Partition Order

Thread needs solution
truwrikodrorowrelupicugojestutroclulachosaswunuhospikigawakijosaswenomaruclojeueclikaspedrubewidebrisubrohutrurifruuagothunugekedrumucisiuobrobrecrupeslapuswosluprothethibakaslechurathikucli
Beginner
Posts: 2
Comments: 7

I have ADD Suite 10. My system is an XP Home Laptop. The hard drive is a Western Digital 320gb 5400rpm internal PATA.

This series of questions is about partition "order." While I have some knowledge of hard drives and partitioning, there's tons I don't know, so please jump in if I make any misstatements or bad assumptions.

I created three partitions on this drive -- an active system partition of 30gb, and two logical partitions that split the remaining space. I unintentionally did this such that the partition layout -- as shown in the ADD hard drive graphic, shows the system partition LAST. I had intended it to be first.

Does this apparent "backward" partitioning really matter, in terms of read/write speed, other performance issues, or in any other respect? Does this approach end up placing the system partition in the *physical* part of the drive that is the most likely to develop issues first (e.g. bad sectors)?

So far, everything seems to be operating normally.

Any advice greatly appreciated.

Fri, 11/26/2010 - 23:49
0 Users found this helpful
truwrikodrorowrelupicugojestutroclulachosaswunuhospikigawakijosaswenomaruclojeueclikaspedrubewidebrisubrohutrurifruuagothunugekedrumucisiuobrobrecrupeslapuswosluprothethibakaslechurathikucli
Forum Star
Posts: 45
Comments: 4263

The performance at the end of the drive is usually around 50% of the start. It's recommended to place the OS partition at the start, if possible. Otherwise, there shouldn't be any problems no matter where it's located.

Sat, 11/27/2010 - 01:36
truwrikodrorowrelupicugojestutroclulachosaswunuhospikigawakijosaswenomaruclojeueclikaspedrubewidebrisubrohutrurifruuagothunugekedrumucisiuobrobrecrupeslapuswosluprothethibakaslechurathikucli
Beginner
Posts: 2
Comments: 7

Thanks for the reply.

BTW, could this explain (or partially explain) why my CPU now seems to run somewhat hotter compared to my last drive, which had the OS partition as the first one instead of the last? E.g, perhaps 3-5 degrees centigrade hotter when rendering video. The last drive was 100gb 7200rpm. Also, do you think the lower performance could make the *drive* get hotter as well (I don't have data on drive temperature)?

Sat, 11/27/2010 - 05:01
truwrikodrorowrelupicugojestutroclulachosaswunuhospikigawakijosaswenomaruclojeueclikaspedrubewidebrisubrohutrurifruuagothunugekedrumucisiuobrobrecrupeslapuswosluprothethibakaslechurathikucli
Forum Star
Posts: 45
Comments: 4263

It shouldn't really affect the temperature. The data transfer rate is reduced due to the placement on the platter(s). The drive and CPU should still function normally otherwise. However, there may be a running temperature difference between this drive and the old one. 5400 RPM drives are quite a bit slower than the 7200 RPM drives. This could translate into the drive working more if it's not keeping up with the CPU.

Sat, 11/27/2010 - 06:14