Hard Drive Noise after Clean Install (Partitioned Now)

[rxl77]

Hi,

I recently just reformatted, and did a clean install on my T43 2687D3U (60gb 5400rpm).

I partitioned into 3... consisting of:

1) 7gb for windows xp
2) 12gb for programs
3) 38gb for storage

Now I notice there is a clicking noise on my harddrive when it is being accessed. Should I be worried or concerned about this? Is one partition better? Should I go back to one? I don't mind redoing the reformat/clean install, if it will mean less wear and tear on the harddrive.

Thanks in advance.

[rxl77]

Anyone?

[rxl77]

No one has any opinions on partitioning??

[Kyocera]

I have heard positive things about partitioning, I am sure any google search for hard drive tutorials will reveal it is encouraged to keep junk away from your operating system files.

I have not heard of partitioning or reformatting yeilding any negative hardware issues although anything is possible. Maybe reformatting and reloading the OS caused an already failing hard drive to fail faster. That is the only thing I can think of.

[bill bolton]

> Is one partition better?

Given the (relatively) low cost of mass storage, the dependence on the Registry in recent versions of Windows, and the latent issue of running out of space on any arbitrarlily sized partion, there's not really not any significant benefit in having multiple partitions for OS/Application/Data on a single drive any longer.

It did make sesne in the past when the OSs and applications were smaller and simpler, and storage was more expensive but now a days it not worth the hassle.

Cheers,

Bill

Sydney, Australia

[chrisnyc]

I partitioned my T42 -- using Norton Partition Magic 8 -- into multiple partitions -- I did not do a "clean install" -- and personally I'm very happy with the multiple partitions. For example, I have one relatively small partition (2 or 3 GB) just for temporary files, one for data documents (5 GB), 30 GB for music, the main C partition (12 GB), etc. To me it makes sense to do this.

Although I don't know how to do it, should the operating system or some program become corrupted enough to require "restoring" to factory condition, I think there's a way to do this to the C partition, while leaving the other ones intact -- I'm not sure about this.

With regard to the "clicking" -- are you saying it wasn't clicking before and now it is ? My hard drive is fairly quiet and there has been no difference before or after partitioning. I can't think of any reason why partitioning would cause more clicking -- if anything I'd think less.

[rgrosz]

I am a big believer in using partitions - I tend to overdo it. It makes it easier for me to back up certain subsets of my data:
C: - Windows XP Pro
D: - Programs
E: - Most data files
F: - BootMagic
G: - Seminar data files
H: - Mount points for external USB backup drives
I: - Drive Image backups
K: - MP3 files
J: - DVD-RW drive
L: - VMWare Windows 98 guests
N: - VMWare Windows XP guests

When I did a recent clean install (after 18 months), I zapped the C and D partitions, but left everything else intact.

[DIGITALgimpus]

IMHO partitioning has no real benefit in modern computers.

The goal of partitioning used to be to isolate corruption. Those days are somewhat behind us as corruption is pretty rare, and backups are so cheap to perform, and easier to restore from. Partitioning for corruption is pointless. Backups are cheap, faster, and more effective.

The other goal was to work around some hardware/software limitations. For example some older OS's can't recognize logical drives > xGB. So you partition to 2 smaller parts, so you get the storage. My old beige G3 requires the OS be in the first 8GB because it won't boot from it otherwise. So I have an 8GB OS partition, and the rest is a data partition. The other alternative is 2 physical drives.

The last reason is security, and that's also pointless with a modern OS.

The strategy these days is the complete opposite of partitioning. Filesystems people look for can take multiple physical drives, and create 1 logical drive. UNIX has done this well for quite some time now. Windows... well, windows sucks. We all know that.

Partitioning to keep "junk" away from your OS is complete nonsense with Windows, as a program that installs something to the windows directory does so regardless of what partition Program Files is on. Otherwise they just don't install, or don't work properly. There's a reason why they put stuff there. No developer likes installing to an OS directory as it's a support nightmare (DLL hell).

