Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Dream Machine ( Build your own PC ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dave Hanson who wrote (867)	5/27/1998 7:52:00 PM
From: Spots	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14778

>> wondering if there's any downside you experience whatsoever having all your non-repair partitions on NTFS Only downside is I can't repair them from DOS or Win 95. Since I've put in my backup Win NT I don't have that problem either (but of course it costs me 99 k plus the overhead of keeping up with major hardware changes). Other than that, no downside at all and many upsides. Of course I can't really judge if I'm getting a relative performance hit. But my disk performance is plenty good. My CPU, now that's another question <G>. Big upsides to me are compression by file and by folder and security. OOP, forgot, biggest upside is byebye cluster space loss. I'm still a miser for space, irrespective of the fact that disks are so cheap. I keep thinking if I have it and I paid for it I should get to use it <G>. >> Swap file I keep my swap files on my two boot-drive partitions (one of which is my FAT boy). That is, both my boot partitions (FAT and NTFS containing WinNT and WinNT backup) are on my first hard drive. My justification for this, possibly incorrect, is that if the drive fails I'm screwed anyhow. I get to test my backup strategies. If the boot drive doesn't fail, I'm not vulnerable to non-boot-drive failures in the swap file. I don't trust NT to recover gracefully from corrupt swapfiles. Paranoia, to be sure (but maybe they're REALLY out to get you ... <GGG>). I'm willing to be talked out of this if someone can show me where it's stupid. But they have to show me why. >> have you tried any truly huge partitions with NTFS (>4 GB?) I don't have any NTFS partitions LESS than 4 GB, except for one on a 1.6g disk which is one of those trash 1.6G WDC drives that I will only trust for temp storage (I own some WDC; maybe that's why it keeps going down. I never claimed to be smart). I ALWAYS partition the full disk where physically possible, the single exception being the 500mb FAT partition on my boot drive (the other partition there is my main NT boot partition at 4.5 GB). I keep my files logically separated; physically separated only by force. I resent the physical drive restriction and would gang all my disks together in a single drive letter if it didn't leave me more vulnerable to failures. Being both paranoid and expansive is hard on the psyche! BTW the NT literature claims you must install NT on a 2GB (or smaller) partition, but that's utter horsefeathers. The real restriction is the NT install can't FORMAT a partition bigger than two GB, even though it's NTFS (though that's a FAT restriction). If you create a bigger partition some other way, NT installs and runs there with no problem whatsoever. As I said, my main NT boot partition is 4.5g. Spots