Conference noted::windows95

�.4 Which is why my 4GB disk has been split into about 12 partitions.
    
    I am considering buying a 3Gb disk in the coming weeks. With the
    information within this topic on cluster sizes, etc., how would 
    'you' divide a 3Gb disk - how many partitions, and what size?
    
    Martin.

    I have divided my disks in partitions slightly smaller than 512MB (a
    compromise between cluster size and having zillions of partitions).
    
    I also tried drivespace, but at least in my case it caused a noticeable
    slowdown.
    
    You could of course try to get your hands on Windows 95 OSR2 which
    supports FAT32 - 4k clusters up to (I think) 8GB partitions.
    

>    You could of course try to get your hands on Windows 95 OSR2 which
>    supports FAT32 - 4k clusters up to (I think) 8GB partitions.

Should this not be 16Tb (terabytes!)? 
I would expect to see upto 2**32 entries in the FAT, with each entry pointing
to a 4K block. This adds uo to 4294967296 * 4096 = a very very big number :-)


	JT:

    No, I think I read a few bits are reserved, so over 8GB the cluster
    size increases. It's also only supported for partitions > 512MB, i.e.
    even if you have OSR2, smaller partitions are formatted as FAT16 (with
    larger ones, you can choose either).
    

    re .14:
    
    I'll tell you what I did on a 3.2GB drive, but it isn't the only way:
    
    drive C:  Just under 1024K (16k cluster size) 
    			Lots of stuff likes to go in drive C.  Split this
                        into two if your C drive is on another disk.
    
    drives D, E, F:  Just under 512K (8k cluster size)
    
    drive G:  The remainder (~< 500K)
    
    drive H:  ~100K for the swap file
    
    
    Tony    
    

    Swapfile on the last partition? Hope you have enough memory or else
    this disk gets a lame arm. Think about, it has to go quite frequently
    to C (the first partition on the drive) to H (the last partition).
    Especially with the way Windows 95 uses all available free memory for
    disk caching you do see swap/paging.
    
    Guenther (always wandering about the random busy LED acitvities)

    Hmmmm.....  Well I've got 48MB, but you have a point.  So, what would
    be nice, would be a way to change the mapping of the partition letters 
    to the disk surface.
    
    (And, by the way, change all my K's in .18 to M's.)
    Tony
    

�                              Think about, it has to go quite frequently
�   to C (the first partition on the drive) to H (the last partition).
    
    What if C: was a separate disk, and the swapfile was on the last
    partition of a second (bigger (3Gb?)) disk. Surely that can be a 
    benefit?
    
    Martin.

    re: .21 by TAEC::SMITH
    
    >> What if C: was a separate disk, and the swapfile was on the last
    >> partition of a second (bigger (3Gb?)) disk. Surely that can be a
    >> benefit?
    
    Hi Martin,
    
    My gut feel says yes.  The chances are also good that your 3GB disk is
    faster than your original/boot disk.  And if you're running SCSI, there
    would be the additional benefit that your spindles can run separately
    because of command queuing (sp?).
    
    Does (E)IDE support command queuing yet?  Anyone know for certain?
    
    Cheers,
    
    /Bill

    Another way of spliting a 2g drive.
    
    C:  502 MB	Win95, office and any sw that must be installed on C:
    D:  502 MB  Any sw that allows installs to your choice of drives
    E:  50MB   Netscape, AOL.  The 1kb cluster works well with the
    thousands of 1k cache files these programs generate
    F:  950 MB  Mostly data files and other SW.
    
    I leave E: out of the backups.  Arcada backup was have "heart failure"
    trying to catalog all the cache files.  
    
    Kc
    

    re .23:
    
        >C:  502 MB	Win95, office and any sw that must be installed on C:
    
    Why would you want to install Office on C:? Mine's on W:
    
    

Re: .23:

I was experiencing Arcada backup heart failures on my netscape cache as
well.  One day I just got frustrated and left the room.

The amazing thing was that it actually completed.  It just wanted to spend
10-15 minutes (at the time, on a P-120!) recataloging the cache.

Since then, I've learned to just delete the catalog files before doing a
backup.  Saves space on the catalog drive (since it's a huge file, that
just gets huger), and it makes the backups run marginally faster, even when
it isn't losing its mind to the netscape cache.