How much space is too much space?

I want to optimize my computer for gaming and high intensity programs. I have a 120 GB drive (see my sig) currently, with a game folder taking up 12 GB's. The remaining 100 some odd gigs I have my OS and some other files on, but for the SAKE OF CONVERSATION, let's say I use 20 GB of 120 GB theoretically for all files.

Okay...follow me here (I've asked this question to several people and never got a straight answer, so I'm trying to articulate it as simply as possible)...

I realize that the order in which you install files on a drive affects how quickly you can access it. So, we've got the OS and game installed on the computer in that order. I have 100 GB of free space now. Does all that free space go to use in helping the game load when I double click the "game".exe file? Or would 20 GB free space be sufficient?

I KNOW that I read that one should always use less than 85% of a drive's capacity for best results. But is more extra space better? Or does after 10 or 20 gigs free space does it become overkill? That's my main question: does freeing up space make load times better, or is there a cap on the amount of free harddrive space that can help load the files on the drive?



I ask because I see a lot of people with 320 GB hdd's, and I can't imagine they're all using upwards of 200 GB's worth. So I wonder if they're benefitting from the massive drive and the small amount of space actually being used for files. Is anyone following me here? I talked with a Dell SSR guy on the phone for an hour and a half tonight asking about RAID-0 and partitioning and this question, and I didn't get the defnitive answers I was looking for. Any help is appreciated

 

I'm not really sure, but if you do video editing like I do, 200 GB does get filled up pretty quickly.

 

You are having trouble getting straight answers because you are fundamentally asking some complex questions within your question and most of us do not know the answer.

Let me have a go with what I might know. Not in the same order you asked.

Yes you do not want your HDD completely full as there are files that are constantly modified and you don't want them to have to fight for space causing fragmentation. 85%? Well 85% on a 160GB is 1/2 as much as 85% on 320GB. So % kind of falls by the wayside as HDD's keep getting bigger. I would think 20GB free on any HDD is more than enough. I am thinking 5GB would prevent issues.

There is no inherent advantage to having more free space beyond that necessary minimum. But I must mention that HDD's with greater areal densities perform better than those with less at the same speed. And can even make a run at faster rotational speed HDD's.

I do not see extra space increasing load times per se other than areal density as mentioned. There is a 160GB with the same density as the 320GB so performance should be the same. Larger is not always better.

You might want to look into what I believe is called striping if you want to go nuts with speed putting OS and apps on one striped partition (outside of disk faster) and your storage on the other partition (moving toward the center and slower).

A bit of info in response to part of your statement. When going to retrieve Data the HDD does not go thru the entire disk looking. It goes thru for lack of my better words a table of contents I think called something like a directory structure that likely resides on the outward faster part of the disk.

I hope I answered some if not post back.

 

I remember reading the info about on disk defragmenter and said the the info on the outside of the disk will read the fastest and the stuff closer to the inside will be slower. As to how much of a difference it actually makes, I really don't know? Interesting question though.

 

You've both touched on things I have been reading a lot of, and I understand now. As for the speed difference between the edge (first installed) and the middle of the disk (last installed), it's a few milliseconds. But depending on the application size/striping size (assuming we're running in RAID-0), this can manifest itself a difference of several seconds in load time.


@ powerpack: you kinda' answered my question, but then I think contradicted yourself, which is okay, because everybody I ask is doing it. Let me perhaps present a simpler scenario and see if you can awswer it.


-Condition 1: We're working with two 120 GB Seagate 7200 RPM (same cache [8 mb]) drives

-Condition 2: One drive has the OS/essentials installed on the first 15 GB's; the other drive has the only games I play (DoD/CS: Source) installed on the first 15 GB


Power you said:

-Condition 3: For the sake of argument, we're never in jeopardy of "filling up the disk" with constantly changing files or updates/what-have-you, because we're working with over 50% free space

The first sentence there seemingly answered my question. But, speaking of areal density - wouldn't a 320 GB drive be double the areal density of a 160 GB drive? Per one unit (let's say an inch), the 320 GB has twice the amount of information of the 160 GB one. Or am I not understanding areal density?



