Results 1 to 23 of 23

  1. Post
    #1

    Is it ok to partition an SSD?

    I have a 1TB SSD that I want to partition into an OperatingSystem and files partition.

    Is there any downside of partitioning an SSD?

    Back in the days it wasn't so good for HDD's but that was because it was spinning platters etc

  2. Post
    #2
    I've never heard of it being bad for any drive. Can't think of any downsides really.

  3. Post
    #3
    also never heard of partitioning being bad for any drive (HDD or SSD)

  4. Post
    #4
    Having the OS at the start and data at the end may be bad for performance on HDDs, I think that was something that was said going into the XP days and larger capacity HDDs as everyone had Win98 OS on a separate partition to their data due to corruption and the frequent need to reinstall.

    But that doesn't apply to SSDs as data is mapped onto the physical medium differently.

  5. Post
    #5
    ah i see, if you're trying to access data from 2 partitions in parallel and they're on different locations on the disk - you get a similar issue with a single large partition but I get the point.

  6. Smile
    #6
    tehyitz wrote:
    Having the OS at the start and data at the end may be bad for performance on HDDs, I think that was something that was said going into the XP days and larger capacity HDDs as everyone had Win98 OS on a separate partition to their data due to corruption and the frequent need to reinstall.
    So were programs like speed disk a bit of a waste of time?
    I thought it was to put the windows swap file at the start of the drive or something.

    I know defrag is good for a hard drive (or that's what I've been led to believe) and these days i think you can defrag a SSD but you don't have to so often because it wears out the drive more than anything.

  7. Post
    #7
    There is no issue in partitioning a ssd/nvme. I myself partitioned my 1tb into a 250/750 partition.

  8. Post
    #8
    Defrag etc. worked for spinning disks as it organised data in the order it would be read and towards the start the disk where read/write speed is the fastest due to linear head velocity being the highest. Spinning disk has a reasonable continuous read speed when information is not fragmented but when continuous data is fragmented into different areas of the disk the head has to jump around and causes large delays in read/write and therefore the performance drops significantly. If you add a few ms to every read and perform thousands of reads you can see what happens . The same occurs in random data, or when there are a large number of read requests for different information, hence spinning disk performance falls off a cliff once read requests ramp up.

    SSD does not have this issue as information can be read from any location on the drive with no performance penalty, so fragmented information doesn't matter.

    Partitioning has no impact.

  9. Post
    #9
    Thanks guys. I thought it'd be fine but just wanted to check

    Yeah I'd heard partitioning can slow down hdd's as then it might have to jump back and forth to access data or something.

    Some people also "short stoked" hdd's so the needle wouldnt have to travel so far therefore increasing performance.

    E.g they'd get a 1tb drive and only have a single 500gb partition which would be the center part of the disk, giving quicker access.

  10. Smile
    #10
    mejobloggs wrote:
    E.g they'd get a 1tb drive and only have a single 500gb partition which would be the center part of the disk, giving quicker access.
    That's a neat trick, Did it actually give a noticeable speed increase?

  11. Post
    #11
    mmm and im here wondering why i have 4x 500gb drives in my system lol /shrug
    basically if one fails i dont lose it all. maybe it's me, but always liked to have something like a 256gb C: drive and then the rest is storage. so if you needed to upgrade systems or clean up it'll be much easier

  12. Post
    #12
    Magic Robertson wrote:
    That's a neat trick, Did it actually give a noticeable speed increase?
    difference can be up to 20% so can be noticeable, depending on what you're doing. seems silly though because you can't use 1/2 (or more) of your hard drive.

    https://www.pcworld.com/article/2552...rformance.html

  13. Post
    #13
    Magic Robertson wrote:
    That's a neat trick, Did it actually give a noticeable speed increase?
    According to this, pretty decent benefits:
    https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews...-hdd,2157.html

    "Although short stroking doesn’t get hard drives anywhere the access times of flash SSDs, we found that their access times still decrease by 40% in the case of the Ultrastar 15K450 SAS HDDs, and by an amazing 50% in the case of the Deskstar 7K1000.B SATA drives."

    Maybe back in the days it was relevant, but SSD's are cheap enough now and 10x better. But yeah, neat trick

  14. Post
    #14
    ^ LOL, to get those numbers they had to make a 12GB partition on a 250GB drive (<5% utilisation). pretty unrealistic, you may as well use RAM at that stage.

  15. Post
    #15
    Efficient use of space haha

  16. Post
    #16
    Yep, it used the outside of the drive to maximise read speed and reduced the usage of the disk to minimise the head travel and thus access time for random access.

  17. Post
    #17
    I thought there were issues with partitioning SSDs due to the limited number of read/write cycles (i.e. partitioning the drive causing areas of the SSD having relatively more read/write activity), but apparently that's not how SSDs work and the SSD doesn't give a **** about how the filesystem is partitioned.

  18. Post
    #18
    partitioning physical media is a waste of time, just buy more disks and use cloud storage for backups

  19. Post
    #19
    Analgia wrote:
    partitioning physical media is a waste of time, just buy more disks and use cloud storage for backups
    My main reason is when I want to reinstall Windows without losing all my data. Yes I know Win 10 has a reset thing, but sometimes when I'm having weird issues only a full reinstall helps.

    And I don't want to buy another SSD just for OS.

    KevinL wrote:
    I thought there were issues with partitioning SSDs due to the limited number of read/write cycles (i.e. partitioning the drive causing areas of the SSD having relatively more read/write activity), but apparently that's not how SSDs work and the SSD doesn't give a **** about how the filesystem is partitioned.
    Ah yes, that's also something I was wondering about. And don't SSD's automatically reserve some space so they can shuffle around worn cells or something? But from some reading I've done it sounds like that's done at hardware level, and partitioning doesn't interfere with that

  20. Post
    #20
    If you want 2 partitions, just do it.
    By the time it could have possibly made any difference to expected life, you would have upgraded anyway. Real world :-) . At one stage people were loosing sleep over pagefiles on SSD's . Just do it, it doesnt matter.

    The issue with partitioning drives is it creates a mess for Joe Average. You'd get the 1st partition 99% full and causing issues and the 2nd partition 100% empty. Some laptops still came with a 50/50 partition , the av person has no idea about the 2nd partition or how to move mydocs to it etc. Seen that plenty of times.

    There are so many old wives tales re HD's, partitions & speed.
    A theoretical small speed increase seen under lab testing conditions has liitle relevance to real world usage for 99% of users
    Its not 1995 after all, tech is better, old beliefs persisted
    Some PC users actually bought Ram defrag software and actually thought it made a difference .

    Its just blokes wanting to tinker, allways has been.
    We like to think we know better than those who wrote the firmware drivers & OS :-)

  21. Post
    #21
    Except that partitioning the drive to short stroke it actually had provable gains, it's not an old wives tale.

    Generally pointless but the benefit was there..

  22. Smile
    #22
    GorGasm wrote:
    Except that partitioning the drive to short stroke it actually had provable gains, it's not an old wives tale.

    Generally pointless but the benefit was there..
    Hard drive manufacturers should re-think how they make hard drives, If you can make a 4TB hard drive then why not use the short stroke idea on a 500GB or 1TB hdd.

    Not actually short stroking it but making the spinning disc's inside the hard drive a lot smaller so the read/write head doesn't need to travel so much.

    like instead of a CD how about a mini disc. (if you get what I mean)

  23. Post
    #23
    HDD are for storage these days. Anyone using one for anything else needs to google "SSD".