konc3pt wrote:number of reasons...
Protecting or isolating files, to make it easier to recover a corrupted file system or operating system installation. If one partition is corrupted, none of the other file systems are affected, and the drive's data may still be salvageable. Having a separate partition for read-only data also reduces the chances of the file system on this partition becoming corrupted.
Raising overall computer performance on systems where smaller file systems are more efficient. For instance, large hard drives with only one NTFS file system typically have a very large sequentially accessed Master File Table (MFT) and it generally takes more time to read this MFT than the smaller MFTs of smaller partitions.
"Short Stroking", which aims to minimize performance-eating head repositioning delays by reducing the number of tracks used per hard drive.[1] The basic idea is that you make one partition approx. 20-25% of the total size of the drive. This partition is expected to: occupy the outer tracks of the hard drive, and offer more than double the throughput — less than half the access time. If you limit capacity with short stroking, the minimum throughput stays much closer to the maximum.
For example a 1 TB disk might have an access time of 12 ms at 200 IOPS (at a limited queue depth) with an average throughput of 100 MB/s. When it is partitioned to 100 GB (and the rest left unallocated) you might end up with an access time of 6 ms at 300 IOPS (with a bigger queue depth) with an average throughput of 200 MB/s..
Yeah its been a while since I delved into the finer aspects of file system maintenance... But that's part of the reason I choose to use Macs, so I can take my IT hat off (for the most part...).
The only one I'd be concerned about is file corruption. and in my experience, its a whole lot simpler to just put a good backup routine in place.
But with respect to short stroking, you're saying sacrifice 75% of the drive's capacity to ensure that it operates at its higher speed? (Because if you are still using the other 75% of the drive, then the advantage gained from short stroking goes out the window every time the read/write head has to go to the other partition.) Again, its probably overkill for running 24 tracks. 200 tracks, yeah I'm with you, or I'm running a RAID array.
But thanks for the info tho.
Pastor-of-Muppets wrote:among other reasons, it ensures that files from the same project are physically close to each other on the disk. if you have a 100GB partition and keep all the samples for a project in that partition, then you know that those files shouldn't be too far apart on the disk. if you have a single 1TB partition then files could be at opposite ends of the disk, involving lots of seeking and moving the disk heads
I've seen that philosophy before. The small partition becomes the temporary area where the current project (e.g. all the songs in the album, etc.) is kept, and the remaining 90% of the drive becomes storage. Its a good idea for certain working styles.