So ANYWAYS - let's say I tack on another 20 GB's onto my OS/apps drive, putting it at 35 GB used / 120 capacity, and my second drive remains at 15 GB used / 120 capacity, keeping in mind they are the same spec drives. So: both drives have considerably free space, but one has 20 GB less. For the sake of argument, NEGLECTING how far in on the disk (towards the middle) the data is written on the first drive (35 GB used), should it be the same speed/load times as the second drive since they've both got at least your "5 or 10 GB free space" buffer?



One of the reasons I'm after this question, is because I was advised a few days ago to partition my drive for 40 GB for the OS/the rest for apps/games. Except when I looked at my Windows folder (assuming when I format I will remove the worthless MD software which is another 5 GB wasted), it was only 4.5 GB. I wondered - do I need the extra 35 GB on that partition to work Windows fast? Or could I safely take up 38 GB/40 capacity on the partition and have it still run just as fast as one with 4.5 GB/40 capacity - assuming we read the same data from both partitions, like the first 5 GB written to the disk?





I know I asked even more complex questions here, and I just thought of a way to word it simpler just now. Let me know if I should do that. But I do think this is good discussion anyways.

 

You can never have too much space

And 200GB is easy to fill up IMO

 

That did not help in the least bit. Did you even READ my post?

 

the free space doesnt help speed up the game loading per-se. When you open a game, it needs some space on the harddrive for caching and temperary file allocation. The speed of the game should not be noticeable if you have say 150gb of your 200gb drive free of 5gb of your 200gb drive free. The only difference in speed would be from where the free space is. If you have 150gb free most of the outer part of the disc would be open, and thus slightly faster than if you have 5gb free. If you have 5gb free, the only open space will be near the inside of the disk, where speeds are slower.
The curve for speed and efficiency is relevant on older systems, with slower harddrives, but I think it is less of an issue today. Most good laptop harddrives can do like 60mb/sec max and a minimum of around 35mb/sec or so. Even if the disk was full and the temporary files for the game had to be put in the last 5gb of space, 35mb/sec would still be pretty fast. I Am trying to say that, the game cache files and such are pretty small, so you could still get away with like a minimum of 20mb/sec, before the game would be noticeably slower. In simple terms, I dont think you will see any speed difference as long as the drive as a relatively high minimum transfer speed.

I hope I have been able to help, if you need more clarification, please ask.

K-TRON

 

And don't forget that the true size of a 320GB HDD is less than 300GB.

John

 

^ 298.09GB to be precise..

 

K-tron, I hope you can clarify. First of all, I thought the first things written to a drive are on the outside, not the inside.

According to what you said, let's say I have two identical drives, and I alloted 5 GB free space on one, and 50 GB free space on the other. Here's the catch - I want to load a program/files that are read from the first 5 GB's on each drive (that is, the same distance from the middle of the physical disk). Which one is faster?

If you can definitively answer that question, that would indicate whether or not free space can be wasteful.

 

I guess I did not spend enough time proofreading, so I will try and restate it.
I am agreeing that when you install files, they install from the outer disc and then as the files accumulate, the files are written to the slower - inner part of the disc. Your first statement is right, and if you read my post a second time you would see that I am stating that.

Basically if you have 50gb free, the inner 70% of the disc is not being used, so the files are being read at the speeds of the disc when the head is at that point. (this is the outer part of the disc, where most of the data is stored, and the highest speeds are)
When you have 5gb of space left, the outer part of the disc has already been used up, so it can only be saved in the inner part of the disc (the part closest to the motor) Since their is no free space, the data can only be saved their. So the data is being saved in the inner part of the disc, which is the slowest part, because of centripetal acceleration and such.

to answer your second question,
you would have to install the game immediately after the operating system and drivers are installed, on order to have the game on the fastest part of the disc.
which one is faster, well it will be the one with 50gb free.
I say this because when you press on the game to load, temporary files need to be uncompressed, read and written to the drive. These files are only needed for game loading. After you close the game, they are deleted, since they are just temporary files. Since you would have 50gb free, the middle to inner part of the disc would be entirely free, so the temporary files will use the fastest part of that 50gb of free space, which would be around the middle of the platter.
If you had 5gb left, the temp files would have to be located on the innermost part of the disc, where the disc is the slowest. This means that the game will take longer to load.
The amount difference is not very much, but it may be about 3-5 seconds depending on the game.

