Separate '/home' partition on Windows - your thoughts?

[Davey]

I picked up another hard drive, a 1TB Western Digital Cavair Black, and I have plans to do so again by the end of the month. Because it's slightly faster (or so the shop keeper who sold it to me says) than the 500GB WD "GreenPower" ones I had before, I installed Windows onto it. Installation went fine, but it's a huge volume and huge volumes with both operating system files and persistent data on them make me feel uncomfortable. If I ever lose the operating system, I have a feeling my persistent data, which I could have a lot of on the large volume could be fried if I need to reinstall Windows.

I've considered partitioning my hard drive into a separate home partition for user data, and installing all my applications to one of my other disks, leaving the third and fourth disks for the other operating systems. Or would you recommend I just install the applications onto the same partition as the operating system and just create a separate home partition, which would give me an additional free disk for taking backups? My final option is to leave it all one one big partition, but that feels like I'd be putting all my eggs into one basket, but if it's the only option that isn't going to be hurting performance, then so be it, I'll just schedule back ups often.

On a related note, I'm starting to run out of letters with all my networked devices. I don't have many letters left and I really don't want to try the Windows "Mount In Folder" option because I've had some problems with it on Windows XP and after that fiasco I'm reluctant to try it again. Do I have any options left, or will I be stuck juggling the letters when someone joins the network forever? On *nix this isn't a problem, but sometimes I have other people using my computer's files at the same time I'm gaming on the computer and rebooting to fire up Linux or Solaris would cut them off.

So, any ideas anyone?

[TheLostVikings]

If your OS partition goes, then the registry goes with it. Meaning most of your app installs ends up hosed and have to be reinstalled, so you might as well install them on the same partition imho.

Still, always make the default download directories and folders for app save data, etc, on a different partition. This way a reinstall of the OS and programs wont make you lose any actual data.

At least that is how I roll.

[Ace Pace]

I run a seperate partition for My Documents, it's a really easy setting to flip* and Windows automatically allows for it.

Note that this is for static data and not for applications, which are (if properly coded) tied to the registry and not to anything in user data.

If you want to backup application data and applications, do proper backups.

*In XP: Right click my documents, it's somewhere in there.

[Bounty]

I have a data partition shared between Linux and XP because Linux' NTFS support was flaky last time I tried it. It also helps during reinstalls; I have all drivers ready on the laptop, no need to mess with install CD's or external disks.

[Pu-239]

I have a seperate /home, but LVM allows for easy resizing which gets rid of the wasted space problem for the most part (2-3 gigs of wasted space isn't all that much nowadays). On Linux user settings are under /home anyway, so not that big of an issue w/ lost settings. Don't really use windows often enough to justify a shared partition- I just copy stuff directly to the windows partition if needed.

[Starglider]

The performance benefits of partitioning are dubious, sometimes negative with modern drives. I wouldn't recommend it unless you know exactly what you are doing and why (e.g. setting up a software matrix RAID system). The improvement in robustness is negligable as long as you're not using FAT.

[Stark]

I run a seperate partition for My Documents, it's a really easy setting to flip* and Windows automatically allows for it.

Note that this is for static data and not for applications, which are (if properly coded) tied to the registry and not to anything in user data.

If you want to backup application data and applications, do proper backups.

*In XP: Right click my documents, it's somewhere in there.

I pretty much do this, with mydocs actually being on a fileserver instead of the primary hdd. This isnt for performance; just for access and backup benefits.

And every game that buries important stuff like mods and saves in user/users/local/apps/roaming/local/apps/roaming/apps/local/publisher/product/ can eat my dick.

[Xon]

I don't partition, I just throw more hard drives at the problem. Especially since I found a tool called junction, and Vista actually respects those now. This allows me to point c:\games to d:\games which is on another drive.

I've got my OS/apps drive, then a drive with games & music. My Docs/Favourites/Desktop is redirected over the network to a fileserver with a lot of diskspace and nightly automatic backups to yet another drive in addition to previous version. The redirected stuff, is also using offline files so is cached onto the OS drive.

