🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <816359568snz@c4rv.demon.co.uk>, Rajesh Varia
<raj@c4rv.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>Three main reasons
>- Lost space due to cluster size (see eariler posting, or read a FAQ

True - but if you have a 1gb disk, is a few percent in lost clusters
_really_ that important?

>- Easier to manage smaller partition (when you have several gig you
>  will know what I mean)

I do have large disks, and managing several small partitions is often
just as much work as managing one large one.  On one machine, I have
three partitions, none of them with enough free space, in each case not
by very much! :-(, large enough to fit my nice new app on, thus, I'll
need to spend hours moving/reinstalling certain apps so that I can get
the app installed.  Doesn't happen on big disks.  

Using two systems (a lap top and a desk top) with one split and the
other not, I am slowly finding it easier to manage on the single
partition.

>- Security.  Should you lose one FAT then you do not lose all the data 

Er - buy you should have two copies of the fat in any case. Seems to me
you're much more likely to loose the disk altogether.

If you are loading a modern OS onto your system (eg OS/2, Win95, NT,
etc), and you have the apps and OS (and swap files) on different
partitions, you're forcing large disk head movements in order to get
data in/out of the disk continually jumping over large chunks of free
space.  With a single partition, you therefore are likely to get better
disk access speeds, assuming your disk is not overly full (naturally,
this assumes decent defrags are done in both cases).  

In summary, smaller cluster sizes do make partitioning attractive, but
from my own experience, I'm not convinced that for a single PC, it's all
_that_ clear cut.  

My 2p worth,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Lee  (tfl@psp.co.uk)
Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer and Certified Trainer
PS Partnership - A Microsoft Solution Provider
Ph: +44 1628 850 077   Fax: +44 1628 850 077