There's no real performance gain either. NTFS doesn't really get slow enough in large sizes for it to make a difference to a normal user. Especially if one defrags.

There's no negative impact on hardware as it's purely virtual. Only defragging your OS partition as many tend to do will though (people do it for boottime reasons, and don't realize that the unfragmented areas do put extra stress on the HD).


Most discussion on partitioning is based on myths, or OS issues that were resolved a decade ago. Before Windows 2k, you could perhaps make an argument for partitioning. But with 2k, XP, 2003, Vista, Mac OS X, Linux... there's really no reason to partition user data.

There is a reason to partition on Linux during install (swap and such), or for the HPA on Thinkpads... but that's a different topic, and I'm ignoring it as it's not really applicable to this discussion.

[andrey]

IMHO partitioning has no real benefit in modern computers.

Partitioning in modern computers mainly done for organizational reasons. It is a matter of personal preference though

-- Andrey

[rgrosz]

Partitioning to keep "junk" away from your OS is complete nonsense with Windows, as a program that installs something to the windows directory does so regardless of what partition Program Files is on. Otherwise they just don't install, or don't work properly. There's a reason why they put stuff there.

I have a somewhat related example. I also try to keep the Windows Start Menu organized. I create several subfolders under "All Programs":
"VB Stuff"
"Internet"
"Win Apps"

I was amazed when I found that Norton Systemworks Premier simply will NOT work if you move it from "All Programs" in the Start Menu.

[DIGITALgimpus]

IMHO partitioning has no real benefit in modern computers.

Partitioning in modern computers mainly done for organizational reasons. It is a matter of personal preference though

-- Andrey

But you can duplicate that functionality using a method called a "directory" or "folder" (depending on your OS terminology varies)

[aabram]

But you can duplicate that functionality using a method called a "directory" or "folder" (depending on your OS terminology varies)

Not really. Why people have usually several separate cupboards and closets for keeping different things instead of having one giant cupboard with lots of shelves and drawers in it? It's the same thing.

[DIGITALgimpus]

That's because most people don't have room for "one giant cupboard".

Again, partitioning is really just supported in modern computers for those who are in that habit and will never budge.

Same thing with that parallel port.

[aabram]

That's because most people don't have room for "one giant cupboard".

Space total is the same in both cases, it's just a matter of organising things. It's not that they "don't have room", it's just that they like to keep some things separated.

Anyway, I always use two partitions - one for system and one for the data and self-contained programs/utilities which keep their configuration with them. It is way more convenient to restore from the backup image just one smaller partition than a huge one. My number one reason for restoring or reinstalling is borked Windows, not the actual data loss, which is extremely rare. Keeping Windows + programs separate from data gives me much more versatility than having one big dump of a partition. I do a partition image straight after clean install and can use it to restore the system to known clean state whenever I need (after dll hell has crept in finally or when broken drivers wreak havoc in the system and refuse to be removed) without worrying harming my data in any way. With one partition I'd have to make an image of entire HDD and I'd rather not do it with 40GB (or greater) single partition but with smaller 6-8GB system partition instead.

[rgrosz]

Space total is the same in both cases, it's just a matter of organising things.

Actually, it does cost some space to use multiple partitions. I must keep a lot of free space to defrag my VM's. If I consolidate all the partitions into one, I would save a few gigabytes.

[pae77]

I clone my entire 60 gig hd every week to another 60 gig hd (in the ultrabay second hd adapter) to have a spare as a back up. I'm not sure exactly how long it takes but I know it is less than an hour. Actually as easy or maybe even easier than backing up just a partition.

[matyst]

DIGITALgimpus, I tend to disagree. IMHO partitioning is great in some situations, for example when you want to use partition-based backup tools (like Ghost or TrueImage). I have my system and programs on one partition and all documents on another one, so I can do separate backups of the system and documents and restore them separately if needed. If you have just one partition, what's the point of backing up the system every time you backup the documents and vice versa?
IMHO partitioning can also be of value if you want to keep fragmentation down (eg. putting you temp folder and especially the browser cache on another partition); the problem is that the temporary space is limited to the partition size, though.