[Xon]

The performance benefits of partitioning are dubious, sometimes negative with modern drives. I wouldn't recommend it unless you know exactly what you are doing and why (e.g. setting up a software matrix RAID system). The improvement in robustness is negligable as long as you're not using FAT.

At best, putting a paging file on another partition will give you slightly less performance compared to having it on one single monolithic partition.

You will also get a nasty case of stuttering when streaming media or gaming off the outer partition and if you launch a bunch of apps on the inner partition(or have lots of paging) due to all the seeking.

[Starglider]

At best, putting a paging file on another partition will give you slightly less performance compared to having it on one single monolithic partition.

What makes you think that? Allocating the swap partition first will ensure that it all goes on the fastest part of the drive, and for use cases that swap heavily without doing much other file access this will be faster. Personally I no longer care about this, since everything I work with either fits in memory or is mapped directly from a backing file, but people who still have 4 Gb or less might. Putting your OS and programs on their own partition will cause your computer to start up (marginally) faster, because the average seek distance is reduced compared to mixing them with your data files. Performance is only reduced when you are accessing files from multiple partitions at the same time; admittedly this would be common for a typical user tempted to split their files/programs/swap. Of course there is no good reason to partition an SSD, other than the abovementioned software matrix RAID.

You will also get a nasty case of stuttering when streaming media or gaming off the outer partition and if you launch a bunch of apps on the inner partition(or have lots of paging) due to all the seeking.

Correct, though I doubt anyone is going to 'launch a bunch of apps' while gaming.

EDIT: Correction, there are two legitimate reasons to partition an SSD; you might want to apply BitLocker encryption to your data files without wasting CPU decrypting all your program data.

[Xon]

What makes you think that?

Seek times. By forcing the start (and fastest part) of the disk + waste to be use on the pagefile, any actual access when you are actually accessing applications or anything which is touching the disk it will cause significant seeking to the page file and back to exe/data. Windows is quite chatty about reading/writing to the page file, it does a lot of opportunistic writing of old pages to disk even with low memory pressure.

Ideally, your pagefile should be in the middle of your applications & data, so seeks have the minium travel distance. But as you said, with memory be vastly more plentyful and cheaper, the impact is quite less because Windows needs to access the page file much less. Back in the day when OEMs shiped WinXP with 256mb or less of memory, it wasn't a question of if your page file will be accessed much but how much it wasn't being accessed

Correct, though I doubt anyone is going to 'launch a bunch of apps' while gaming.

Alt-tabbing fullscreen games causes them to minimize which causes the working set to be agressive trimmed. On systems with no enough memory and/or slow disk this causes multi-second pauses in game. Very anoying in multiplayer.

Of course there is no good reason to partition an SSD, other than the abovementioned software matrix RAID.

A lot of convential wisdom w.r.t spinning disks doesn't work, well, with SSDs. Partitioning on an SSD simply doesn't make any difference beyond an organizational tool, or for use of something like BitLocker or fulldrive encryption.

[Memnon]

I actually do partition my 1 TB HDD into system and non-system, and this article explains some of my reasons - such as less and easier defragmentation and smaller backups if one is just backing up an entire partition.
I find that 200ish GB is more than enough for the system folder, and I have quite a lot of junk in there.

[Uraniun235]

File fragmentation isn't as big a deal these days as it used to be - and in the rare event you do have to defrag, you can just leave your computer on while you're asleep or at work and let it defrag then.

Backing up does not have to involve taking an image of the entire bloody partition - I hear they make software that can back up specific folders now.

[Zac Naloen]

And every game that buries important stuff like mods and saves in user/users/local/apps/roaming/local/apps/roaming/apps/local/publisher/product/ can eat my dick.

Isn't that a "feature" of vista for software that isn't vista aware and tries to use the now non-functional XP locations?

