Why partition a single volume into C: and D: drives?

I just got a new server, with 400G in a single hardware RAID volume.  It came partitioned with a 12G C: Drive, and the rest in a D: drive.  I've always despised partitioning a single disk this way (C: always runs out of space) and I thought it was a dead practice now that the NTFS supports large enough partitions.  Is there any reason or advantage to partitioning separate C: & D: drive on a single RAID volume?  (Windows Server 2003)
LVL 16
Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.


Yes there is, it is even best practice, to my knowledge. This way you can have all data safely stored on the d drive if the operating system need to be reïnstalled (because you would only need to format the c drive). You would also have better performance, because the data can be traced a lot faster on the drives if they are seperated..

Normally, i would sugget using 5GB + 2* internal mem for the c drive and the rest for the d drive.. If this server is also going to be a print server, i would also suggest creating a 1 GB e drive which sole purpose is to be the spool drive (again performance issues)...

But, the final decission is up to you... If you don't want to create multiple dries, then don't do it..

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
JohnBPriceAuthor Commented:
Thanks, Hmmm, do partitions really have a performance impact on Raid 5 arrays?  If I seek cluster 100 on C: and cluster 500 on D:, does the RAID controller see anything different than seek cluster 100 and cluster 500?  I understand that putting the most frequently used files in a limited area of the disk can improve performance through reduced seek times, but this box is going to be primarily SQL Server, and the data files might get more activity than the OS files.

Frankly, I'm looking for a good excuse to not re-partition the darn thing because its a pain in the butt, though maybe I could just drop the D: partition and stretch the C: partition if it comes to that.

I'm not quite sure if the performnace is better, i always create multiple partitions and don't reïnstall with one partition to check the performance, but my gut feeling tells me this will give you more performance... This is also stated in the W2k and W2k3 MSCE books, to create multiple partitions..

Also, the reïnstall of the operating system is a very good reason to partition.. But eventually, the choise is up to you... Because Microsoft also states not to put a SQL database on a RAID 5 setting, although this will work...(all for perfromance, right ;))
it's easier to backup and has a performance impact to partition the drive.
anyway, it's recommended for SQL servers, to use different partitions for System, Datafiles and Logfiles.
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Windows Server 2003

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.

Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.