Prev: Intel SS4000-E
Next: Battery backup: problem with my APC?
From: Peter on 13 Oct 2009 09:56
I've got a 500 GB partition on my XP system. The drive is about 460
GB full.

The partition is used to store jpegs which are typically 150KB to
250KB.

The file sizes are tiny compared to the space left. So although
there is under 10% free space, will it cause noticeable performance
problems if I store another 20 GB or 30 GB?

Are the standard recommendations for free space (50% or 33% or 25%)
be out of date nowadays because those rules of thumb assumed the
same file size (mine are approx 150-250KB) but the drive capacity
was much smaller. IYSWIM.
From: Rod Speed on 13 Oct 2009 14:00
Peter wrote:

> I've got a 500 GB partition on my XP system. The drive is about 460 GB full.

> The partition is used to store jpegs which are typically 150KB to 250KB.

> The file sizes are tiny compared to the space left. So although
> there is under 10% free space, will it cause noticeable
> performance problems if I store another 20 GB or 30 GB?

Nope.

> Are the standard recommendations for free space (50% or 33% or 25%)
> be out of date nowadays because those rules of thumb assumed the
> same file size (mine are approx 150-250KB) but the drive capacity
> was much smaller.

Those 'rules' are pure drivel.

The most you can have a problem with is very poor defrag
performance if you are silly enough to defrag your drive
with a defragger that needs lots of free space.

> IYSWIM.

KIUYTR


From: Joep on 13 Oct 2009 15:16
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:7jjti1F34b2pgU1(a)mid.individual.net...
> Peter wrote:
>
>> I've got a 500 GB partition on my XP system. The drive is about 460 GB
>> full.
>
>> The partition is used to store jpegs which are typically 150KB to 250KB.
>
>> The file sizes are tiny compared to the space left. So although
>> there is under 10% free space, will it cause noticeable
>> performance problems if I store another 20 GB or 30 GB?
>
> Nope.
>
>> Are the standard recommendations for free space (50% or 33% or 25%)
>> be out of date nowadays because those rules of thumb assumed the
>> same file size (mine are approx 150-250KB) but the drive capacity
>> was much smaller.
>
> Those 'rules' are pure drivel.
>
> The most you can have a problem with is very poor defrag
> performance if you are silly enough to defrag your drive
> with a defragger that needs lots of free space.

Why defrag at all I always say.


>
>> IYSWIM.
>
> KIUYTR
>


From: Rod Speed on 13 Oct 2009 16:13
Joep wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote
>> Peter wrote

>>> I've got a 500 GB partition on my XP system. The drive is about 460 GB full.

>>> The partition is used to store jpegs which are typically 150KB to 250KB.

>>> The file sizes are tiny compared to the space left. So although
>>> there is under 10% free space, will it cause noticeable
>>> performance problems if I store another 20 GB or 30 GB?

>> Nope.

>>> Are the standard recommendations for free space (50% or 33% or 25%)
>>> be out of date nowadays because those rules of thumb assumed the
>>> same file size (mine are approx 150-250KB) but the drive capacity
>>> was much smaller.

>> Those 'rules' are pure drivel.

>> The most you can have a problem with is very poor defrag
>> performance if you are silly enough to defrag your drive
>> with a defragger that needs lots of free space.

> Why defrag at all I always say.

What I said in different words.

>>> IYSWIM.

>> KIUYTR


 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Intel SS4000-E
Next: Battery backup: problem with my APC?