<p>I'm not sure this is on topic here, but...</p>

<p>Unless you're doing a lot of simultaneous access to the partitions or folders, there should be no discernible performance difference. It's all head movement and caching.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-28T02:49:42.850Z
It DOES make a difference, though, that you keep your editing application on one physical drive and your video files on another. But you probably knew that.
Craig
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-28T03:06:01.053Z
Even if he IS doing simultaneous access there still wouldn't be a performance difference.  Partitioning makes no difference at all because it's still accessing the same drive.
AJ Henderson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-29T02:49:17.410Z
AJ - That's why this might be off topic... There are definitely differences in performance between separate folders and separate partitions, but they won't manifest until you stress the drive with a lot of accesses to both 'at once'. One reason is that with two partitions, the MFTs / Volume Indexes are separated by half the drive surface, where two folder entries may be contiguous. But in almost all scenarios there's no practical difference.
Jim Mack
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-29T05:43:52.703Z
I do access both Partitions simultaneously quite often. Might look at simplifying the setup across other 4TBs currently installed. - Thanks all for the input.
alexh
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-29T06:54:38.067Z
@JimMack - good point.  Partitions may make it worse since seek travel time could be slightly longer, though aren't most drives fast enough now that the head travel time is just about as fast as the time waiting for the platter itself to come around?
AJ Henderson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-29T13:35:10.600Z
@AJ - For any given drive the linear and rotational seek times are spec'd, so the OP could look them up for his model. Caching plays a big role, possibly overwhelming mechanical effects. A lot depends on file size, type of access etc. Only profiling would tell for sure. Mixing long linear reads/writes of video files with intermittent, random smaller photo files would be a great test. (-:
Jim Mack
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-28T01:37:24.920Z
2014-03-28T01:37:24.920Z
Jim Mack
<p>When organising visual assets for Video Production,</p>

<p>Does it make a performance difference if an internal 3.5" HD is paritioned (eg: VIDEO 2TB + PHOTO 2TB)</p>

<p>OR is it better to just have 1 parition and 2 folders?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-28T03:09:34.670Z
Personally, my vote would be to close this as off topic as I think it can be covered fine by super-user, but I don't want to cast a binding vote without giving the community a chance to decide.
AJ Henderson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-29T05:40:48.673Z
Optimising storage solutions for Videos and Photos in Video Production doesn't seem too far 'off topic' does it?
alexh
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-29T06:50:30.310Z
the thing is that video production doesn't make any difference, it could be music files, database servers, games, whatever.  Performance considerations of drive partitions is unrelated to video production in the strictest sense.  It's just a question of how broadly do we want to make the jump.  The more generalized form of the question would be "What is the impact of drive seek time on Video Production?" and then the non-video production question would be "how does partitioning impact seek time?" to which the answer is "not at all" or "possibly makes it worse".
AJ Henderson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-29T07:07:13.830Z
This question appears to be off-topic because it is about general computer hardware.  This is already addressed on SuperUser in [this question](http://superuser.com/questions/375354/does-partitioning-a-hard-drive-give-a-performance-gain/).
AJ Henderson
<storage>
HDD Partitioning
alexh
# HDD Partitioning

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-03-27)

When organising visual assets for Video Production,

Does it make a performance difference if an internal 3.5" HD is paritioned (eg: VIDEO 2TB + PHOTO 2TB)

OR is it better to just have 1 parition and 2 folders?

Thanks in advance

**Tags:** storage

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Personally, my vote would be to close this as off topic as I think it can be covered fine by super-user, but I don't want to cast a binding vote without giving the community a chance to decide.  
> **username_0**: Optimising storage solutions for Videos and Photos in Video Production doesn't seem too far 'off topic' does it?  
> **username_1**: the thing is that video production doesn't make any difference, it could be music files, database servers, games, whatever.  Performance considerations of drive partitions is unrelated to video production in the strictest sense.  It's just a question of how broadly do we want to make the jump.  The more generalized form of the question would be "What is the impact of drive seek time on Video Production?" and then the non-video production question would be "how does partitioning impact seek time?" to which the answer is "not at all" or "possibly makes it worse".  
> **username_1**: This question appears to be off-topic because it is about general computer hardware.  This is already addressed on SuperUser in [this question](http://superuser.com/questions/375354/does-partitioning-a-hard-drive-give-a-performance-gain/).  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2014-03-28. Score: 1

I'm not sure this is on topic here, but...

Unless you're doing a lot of simultaneous access to the partitions or folders, there should be no discernible performance difference. It's all head movement and caching.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: It DOES make a difference, though, that you keep your editing application on one physical drive and your video files on another. But you probably knew that.  
> **username_1**: Even if he IS doing simultaneous access there still wouldn't be a performance difference.  Partitioning makes no difference at all because it's still accessing the same drive.  
> **username_2**: AJ - That's why this might be off topic... There are definitely differences in performance between separate folders and separate partitions, but they won't manifest until you stress the drive with a lot of accesses to both 'at once'. One reason is that with two partitions, the MFTs / Volume Indexes are separated by half the drive surface, where two folder entries may be contiguous. But in almost all scenarios there's no practical difference.  
> **username_0**: I do access both Partitions simultaneously quite often. Might look at simplifying the setup across other 4TBs currently installed. - Thanks all for the input.  
> **username_1**: @JimMack - good point.  Partitions may make it worse since seek travel time could be slightly longer, though aren't most drives fast enough now that the head travel time is just about as fast as the time waiting for the platter itself to come around?  
> **username_2**: @AJ - For any given drive the linear and rotational seek times are spec'd, so the OP could look them up for his model. Caching plays a big role, possibly overwhelming mechanical effects. A lot depends on file size, type of access etc. Only profiling would tell for sure. Mixing long linear reads/writes of video files with intermittent, random smaller photo files would be a great test. (-:  

---

