why is one partition slower than the other ?

scarface19 · 10-11-2006, 12:17 PM

So, basically I divided my new SATA2 hard disk into 2 partitions

System Partition : I use this for Windows, and all installations (games,apps, wotever)

Backup Partition : I use this partition for backing up documents, patches, game saves etc... No installations at all.

Now the thing is this I noticed the backup partition is slower so to test it I defragmented both partitions. Then I extracted the same 4.5gb image first on the system and then on the backup partition. The following are the results

System partition :

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/5...tition1ja6.jpg

Backup partition :

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/5...tition1qx8.jpg

Does anyone have any explanation why the backup partition is 35% slower than the system partition ? To be honest I expect the backup paritition to be faster since it does not have any installations.

Both partitions have over 50% free space so I guess that's ok also.

**Cellus** · 10-11-2006, 02:19 PM

There are several factors that can affect this, such as where you were extracting from to where. Extracting a file from partition A to A will differ from A to B. If you're going from A to B it will undoubtedly go slower as it has to 1) write data to an area of the disc that is farther than what it would be in the same partition, and 2) write to the FAT or LVM of that partition. Other factors include the current state the system is in (under load or not), other writes not relating to the extraction in the queue, whether the extraction is using a page file instead of RAM (and where that page file is), and so forth. It also depends on just how fragmented the drive is - usually a single pass with Windows Defragmenter will not completely defragment a drive, and that's no considering system files in use and page files. There are more factors to it as well, but these are some of the bigger ones. All in all it's not surprising.

scarface19 · 10-11-2006, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cellus

There are several factors that can affect this, such as where you were extracting from to where. Extracting a file from partition A to A will differ from A to B. If you're going from A to B it will undoubtedly go slower as it has to 1) write data to an area of the disc that is farther than what it would be in the same partition, and 2) write to the FAT or LVM of that partition. Other factors include the current state the system is in (under load or not), other writes not relating to the extraction in the queue, whether the extraction is using a page file instead of RAM (and where that page file is), and so forth. It also depends on just how fragmented the drive is - usually a single pass with Windows Defragmenter will not completely defragment a drive, and that's no considering system files in use and page files. There are more factors to it as well, but these are some of the bigger ones. All in all it's not surprising.

No.1 Before doing this "test" I defragmented both hard drives

No.2 I was extracting on the same partition. First I extracted from system to sytem partition which took 2m14s and the I extracted from backup to backup which took 3mins38sec.

No.3 I did this "test" with everything the same in my pc , no background processes or anything, and I did it in the same time period, i.e. i first did it on the system partition and then on the backup partition right after.

No.4 This is not a one time, I made this test because everytime I make an extraction on the backup I find it too slow compared to when I make an extraction on the system.

**hwm54112** · 10-12-2006, 06:30 PM

While it may seem that you are performing the same operation, comparing apples to apples, you aren’t. Just the fact that the backup partition is located on disk space that is further away from the idle position of the read/write heads than the system partition is makes the backup operation slower. More than likely, the average file sizes are going to be different. Yes you are extracting the same file or image, but that is not the sole file size factor, It’s the sizes of the other files on the partitions that make the difference and part of that difference is a function of the defrag method. When a file is accessed, the read arm doesn’t go rite to the file. It goes to a table to find out where the pieces of the file are stored. Just because the drive has been defragged, it doesn’t mean the file or image has been defragged. Some defraggers move data at random just so long as all data is in contiguous space, while other defraggers rearrange the data while it is being moved so that the file fragments are contiguous with each other and that makes a difference in file access time. Even though the test images look the same on a monitor, the fact is one of those images could be fragmented all over the drive while the other is entirely in contiguous space.

**jnob** · 10-14-2006, 01:43 PM

I've noticed with WinRar that when you extract a file to anywhere but the root drive it first extracts it to the root drive then copies it to the final destination. Try it with a large file and you'll see the copying dialog box after the file has been extracted.

scarface19 · 10-14-2006, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hwm54112

While it may seem that you are performing the same operation, comparing apples to apples, you aren’t. Just the fact that the backup partition is located on disk space that is further away from the idle position of the read/write heads than the system partition is makes the backup operation slower. More than likely, the average file sizes are going to be different. Yes you are extracting the same file or image, but that is not the sole file size factor, It’s the sizes of the other files on the partitions that make the difference and part of that difference is a function of the defrag method. When a file is accessed, the read arm doesn’t go rite to the file. It goes to a table to find out where the pieces of the file are stored. Just because the drive has been defragged, it doesn’t mean the file or image has been defragged. Some defraggers move data at random just so long as all data is in contiguous space, while other defraggers rearrange the data while it is being moved so that the file fragments are contiguous with each other and that makes a difference in file access time. Even though the test images look the same on a monitor, the fact is one of those images could be fragmented all over the drive while the other is entirely in contiguous space.

so in other words you are saying that should I format the backup partition then try the test again, I should have the same or better result than the system partition ?

