El_Pescador

The devil is in the *details*--I have lost track of exactly what you are doing--

In your reply #123 above--you created what appears to be a single FAT32 primary partition.

In your reply #125 above--you create what appears to be two primary partition:

1.  a NTFS partition of > 35 GB

2.  a FAT32 partition of approx. 25 GB

You then manipulate those partitions using PartitionMagic to delete and reconfigure them as Logical partitions in an extended partition--but the step-by-step sequence is missing--and the final size of each partition is not mentioned.

And then, in your reply # 128, you modify your procedure so as to not *delete* the NTFS partition, but simply manipulate it and the FAT32 partition so as to end up with an Extended partition with the NTFS and FAT32 partition inside...but, again the step-by-step details of the sequence of steps is missing--as well as the final size of the partitions.

So, of the three different configurations and steps outlined above--which one (or ones) did you want tested--and what are the missing steps and final sizes of the partitions in your outline?

El_Pescador

I have the IBM 40 GB...or an IBM 60 GB that I can test--how would you like those partitioned and formated?

Quote:


I've never used PartitionMagic's *Convert* function--so I do not know what happens here.

Do you end up with two 57 GB NTFS partitions inside the Extended partition plus the 25 GB FAT32 partition--and the remaining *free space* at the end of the HDD outside the Extended partition?

Do you have to *resize* the Extended partition to use the remaining free space?  You don't explain how you have *GROWN-UP* the FAT32 partition.

Do you resize the FAT32 partition to take up the remaining free space after *growing* the Extended partition?

NightOwl wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2005 at 8:00pm:
"... or an IBM 60 GB that I can test--how would you like those partitioned and formated?... I've never used PartitionMagic's *Convert* function--so I do not know what happens here... end up with two 57 GB NTFS partitions inside the Extended partition plus the 25 GB FAT32 partition--and the remaining *free space* at the end of the HDD outside the Extended partition?... have to *resize* the Extended partition to use the remaining free space... resize the FAT32 partition to take up the remaining free space after *growing* the Extended partition?" Quote:


BE ADVISED: DiscWizard assigns file system format by the volume of the partition selected, plus the second partition and all subsequent are going to be in an extended partition as a set of logical drives no matter what you do or don't do - forego fighting any of this early on:

(1)  The 60GB IBM IDE HDD would be best, but with only two partitions - initially go for a leading primary active NTFS partition trailed by default with an extended partition containing a single FAT32 logical drive;
(2)  After the so-called "low-level format" with GDisk, use DiscWizard to assign the target HDD as and when underway proceed to slide the scale LEFT-to-RIGHT until the leading partition changes from GREEN-to-PURPLE (FAT32-to-NTFS) at about 36GB and stick with the NTFS default file cluster size as you mark ; then

(3)  For the trailing partition, keep an eye on the window below the pie-chart graphic for the in FAT32 default cluster size from as you slide the scale LEFT-to-RIGHT and to mark and then select the radio button (you will find the remainder of this phase to be straightforwardly automated);

(4)  Upon exiting from DiscWizard, reboot your PC into SAFE MODE and reenter DiscWizard to select the radio button to go to , select where you in turn select (this feature actually pumps up the logical drive to force the extended partition to occupy the remaining freespace albeit while retaining the 16kb cluster size - you will find the remainder of this phase to be likewise straightforwardly automated as DiscWizard will reboot without intervention on your part);

(5)  After the system reboots, you merely hit the radio button, then in turn the radio button and on to PM8; and

(6)  Once in Partition Magic 8.0, target the NTFS partition in the lead and perform a from - et voila^' - you are done.

The trick now is to see if there are any marked performance differences between NTFS and FAT32.  I am reasonably confident that the IBM HDD will be amenable to the Seagate DiscWizard, but I cannot assure you of this.

Christer wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2005 at 8:21pm:

Christer -

All of that is most likely correct - and exceedingly elegant, I might add - but at the end of the day will your troublesome HDD so configured have its FAT32 partition perform almost as well as its NTFS partition, for that is the real question.

All I do know is that my Western Digital SLAVE HDDs configured in time-honored fashion experience Ghost 2003 Backups with NTFS partitions at the elapsed time achieved with the FAT32 partitions. After being reconfigured as described above, the FAT32 partitions will almost achieve parity with the NTFS partitions -

Regrettably, I cannot explain why it happens - I can only say that I can make it happen in my modest environment.  However, if you and NightOwl do in fact independently succeed in replicating my findings then this becomes a whole new ball game, doesn't it?

El_Pescador

I looked at the on-line information here:

DiscWizard Suite is your installation software kit for installing Seagate disc drives.

Clicking on the *Learn More* link just above the *Select Language* radio buttons--according to the *posted* information--only *DiscWizard Starter Edition* mentions the DDO.

It implies that it will only install DDO if the program determines that your BIOS does not support the HDD capacity, and it seems to imply that it will alert you that it is installing DDO(or at least has) :

Quote:


Quote:


1.  DiscWizard Starter Edition or DiscWizard for Windows--or both?

2.  I'm curious--if the option to remove DDO is *greyed out*--how have you determined that DDO is actually being installed and is present on your HDD's?

I had time to carry out a few tests, creating and checking images of the source (system) partition, C: on a 120 GB 7K250 with the target partition, F: on a 40 GB 60GXP. Both HDDs are PATAs. The 7K250 also has an extended partition with two logicals. I use No Compression when creating the images. I formated the single partition (all 40 GB) on the 60GXP in different ways and found:

WinME start disk, created extended/logical partition, formated using switch "/u" but let it decide the cluster size (cluster size 32 kB) => create image = 403 MB/min, integrity check = 400 MB/min

WinME start disk, created extended/logical partition, formated using switch "/u" and "/z:32" (cluster size 16 kB) => create image = 403 MB/min, integrity check = 392 MB/min

WinME start disk, created primary partition, formated using switch "/u" but let it decide the cluster size (cluster size 32 kB) => create image = 404 MB/min, integrity check = 399 MB/min

WinME start disk, created primary partition, formated using switch "/u" and "/z:32" (cluster size 16 kB) => create image = 403 MB/min, integrity check = 392 MB/min

From within WinXP Disk Manager, created extended/logical partition, formated NTFS with standard cluster size (4 kB) => create image = 854 MB/min, integrity check = 2101 MB/min

From within WinXP Disk Manager, created primary partition, formated NTFS with standard cluster size (4 kB) => create image = 854 MB/min, integrity check = 2125 MB/min

In no case did extended/logical or primary make a difference.

In no case did 32 kB or 16 kB cluster size make a difference (for cases formated FAT32).

Under all circumstances was NTFS 2.1 times faster creating and 5.3 times faster checking integrity compared to FAT32.

It seems like El_Pescador has discovered something that is quite puzzling. Creating a specific type of partition with a specific (non-standard) cluster size using a specific (quite intricate) method. I used a different method to acchieve similar partitioning but the performance was totally different. I can't predict if I would benefit from the same performance as E_P, if I would adhere to the E_P-procedure on my 60GXP. I don't have access to Partition Magic and have no other incentive to buy it which makes it a no-go for me.

Another peculiarity on FAT32 is that Ghost leaves "slack space" between the spans. My images were five spans with four "slack spaces". Any subsequent image gets written in the "slack spaces" of the previous image which makes span #1 fragmented. This doesn't happen on NTFS. Well ...... ...... on my system but I don't know about others!

Christer
(who from now on, officially believes in ...... ...... GREMLINS)

You must have been digging deep in the forum to find the old thread. I re-read my last post and don't even remember having done those tests ... ... !

Christer