[davidspalding]

Matyst you list a couple of several reasons why partitioning is still useful in some cases. The info-snobs here need to take a chill pill.

I have an desktop that's practically an antique (1998 P II 300 Mhz) that still runs reasonably smoothly, partly because I segregate operational areas into volumes. Almost 3 years after my last system burn-down-and-rebuild, the SYSTEM volume sees remarkably little fragmentation, resulting in a higher assurance of drive stability (the system has 2 drives). The FILES and APPS volumes get minimal fragmentation, though certain areas of FILES (like an Outlook .PST file) get horribly fragmented. Now, the USER volume, where Wacky Windows insists on putting all kinds of constantly churning detritus ... it gets fragmented like crazy. A real mess that can easily be seen. Keeping all that churn-happy crud away from the SYSTEM has obvious benefits.

Now ... I've left the door open for the high horsies to lecture us all on how fragmentation is no longer a problem in this day of high-reliability hard drives and easier-than-pie backup tools. Whatever. If managing your personal computer is easier if you organize your pantry how you personally like it, no one else's opinion really matters.

[christopher_wolf]

Partitioning has its benefits; then, so does organizing things alot...Which is exactly what partitioning does. I have an old 300Mhz Compaq laptop and 266MHz OmniBook and they are both partitioned like that. This helps alot with defragmenting and such, but they don't see much activity nowadays. I have noticed, though, on my T43 that not too many things get gragmented heavily even if I run the system at maximum for the enitre day. I have 65%-70% free disk space and have noticed little fragmentation considering how much work my Thinkpad goes through each day...IMO, Partitioning really helps on Machines that are slightly older and need to concentrate more on using what processing power they have to work on the file rather than fragment the disk looking for bits that they need. I haven't found a really convincing reason to partition my T43, though Partitioning is useful in some cases.

[Kyocera]

Digitalgimpus wrote:

Partitioning to keep "junk" away from your OS is complete nonsense with Windows

Seems to me there is enough of an argument on both sides to not find this statement credible. There is a lot of information about partitioning, you may not agree with some but that does not make is nonsense.

[amensi]

Hi,

If your hard drive is Hitachi Made, go to www.hgst.com or on the thinkvantage's website and download the accoustic level manager.

Hitachi drive are equipped with the option of controlling the noise. This is preset with IBM OEM package but if you re-installed a clean Windows, noise level is reset to the top !

p.s. Hard drive will not wear after a format. They can support thousands of format !!

Hope it helps

[DIGITALgimpus]

Seems to me there is enough of an argument on both sides to not find this statement credible. There is a lot of information about partitioning, you may not agree with some but that does not make is nonsense.

p.s. Hard drive will not wear after a format. They can support thousands of format !!

Hope it helps

Very true, though if you 0 the drive when you format, you do put some stress on it. There's no set limit on what a drive will tolerate. I know someone whose drive failed in hours. I personally have a 10 year old 1GB HD still working, and a few just a little younger.

No matter what, stress does eat away at life. Though it's impossible to tell how much. In general you can format thousands of times, and use it for thousands of hours with no problems.

It's also effected by the enclosure. Heat is well known to lower the lifespan of a HD. If your drive runs hot, formatting will cause more wear than if it's water cooled and run in a cool colocation facility.

HD life is about as unpredictable as can be. There are known bad things that do wear and lower the life of the drive... but they don't always cause that.

Also depends in part on the make, model, and batch of HD.

[amensi]

I agree.... Your HD is much more likelly to fail due to overheating or shock and even magnetic disturbance.

[christopher_wolf]

In the case of HDD failure, fragmentation is a big problem. You can increase wear significantly if the HDD has to skitter across its platters looking for your data. Partitioning helps this to some extent, but it all depends on how much the drive is accessed...if you work on it alot and the computer dedicates a significant portion of its resources to it, then it makes a big difference. I haven't seen this affect too many modern computers. Then again, if you want to do it, go right ahead.