**jnob** · 10-14-2006, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scarface19

so in other words you are saying that should I format the backup partition then try the test again, I should have the same or better result than the system partition ?

It's always going to take a few seconds longer to extract a file to any partition other than the c: because of the fact it always extracts to a temp folder on the c: first then copies the files to the partition you chose.

**hwm54112** · 10-15-2006, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scarface19

so in other words you are saying that should I format the backup partition then try the test again, I should have the same or better result than the system partition ?

I'm only saying that performance will always be different because there are so many determining factors. Even if you format the backup, at some point in time performance will degrade because of the different way the drive is used. It's actually a rhetorical question because the time it takes to format the drive far exceeds the any performance gain you could possibly realize

10-11-2006, 12:17 PM	#1 (permalink)
scarface19 Registered User Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 3 OS: winxp	why is one partition slower than the other ? So, basically I divided my new SATA2 hard disk into 2 partitions System Partition : I use this for Windows, and all installations (games,apps, wotever) Backup Partition : I use this partition for backing up documents, patches, game saves etc... No installations at all. Now the thing is this I noticed the backup partition is slower so to test it I defragmented both partitions. Then I extracted the same 4.5gb image first on the system and then on the backup partition. The following are the results System partition : http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/5...tition1ja6.jpg Backup partition : http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/5...tition1qx8.jpg Does anyone have any explanation why the backup partition is 35% slower than the system partition ? To be honest I expect the backup paritition to be faster since it does not have any installations. Both partitions have over 50% free space so I guess that's ok also.

10-11-2006, 02:19 PM	#2 (permalink)
Cellus Moderator Networking Team Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Canada Posts: 2,664 OS: Windows Vista Business SP1, Windows XP Professional SP3 My System	There are several factors that can affect this, such as where you were extracting from to where. Extracting a file from partition A to A will differ from A to B. If you're going from A to B it will undoubtedly go slower as it has to 1) write data to an area of the disc that is farther than what it would be in the same partition, and 2) write to the FAT or LVM of that partition. Other factors include the current state the system is in (under load or not), other writes not relating to the extraction in the queue, whether the extraction is using a page file instead of RAM (and where that page file is), and so forth. It also depends on just how fragmented the drive is - usually a single pass with Windows Defragmenter will not completely defragment a drive, and that's no considering system files in use and page files. There are more factors to it as well, but these are some of the bigger ones. All in all it's not surprising. __________________ TSF Networking Team HijackThis 5 Step Process Donate!

10-14-2006, 01:43 PM	#5 (permalink)
jnob TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: CA Valley Posts: 692 OS: XP Pro, SP2 My System	I've noticed with WinRar that when you extract a file to anywhere but the root drive it first extracts it to the root drive then copies it to the final destination. Try it with a large file and you'll see the copying dialog box after the file has been extracted. __________________ Everest Memtest86 Last edited by jnob; 10-14-2006 at 01:45 PM.

10-12-2006, 06:30 PM	#4 (permalink)
hwm54112 TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,233 OS: WINXP	While it may seem that you are performing the same operation, comparing apples to apples, you aren’t. Just the fact that the backup partition is located on disk space that is further away from the idle position of the read/write heads than the system partition is makes the backup operation slower. More than likely, the average file sizes are going to be different. Yes you are extracting the same file or image, but that is not the sole file size factor, It’s the sizes of the other files on the partitions that make the difference and part of that difference is a function of the defrag method. When a file is accessed, the read arm doesn’t go rite to the file. It goes to a table to find out where the pieces of the file are stored. Just because the drive has been defragged, it doesn’t mean the file or image has been defragged. Some defraggers move data at random just so long as all data is in contiguous space, while other defraggers rearrange the data while it is being moved so that the file fragments are contiguous with each other and that makes a difference in file access time. Even though the test images look the same on a monitor, the fact is one of those images could be fragmented all over the drive while the other is entirely in contiguous space.