The speed of the drive for arguments sake has a max of 60 mb/sec, and a min of 35mb/sec.
With 50gb free, the inner 30% of the drive or so is free, so the max speed for files to be written is somewhere around 45mb/sec
With 5Gb free the inner 2% of the drive or so is being used, so the max speed for files to be written/read is 35mb/sec.

The percentages are estimates, cause calculating the actual percentages would be very hard, cause harddrive platters are round, so their is more data on the outer inch of the disk than the inner inch of the disc. Just draw a circle and you can see what I mean.

K-TRON

 

hankaaron57 I am going to throw a couple things out (frequently called a distraction because one does not know the the answers) there.

Your concern about wasted space is in fact incorrect for your concerns. Not just wrong but the polar opposite. The HDD is much like a record album (if you are old enough to remember those). In it's simplest terms, it starts on the furthest most point (fastest) and works it's way in. A very large disk that is almost empty will play on the outer edge. A smaller capacity with the same amount of storage will work its way closer to the center (slower). At least some defragmenting programs give you options of placing certain data closer to the outer edge. So wasted space is good not bad as it keeps you further from the slower center.

hankaaron57 I am not impressed with software RAID and almost question it's benefits. I think there could be better strategies for what you want than that.

Edit: I was writing while KT posted then my internet went nuts. So my post is before I saw KT's, if it matters.

 

Areal density now makes perfect sense. Putting 5 GB's on a 1 TB drive at 7200 (hypothetically all same specs) and putting 5 GB on a 120 GB drive - the 1 TB drive wins because less space is used, and it's on the very very edge of the drive. I got it now. Both of your posts I think perfectly articulated what I was after. Just needed it to be articulated properly, as you've both done now. Wasted space = good if you want speed = "intelligently utilized space."

Sadly, I think few people will read this thread and benefit from it. It's one thing to just want to stick a bunch of 500 GB drives in your comp and want it to go faster, and it's another to actually understand why it's faster. I finally feel like I reached an epiphany hahahaah Thanks guys.


Just to reward you for your masterfully constructed posts, we will post a picture of the gorgeous Hayden Panettiere:



And hopefully draw more readers.

 

There is one issue I think thats relative here being ignored, and that is the different read times depending on the data's location of the disk. Harddrives run at a realitivly stable RPM, when the head reads data the effective speed the data is moving would be the RPM * radius. At the center of the disk the effective speed is much slower then the edge which is about twice as far from the center. The read time isn't twice as fast, but a disk I was reading about a few days ago had 135MB/s on the outside and 90MB/s at the center. If your OS is smart enough to keep data near the edge then the less data you have the more is close the the edge and the faster you can write. Thus if you have 30GB of data, on a 300GB disk all of it will be close ot the edge and maybe running at 130MB/s, on a 40GB disk many of the files will be near the middle and your average speed might now be 100MB/s. All of these last numbers are made up, but you can see where a speed improvement of 30% might appear, assuming that your OS uses the harddrive in this way.

Real life? Eh. Most space really used becaues its cheap and most programs don't bother to conserve space. Games two years ago would take 1-2GB, how they are 8-12GB. I just got a 100GB and after the recycling bin, Vista, system restore, the Leveno recovery section, and the recovery partrian I only have something like 50Gb of space. Now I am going to need to swap the harddrive within a few months if I install another program, which I very much instend to, a little disapointed compared to my old XP system where an 80GB was more then I could ever need.

Edit: The time it took me to write this the answer was already given. :-(

 

I am glad we could help. Good work aurora, you have a different way of wording, and yours is a little easier to follow than mine.

Mods will probably delete the hayden picture, but you never know

K-TRON

 

Thanks for the responses guys. Now all I need to worry about is how I want to partition my drives. I think I'm going to install the OS first on my 120 GB, and then my game(s) first on my second drive. Then with each respective partition created, less and less used programs and files. I have my pictures/videos/music on externals so I don't even need to waste space on those.

 

A year ago I couldn't think of filling up a 160gb harddrive. That was before I accrued 60gb of music, 20gb of videos, and numerous games.