[SOLVED] Should I partition a new SSD?

anceintsz

Honorable
Jul 17, 2012
83
0
10,630
0
I can't see any benefit to it other than organization of files from the human perspective, I'm not looking to optimize for speed I'm looking to know whether or not it would make a difference in how the SSD operates. Like if I wanted to partition a new 240gb SSD one partition for OS and drivers, another for apps/games/music/pictures, and I wanted to just get rid of all the second partition and start fresh without having to re-install windows and without having to back up the OS prior to the install, would it even be a reasonable thing to do?
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
If the drive has the OS on it, it should have three partitions, all of which are created ONLY by Windows itself during installation. It should have the C: partition where the operating system is installed and there should be a system created recovery partition as well as the EFI boot partition. That's it. That is what Windows creates during installation if done correctly with a clean install by deleting all existing partitions on the drive and then directing Windows to install to the unallocated, unpartitioned space, which is the preferred method of installation and invokes the "Custom" option choice during installation.

Placing other partitions on the drive can affect longevity of the SSD and performance, not as much as on spinning drives, but still to some degree.

If you need another place for games files, music and pictures, it's advisable that you get a second drive. Safer that way anyhow because data not on the primary drive are at least a slightly more protected against corruption and failures that commonly occur on primary system drives.
 

anceintsz

Honorable
Jul 17, 2012
83
0
10,630
0
Placing other partitions on the drive can affect longevity of the SSD and performance, not as much as on spinning drives, but still to some degree.
Are you sure?

Quote from another forum I won't name that I read upon before asking here;

"That is totally wrong.  It is impossible to wear out a partition because you read/write to only that partition. This is NOT even remotely how SSDs work.

An SSD works at a much lower level access than what the filesystem sees; an SSD works with blocks and pages.

In this case, what actually happens is, even if you are writing a ton of data in a specific partition, the filesystem is constrained by the partition, BUT, the SSD is not. The more writes the SSD gets, the more blocks/pages the SSD will be swapping out in order to do wear leveling. It couldn't care less how the filesystem sees things! That means, at one time, the data might reside in a specific page on the SSD, but, another time, it can and will be different. The SSD will keep track of where the data gets shuffled off to, and the filesystem will have no clue where on the SSD the data actually are.

To make this even easier: say you write a file on partition 1. The OS tells the filesystem about the storage needs, and the filesystem allocates the "sectors", and then tells the SSD it needs X amount of space. The filesystem sees the file at a Logical Block Address (LBA) of 123 (for example). The SSD makes a note that LBA 123 is using block/page #500 (for example). So, every time the OS needs this specific file, the SSD will have a pointer to the exact page it is using. Now, if we keep writing to the SSD, wear leveling kicks in, and says block/page #500, we can better optimize you at block/page #2300. Now, when the OS requests that same file, and the filesystem asks for LBA 123 again, THIS time, the SSD will return block/page #2300, and NOT #500."
 
240 GB drives are so small anyway these days, I'd not bother further hindering the already limited C: space with separate partitions...

A few utilities, a few games, one or two virtual machines, and before you know it, even a 500 GB drive is half full....
 

karenjoly

Respectable
Apr 13, 2018
1,329
17
1,815
152
I can't see any benefit to it other than organization of files from the human perspective, I'm not looking to optimize for speed I'm looking to know whether or not it would make a difference in how the SSD operates. Like if I wanted to partition a new 240gb SSD one partition for OS and drivers, another for apps/games/music/pictures, and I wanted to just get rid of all the second partition and start fresh without having to re-install windows and without having to back up the OS prior to the install, would it even be a reasonable thing to do?
Using such partitions is a scheme no one contemplates anymore. Went out of currency in 2001. User created partitions for the purposes mentioned are now replaced by separate drives called storage. And you are never going to want to wipe the storage but you will wipe the windows drive after you've screw the pooch which is why you will have to reinstall, and many times, unless you have a complete back up plan which you apparently will not have.
I foresee a long and tortuous road ahead.
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
Are you sure?

Quote from another forum I won't name that I read upon before asking here;
I'm guessing LTT or Reddit? So, technically, it's probably (Maybe) accurate to say that it doesn't, but there are good reasons to not do it that DO have to do with that as was mentioned. Wear leveling can't work properly or optimally if you cut the number of cells available for it in half. Files on that other partition probably aren't going to be written often, mostly read, unlike the OS which will constantly be writing and reading to the drive and over time will likely use the cells on that partition a lot more frequently, meaning it's going to reach it's maximum number of cycles written for some part of the drive much sooner than if it had the entire drive to work with.

Considering, even if that were NOT true, that you could get another SSD of 120GB or up starting at about 20 bucks, to store those other files on, extending the life of all storage by spreading out write cycles across two drives instead of one, it makes no sense at all. Storage is too cheap to subscribe to practices that were used in the old days when spinning drives were the norm and storage was expensive.
 
Reactions: anceintsz

anceintsz

Honorable
Jul 17, 2012
83
0
10,630
0
I'm guessing LTT or Reddit? So, technically, it's probably (Maybe) accurate to say that it doesn't, but there are good reasons to not do it that DO have to do with that as was mentioned. Wear leveling can't work properly or optimally if you cut the number of cells available for it in half. Files on that other partition probably aren't going to be written often, mostly read, unlike the OS which will constantly be writing and reading to the drive and over time will likely use the cells on that partition a lot more frequently, meaning it's going to reach it's maximum number of cycles written for some part of the drive much sooner than if it had the entire drive to work with.

Considering, even if that were NOT true, that you could get another SSD of 120GB or up starting at about 20 bucks, to store those other files on, extending the life of all storage by spreading out write cycles across two drives instead of one, it makes no sense at all. Storage is too cheap to subscribe to practices that were used in the old days when spinning drives were the norm and storage was expensive.
Well I got a bx500 240gb and I split the storage. Now just the fact I wish I didn't do that because it's now all a mess lol. Thanks yall for the replies!
 

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS