Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralPortable MacsHardwareNetworking
Applications
Mac ApplicationsEudoraFirefox / MozillaInternet ExplorerOutlook ExpressMS OfficeEntourageExcelPowerPointWordVirtual PCMedia PlayerOther MS Products
Programming
Mac ProgrammingCodeWarriorPerl
Country Specific
Australian Mac GroupUK Mac Group

Mac Forum / General / Portable Macs / December 2004



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

partition OS X hard drives?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Uli Wienands - 20 Dec 2004 02:47 GMT
Bumping up my wife's iBook to 80 GB hard drive. Is it worth partitioning
it, e.g. 10 GB system, 5GB swap, rest user space? Any particular
problems doing it this way??

With OS 9 & earlier I had good luck with a similar scheme; booting ran
faster & I had a small scratch disk for cache files. But with OS X I
don't know if this speeds things up or just gets me into a mess.

Uli
Sander Tekelenburg - 20 Dec 2004 04:37 GMT
[I don't see what this has to do with portables. Follow-ups set to
<news:comp.sys.mac.system> only.]

> Bumping up my wife's iBook to 80 GB hard drive. Is it worth partitioning
> it, e.g. 10 GB system, 5GB swap, rest user space?

No.

> Any particular
> problems doing it this way??

- Mostly that IMO there's no benefit
- If you ever want to change partition sizes, you'll have to reformat.
(2 applications appeared recently that claim to offer repartitioning
without dataloss. I haven't heard good or bad about them, but it seems
to me hardly anyone is using them.)
- Apple's installers expect Apple's aplications in the original place.
- As far as I know a dedicated swap partition has nothing to offer to OS
X. (I recall reading how someone had set up a separate *physical disk*
for swap space and seeing only a little speed improvement. Just a
separate partition would offer even less.)

[Note follow-ups]

Signature

Sander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/>

Mac user: "Macs only have 40 viruses, tops!"
PC user: "SEE! Not even the virus writers support Macs!"

Wes Groleau - 21 Dec 2004 05:20 GMT
> Bumping up my wife's iBook to 80 GB hard drive. Is it worth partitioning
> it, e.g. 10 GB system, 5GB swap, rest user space? Any particular
> problems doing it this way??

If you only have one disk, it's probably best to have
the swap space close to the middle of the files you use most.

Otherwise, the disk head is constantly running out to where
the swap is and back to where the data/code is.

My disk is in several partitions, BUT the only
reasons are (1) to separate users who are disk hogs
from the O.S. and swap space, and (2) so that it will
be easier to restore if we trash a partition.

I'm a compulsive tinkerer, and so are both sons,
so the latter is a definite possibility.

One common objection is that partitioning means one partition
will have wasted space that another might need.

This may be true for some people, but is it for everyone?

I survived for four years with six Gigabytes.  Now my smallest
partition is 15 Gig.  I could be wrong but I suspect there
will still be lots of empty space when the computer gets
replaced.

I guess in a rambling way, I'm saying the answer is "It depends"  :-)

Signature

Wes Groleau
-----------
I've been framed! ...
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html

G.T. - 21 Dec 2004 23:10 GMT
> Bumping up my wife's iBook to 80 GB hard drive. Is it worth partitioning
> it, e.g. 10 GB system, 5GB swap, rest user space?

Yes.  A swap partition may not be all that helpful since you only have one
disk but I sure find it much more convenient to have only the system and  OS
X-included apps on it's own 9 GB partition.  In your case add a couple of GB
for swap if you don't create a dedicated swap partition.  Basically, if
you're burning DVDs you need at least 4.2 GB of free space on the system
partition to burn.

With my 3rd party apps and user stuff on different partitions I can start
fresh with a new install of the OS (like when reverting to 10.3.5 after
crappy 10.3.6) without restoring those apps or user data from backup, or
worrying about what type of install to choose.

> Any particular problems doing it this way??

No.

Greg
nospam - 21 Dec 2004 23:22 GMT
> Basically, if
> you're burning DVDs you need at least 4.2 GB of free space on the system
> partition to burn.

only if you use the apple burning software. third party utilities dont
have this ridiculous limitation.

> With my 3rd party apps and user stuff on different partitions I can start
> fresh with a new install of the OS (like when reverting to 10.3.5 after
> crappy 10.3.6) without restoring those apps or user data from backup, or
> worrying about what type of install to choose.

thats why i split the os and user space. i'd not have it any other way.
unfortunatley there is still some user stuff in the system partition so
its not quite as clean cut as one would hope.
Fred Moore - 22 Dec 2004 17:22 GMT
Up until a few weeks ago I would have definitely been in the 'no, don't
partition; it's more trouble than it's worth' camp. Then I discovered
SuperDuper!, a shareware ($20) product. It works like CarbonCopyCloner,
but does a lot more.

One of its features is that you can create a cloned partition on the same
physical volume onto which you can install updates. It maps the cloned
partition users to the users on the original partition. If the update goes
buggerup, you can boot back into the original and easily restore the
cloned partition--all without losing your work or experiencing significant
downtime. If the update works okay, you can then apply it to the original.
See the docs for a much better explanation.

--Fred
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.