007]

I think Ignat is right. You are better off to create those other partitions with Disk management. And do not forget the buffer dummy for possibla C extension because else you will have trouble later extending it.

Btw: why do you plan so many partitions on the SSD. Usually one would only have C and the rest (for user data) on the spinners. How big is this SSD.

I just had 3 partitions on my old primary drive and thought I'd arrange the SSD the same. I was going to keep about 5GB of data on the new SSD but again I'm rethinking this strategy to only one partition for OS and applications, and all data on the HDD. I really doubt though that I read/write enough to the data that it would be detrimental to the SSD's lifespan

The drive is an Intel 320 80GB.

 

[whs]

It is not a question of wear of the SSD. It will last a lot longer than you will care to keep it.

Keeping the data on a seperate partition is just good practice. Define a data partition on your HDD and make folders Documents, Music, Pictures and Videos. Then right click on those folders and INCLUDE them into the corresponding library. Then move your data where they belong.

This will keep your default folders where they are which has a variety of advantages. One more thing I always do. I move the Sample music, pictures and video to the My XXX default folders and eliminate the Public folders. For that right click on the Library > Properties > highlight Public Folder > remove > apply (do not forget Apply). Thus you have one less set of folders (that are really useless).

PS: do not use 100% of the SSD space for C: - leave about 20% free.

 

[pulpwood007]

I have always basically done what you are suggesting except I keep primary data file on drive 0 and backup on drive 1. Of course beyond this I keep several other backups on externals, flash drives.

I'm not certain yet how to create the dummy partition, and I'm going to have to play with Diskpart some to understand it. If I understand what both of you are saying I would allocate (example) 60GB with diskpart specifying 40gb for C:. Then come back with Disk Manager and specify the remaining 20 GB for the other drive(s). this would the remainder about 20GB unallocated. Correct? Hopefully this is the right way to assure "alignment".

I've really not got into the "public library" folder use. I just create the folders needed for photos, videos, music and access them as needed. I will also be new to Win 7 so their may be some changes to my habits there as well.

I really appreciate all the help. I should have done a lot more study before starting this thread. Just got a whim to order a SSD.

 

[ignatzatsonic]

I just had 3 partitions on my old primary drive and thought I'd arrange the SSD the same. I was going to keep about 5GB of data on the new SSD but again I'm rethinking this strategy to only one partition for OS and applications, and all data on the HDD.

The drive is an Intel 320 80GB.

Pulpwood:

For what it is worth, I have an Intel 320 80 GB also.

I have a single partition on it---C.

All data is elsewhere on spinning drives.

I briefly had a second partition on the SSD for "text data" (Word and Excel documents). My thinking was that since I use Word and Excel a lot and frequently accessed Word and Excel files, it might be advantageous to put those files on the SSD to take advantage of the SSD's high speed.

Well--I tested and shortly abandoned the idea and went back to a single partition on the SSD, with ALL data on spinning drives.

Why?

Primarily because it complicated my backup routines. My original data was on 2 distinct physical hard drives and 2 different partitions--rather than on a single D partition.

And the increased speed of the SSD was all but unnoticeable when opening or re-saving a random Word or Excel file.

 

[pulpwood007]

I just had 3 partitions on my old primary drive and thought I'd arrange the SSD the same. I was going to keep about 5GB of data on the new SSD but again I'm rethinking this strategy to only one partition for OS and applications, and all data on the HDD.

The drive is an Intel 320 80GB.

Pulpwood:

For what it is worth, I have an Intel 320 80 GB also.

I have a single partition on it---C.

All data is elsewhere on spinning drives.

I briefly had a second partition on the SSD for "text data" (Word and Excel documents). My thinking was that since I use Word and Excel a lot and frequently accessed Word and Excel files, it might be advantageous to put those files on the SSD to take advantage of the SSD's high speed.

Well--I tested and shortly abandoned the idea and went back to a single partition on the SSD, with ALL data on spinning drives.

Why?

Primarily because it complicated my backup routines. My original data was on 2 distinct physical hard drives and 2 different partitions--rather than on a single D partition.

And the increased speed of the SSD was all but unnoticeable when opening or re-saving a random Word or Excel file.

Ignat:

OK, I'm going to stop going back and forth. You have convinced me, and I'm grateful. I'm going to do exactly what you have done. I'm a backup freak anyway and I just don't necessarily need another copy of data on the SSD.

Also I'm not going to worry about the 100mb partition Win 7 creates. I'm going to go with it. In reading some other article it seems to guarantee that any partitions after it will be correctly aligned. As an aside I also think it might improve image restoration with Acronis. I've still got a lot to learn but it's starting to makes sense.

Did you leave some of your 320 unallocated like WHS suggested for better garbage collection? If so how much.

 

[ignatzatsonic]

Also I'm not going to worry about the 100mb partition Win 7 creates. I'm going to go with it. In reading some other article it seems to guarantee that any partitions after it will be correctly aligned. As an aside I also think it might improve image restoration with Acronis. I've still got a lot to learn but it's starting to makes sense.

Did you leave some of your 320 unallocated like WHS suggested for better garbage collection? If so how much.

