Why partition the hard disk?

[eric friedemann]

1. I got a Windows-based computer with two 120GB hard drives.

 

2. It was recommended by p.netters that I "partition" the disk that

Photoshop is on to have a scratch disk. And, I should buy Blatner

and Fraser's "Real World Pshop 7" as a how to.

 

3. $40 later, I have the book, but it in no way explains how to set

up Pshop, partititioning part of the disk as a scratch disk. The

whole topic takes up less than a page in the book and provides no

useful information.

 

4. So how do you do this? Is there anywhere online that tells how?

 

I don't understand why this book was recommended. It tells you a

whole lot of what to do, but not how.

[derek_hill1]

I don't understand why people insist on partitioning drives and moving the scratch disk to a different partition as this WILL NOT increase performance. You must have the scratch disk on a seperate disk not a partition. The problem with partitions is that you run out of space on one and have lots of space in the other.

 

Ok to solve your problem. Install PS on disk 1 and select disk 2 as your scratch disk. For example, your first disk is partitioned into C: and D:, your second disk is partitioned into E: and F:, then install PS onto either C or D then select the scratch disk as either E or F. That will accomplish what you want to do. The best thing you can do for PS is to add lots of memory to your machine and allocate that in PS and avoid the scratch disk - memory is always faster than disk access.

 

Hope that answered your question.

[jerry_freeman1]

Derek is 100% correct. Partitions are of minimal value, if at all, on a single disk, and

not required period on a dual disk box. Hopefully your second drive 7200rpm, 120G

is overkill...jf

[mbetea]

Actually no matter how much ram you have PS will want a scratch disk. PS code knows to use available ram, but to run smoothly it needs a scratch disk as well. Whatever the file size you're working on is, PS will hold 2-3 times that file size in memory/scratch disk.

[will_perlis]

Eric,

 

The idea is to not have Windoze and PS competing for access to the same drive for their scratch space and time. Two different physical drives prevent that.

 

I've had good results with my laptop by setting the external Firewire drive as PS' (or should that be PS's, taking into account PS = Photoshop?) primary scratch drive and the laptop's drive as the secondary. PS doesn't bother with the secondary at all unless the external drive is unplugged.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Re <i>I don't understand why people insist on partitioning drives and moving the scratch disk to a different partition as this WILL NOT increase performance.</i><BR><BR>We do this because we print for people; where time is money.... and a small enhancement ; that costs us nothing has a great return on investment. With our boxes; defining a clean moderate size; non fragmented logical drive near the OS drive does help some. It helps when the drive is fragemented alot; during a busy week when the drive gets fuller; before the weekly housekeeping. For the average Joe; who doesnt use Photoshop all the time; it is not going to help. Using a separate HDA as the scratch disk is usually better; depending on what the RPM/access times are for your drives; the controllers; etc.<BR><BR>Most Photoshop manuals and books are real weak about scratch disks. The booklets I got back in Photoshop 2 mentioned using 5 times as much ram; as the file one was working on. My 1st huge Photoshop machine had 16megs of ram; the ram cost the same price as full bore Photoshop. <BR><BR>Here I question the statement that the HDA is always used in Photoshop. <BR><BR>Here is the time to rotate a file 90 degrees; using Photoshop 5.5; and XP-PRO; Photoshop ram set to 90% :<BR><BR>File size in Megs/time to rotate 90 degrees CW/Efficency displayed by photoshop<BR><BR>028meg/0.2sec/100%<BR><BR>061meg/0.4sec/100%<BR><BR>095meg/0.6sec/98%<BR><BR>112meg/0.9sec/99%<BR><BR>226meg/1.8sec/97%<BR><BR>329meg/2.5sec/96%<BR><BR>412meg/3.0sec/95%<BR><BR>523meg/3.8sec/96%<BR><BR>639meg/4.7sec/88%<BR><BR><BR><b>095meg/9.3sec/94%</b><BR><BR><BR> NON bold data is using a 2.5 Ghz P4; 2.0Gigs of ram; and a lame 5400Rpm drive; and NO special logical drive. The <b>bold data</b> is for a 200Mhz Pentium Pro; with Win 98SE; 512Megs ram; and an ancient 5400rpm drive. It also doesnt NOT have a logical drive as a scratch drive. <BR><BR>With some hours long batch conversions of a mess of files; some of our boxes with a defined; clean; non fragmented logical scratch drives are quicker by 3 to 8%; when the drives tend to get fragmented. At least for us; the small enhancement is worthwhile. We only have about 18 boxes to play with; thus our data base might be smaller than the experts who write the books; and have no deadlines to meet:)

[StuartMoxham]

Here is another point of view nothing to do with photoshop but say you have your large 80GB hard drive as one big partion with windows and all your documents stored together say that windows one day refuses to start and you need to format the drive to reinstal windows what will happend to you data you did not have time to back you will lose it. I you divide the drive into two partions you can keep your data on drive D: and you windows on drive C: when you have to format c: one day because windows messes up big time you will still have your data. This won't protect you against any mechanical failer but two partions may help you one day.

[derek_hill1]

My answer regarding partitioning and then making the second partion the scratch disk in PS has nothing to do with organization of data, etc. The question was regarding performance. If you are putting the same physical disk into multiple partitions, you will not see an increase in speed if you place your scratch disk onto the same physical drive, but on a different partition. In order to see the speed increase, you need to have it on a seperate physical disk, preferrably even a faster one such as 7200 RPM, etc. If you are on a laptop, then your options are limited unless you are able to plug in a second disk, but when working in "mobile" mode, you will have to give up that performance gain.