[davidspalding]

You raise an excellent point, CW. If you do something with frequent, intense disk writes, fragmentation can be a problem. Using Office/Smart Suite or somethign benign like that, no big deal.

I didn't mention that my TP is going to be used for Photoshop, Premiere, and some other multimedia applications. So I made a partition/volume just for the multimedia data/scratch drive, which I could format and start fresh regularly. Though this wouldn't "save" my HDD, it keeps the operating system volume safe. Relatively.

[serpico]

One argument for partitioning that has not been raised is improved system performance. The first partition will consist of the outermost (fastest read) tracks of the disk. So if you put your operating system, paging file and applications in the first partition, you should have faster boot and app load times than if this stuff is all over a large disk (even if that disk is regularly defragged) simply because the OS and apps data is being read from the portions of the disk with the highest linear velocity.

Anyone agree/disagree?

[christopher_wolf]

It does help to create a dedicated swap partition; but less nowadys than it used to. I remember quite a few laptops used to come partioned like that, so did my Compaq 1900 Presario. Since the HDD Technology has gotten better over the years, it is starting to make less of a difference unless you are doing very large tasks that consistently fragment the disk. I also have tried using a large USB Flash stick as dedicated swap space, that actually helped out quite a bit.

[serpico]

It does help to create a dedicated swap partition; but less nowadys than it used to. I remember quite a few laptops used to come partioned like that, so did my Compaq 1900 Presario. Since the HDD Technology has gotten better over the years, it is starting to make less of a difference unless you are doing very large tasks that consistently fragment the disk. I also have tried using a large USB Flash stick as dedicated swap space, that actually helped out quite a bit.

I'm not suggesting creating a separate partition for the paging file. The point I'm making is not about fragmentation, but about putting the operating system, apps and paging file onto the first partition (this partition will consist of the outermost tracks), so that you minimize boot and app loading times, and it also keeps the paging file on the fast track (pun intended). To implement the scheme I am suggesting, you should set a specific size for the paging file (this helps to keep the paging file contiguous).

Your reference to a separate partition for the paging file makes sense in that it would keep the file contiguous, but the drawback is that you are putting the file in the second or third or deeper partition of the disk, where the read speeds are slower. If you have 2 SATA disks, you can always put the paging file in the first partition of the 2nd disk, but most laptop users have only one disk, which is why I suggest splitting the disk into at least 2 partitions, and putting OS, apps and paging file in the first. Organize the other partitions however you like. I prefer 2 partitions in total.

[christopher_wolf]

Well, in this case you just outlined, Windows tries to do that as much as possi ble automatically; when Windows boots, it logs what drivers and software that you use and load upon boot, after ahwhile it will setup pre-fetch routines and automatically optimize their placement on the HDD by itself. So, unless you have some very special requirements for the system where you need two partitions for it, I would go ahead and leave Windows XP alone and let it handle that part. You can also get Bootvis, and some PerfectDisk will do part of this too as well, and it will place those files on the part of the disk that is the fastest to access.

[serpico]

Well, in this case you just outlined, Windows tries to do that as much as possi ble automatically; when Windows boots, it logs what drivers and software that you use and load upon boot, after ahwhile it will setup pre-fetch routines and automatically optimize their placement on the HDD by itself. So, unless you have some very special requirements for the system where you need two partitions for it, I would go ahead and leave Windows XP alone and let it handle that part. You can also get Bootvis, and some PerfectDisk will do part of this too as well, and it will place those files on the part of the disk that is the fastest to access.

Thanks, I wasn't aware that Windows automatically optimizes file placement on the disk. In that case, maybe the only benefit of the scheme I suggest is in quicker loading time for applications. And I guess the piece of mind that comes from knowing that even if Windows isn't doing it's job properly, that all the operating system files, including Windows updates, are manually relegated to the outermost tracks of the disk.