Re your last point, see my post 2397 in the thread linked below on that particular point, requesting clarification. I currently do NOT have any deliberately unallocated space beyond that provided by Intel (80 minus 74.5 aka 5.5 GB).

My present understanding is that Intel SSDs do NOT use "garbage collection".

http://www.sevenforums.com/hardware-devices/18229-show-us-your-ssd-performance-60.html

I don't use the 100 mb partition. I never had any alignment issues. Diskpart seems to perfectly align SSDs in my experience. Proper alignment is easily confirmed in any case.

If you avoid the 100 mb partition, you also avoid the complication of having to image it, in addition to C, if you use imaging---Acronis, Macrium, whatever. Without it, all boot files are on C and you need to image only C.

There are some exotic advantages to keeping the 100 mb partition--can't recall exactly what they are--maybe something to do with Bitlocker? Which I will never use.

 

[whs]

I'm not certain yet how to create the dummy partition

It is just another partition you call "Dummy". The idea is to have some space to the right of C: that you can use - e.g. deleting the dummy partition to make unallocated space. Then you do not have to go thru the routine of first emptying a partition to acoomplish that.

But if you define on 1 partition on the drive, leave the space behind that partition unallocated. That is also good for the garbage collector - unless you have an Intel where it is not required.

I've really not got into the "public library" folder use

I think nobody does. The idea is to get it out of the libraries because it really has no function.

 

[ignatzatsonic]

Did you leave some of your 320 unallocated like WHS suggested for better garbage collection? If so how much.

Re your last point, see my post 2397 in the thread linked below on that particular point, requesting clarification. I currently do NOT have any deliberately unallocated space beyond that provided by Intel (80 minus 74.5 aka 5.5 GB).

My present understanding is that Intel SSDs do NOT use "garbage collection".

http://www.sevenforums.com/hardware-devices/18229-show-us-your-ssd-performance-60.html

Posts following my post 2397 in the above referenced thread state that Intel's do NOT use garbage collection and that the 5.5 GB difference between 80 and 74.5 GB represents unallocated space set aside by Intel.

Set aside for what?

Well, I'm not sure. Apparently not for garbage collection if Intel's don't use it.

Maybe for temporary off-loading of data while wear-leveling is run??

I'm just not entirely clear on the practical aspects of SSD technology. Nor on the terminology.

 

[whs]

Did you leave some of your 320 unallocated like WHS suggested for better garbage collection? If so how much.

Re your last point, see my post 2397 in the thread linked below on that particular point, requesting clarification. I currently do NOT have any deliberately unallocated space beyond that provided by Intel (80 minus 74.5 aka 5.5 GB).

My present understanding is that Intel SSDs do NOT use "garbage collection".

http://www.sevenforums.com/hardware-devices/18229-show-us-your-ssd-performance-60.html

Posts following my post 2397 in the above referenced thread state that Intel's do NOT use garbage collection and that the 5.5 GB difference between 80 and 74.5 GB represents unallocated space set aside by Intel.

Set aside for what?

Well, I'm not sure. Apparently not for garbage collection if Intel's don't use it.

Maybe for temporary off-loading of data while wear-leveling is run??

I'm just not entirely clear on the practical aspects of SSD technology. Nor on the terminology.

I think it just the decimal to binary effect.

 

[pulpwood007]

Also I'm not going to worry about the 100mb partition Win 7 creates. I'm going to go with it. In reading some other article it seems to guarantee that any partitions after it will be correctly aligned. As an aside I also think it might improve image restoration with Acronis. I've still got a lot to learn but it's starting to makes sense.

Did you leave some of your 320 unallocated like WHS suggested for better garbage collection? If so how much.

Re your last point, see my post 2397 in the thread linked below on that particular point, requesting clarification. I currently do NOT have any deliberately unallocated space beyond that provided by Intel (80 minus 74.5 aka 5.5 GB).

My present understanding is that Intel SSDs do NOT use "garbage collection".

http://www.sevenforums.com/hardware-devices/18229-show-us-your-ssd-performance-60.html

I don't use the 100 mb partition. I never had any alignment issues. Diskpart seems to perfectly align SSDs in my experience. Proper alignment is easily confirmed in any case.

If you avoid the 100 mb partition, you also avoid the complication of having to image it, in addition to C, if you use imaging---Acronis, Macrium, whatever. Without it, all boot files are on C and you need to image only C.

There are some exotic advantages to keeping the 100 mb partition--can't recall exactly what they are--maybe something to do with Bitlocker? Which I will never use.

I'll take a look at the above linked thread. I didn't realize Intel's were different from that aspect.

Also I'll take a try at using Diskpart to eliminate the 100mb partition. We will see at that point if I'm aligned. If not I can always go back and let Win 7 install as it wants. I think the best way to check might be the program AS SSD. Looks good for benchmarking and testing of alignment.

I'm sure glad you guys were around to discuss this with. I've got a new mb, cpu, and memory on the way with the SSD. I'm going to burn in the system with an HDD for a day or so then install the SSD.

I could sure have lived without the SSD but got to have something to mess around with.