[phongn]

And every game that buries important stuff like mods and saves in user/users/local/apps/roaming/local/apps/roaming/apps/local/publisher/product/ can eat my dick.

Isn't that a "feature" of vista for software that isn't vista aware and tries to use the now non-functional XP locations?

Partially. Vista does this to transparently redirect programs that try to write to their own directory (something Microsoft warned against for many, many years) but other application developers are lazy and can't be arsed to put something in a sane place in %USERPROFILE%

[MKSheppard]

Just get two hard drives. One holds OS and application info and possible games. Second holds your really vital stuff that you'd not like to get lose -- like photographs, etc.

This system has served me quite well for almost a decade.

[Questor]

Just get two hard drives. One holds OS and application info and possible games. Second holds your really vital stuff that you'd not like to get lose -- like photographs, etc.

This system has served me quite well for almost a decade.

This is really good advice. The only thing I'd add is that if you can afford it, a mirrored system can be a godsend if you lose the data drive.

Edit: To clarify, I mean that a system and mirrored data volume are what I am recommending. Unless you are running a critical server, there is little need for a mirrored system volume.

[MKSheppard]

This is really good advice. The only thing I'd add is that if you can afford it, a mirrored system can be a godsend if you lose the data drive.

Well yes; that's the ultimate system.

This system evolved back in the bad old days of Windows 95/98/ME, where if you simply sneezed and the system BSODed, you could very well end up with a corrupt Windows install, and your system would constantly BSOD on boot. So in order to restore the computer to functionality, you had to nuke the site from orbit and reinstall Windows.

[Davey]

Thanks guys.

Well, I went ahead and added another hard drive - yeah, at the rate I'm going, it looks like I'm going to be out of drive letters before I run out of hard drive bays. I copied all my important files and documents onto that, and an external hard drive, too, so if the unthinkable happens (# rm -rf / while booted in my other operating system with the Windows hard drives mounted, that kind of thing), then at least I won't lose everything.

All things done I guess I will not partition my hard drive - I don't know how many other programs I will install, and I don't use Bitlocker because my P6T lacks a TPM chip.

Partially. Vista does this to transparently redirect programs that try to write to their own directory (something Microsoft warned against for many, many years) but other application developers are lazy and can't be arsed to put something in a sane place in %USERPROFILE%

For insecure applications that need to write to their own directory, I just install them in my home directory under a separate 'personal program files' directory. It's not the most elegant type of workaround, but I don't want to run some things like DC++ all the time as administrator. The only problem is that that usually means I have to install them in other people's home directories as well if other people want to use them, so yeah, it causes me some problems...

[Questor]

This system evolved back in the bad old days of Windows 95/98/ME, where if you simply sneezed and the system BSODed, you could very well end up with a corrupt Windows install, and your system would constantly BSOD on boot. So in order to restore the computer to functionality, you had to nuke the site from orbit and reinstall Windows.

Why, why did you remind me of that? I think I had suppressed the memory.

I remember how smart I thought I was for coming up with that solution after my first Win95 rebuild. I didn't get a 95 computer until well after it had come out, and I thought I could screw with it the way I had DOS.

Its actually possible to do it to XP, too. You just have to work a lot harder.

[Netko]

For insecure applications that need to write to their own directory, I just install them in my home directory under a separate 'personal program files' directory. It's not the most elegant type of workaround, but I don't want to run some things like DC++ all the time as administrator. The only problem is that that usually means I have to install them in other people's home directories as well if other people want to use them, so yeah, it causes me some problems...

If you create a separate folder in your drive's root folder you can set your own permissions, like allowing execution and read/write for all authenticated users for example. Vista won't attempt any of its "make older programs work" tricks with those, but neither will it oppose those programs writing in their folder (if the user under who's context they are running has permission). As such, I use "Games" and "Software" for games (a common offender of Vista's rules) and software which is older/misbehaves (often opensource authors with the lol Vista attitude), respectively.