| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 123029 | 2012-01-29 03:55:00 | Disk Management | bk T (215) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1256435 | 2012-01-29 03:55:00 | I have just added a 1 TB HDD to my PC and partititoned it as follows: D:\ 250GB; E:\ 250GB; F:\300GB and left 150GB of unallocated space available. I now realised that I've made a wrong dicision and I shrunk the D: to 200GB and freed up 50GB of unallocated space but the unallocated disk space is broken up into two as shown in the snap shot below: 3550 Question: How do I merge the 2 broken unallocated spaces into one whole unallocated space so that it can used as a whole? OS: Win 7 Ultimate Your advice would be greatly appreciated. Cheers |
bk T (215) | ||
| 1256436 | 2012-01-29 04:34:00 | Delete all of them and recreate the partitions? | Speedy Gonzales (78) | ||
| 1256437 | 2012-01-29 06:06:00 | Or delete all but D: and then recreate them ( that's if D: at 200 is OK). Otherwise as Speedy says, delete ahd then recreate. | Bryan (147) | ||
| 1256438 | 2012-01-29 20:46:00 | Yeah, the partitions always seem to be assigned disc areas in a very specific manner, and merging two areas that have another partition between them is not possible in the direct sense. You can only merge your free space with whatever partition is adjacent to it, so merge your extra 50GB with E: (this'll become space at the start of E: ) Then slice 50GB off E: (this will be taken from the tail end of E) Then merge that 50GB with F: Then split it off F: Then merge it with your other block of unallocated space. I think it's all to do with keeping seek times to a minimum. THere's a bit of an analogy with file fragmentation, but in this case it's preventing partition fragmentation. |
Paul.Cov (425) | ||
| 1256439 | 2012-01-29 21:00:00 | Why all the fuss, to me 1 drive = 1 partition, unless someone can explain why thats not a good idea. Gets away from all the sillyness of D: partition is full, lets make the E: smaller and the D: bigger stuff. | gcarmich (10068) | ||
| 1256440 | 2012-01-29 21:08:00 | Same reason you have different rooms in your house. | fred_fish (15241) | ||
| 1256441 | 2012-01-29 21:11:00 | I have folders to separate things into different areas and they can consume the entire disk if required. | gcarmich (10068) | ||
| 1256442 | 2012-01-29 21:20:00 | Thats similar to the hdd on this. Except I've got 3 200 GB partitions. And 1 is bigger than the other 3. One of the other partitions has updates on it. So, in case I format C, it wont affect anything else. And I wont have to download the updates again. And if I want to install another OS, I wont have to format the whole hdd again to do it. I can install it on one of the other partitions. And, (if C was covered in malware / viruses), all I would do is, format C and start again. Instead of formatting the whole 1 TB. Thats why some people (like me) create more than 1 partition if the hdd is big |
Speedy Gonzales (78) | ||
| 1256443 | 2012-01-29 21:22:00 | I have folders to separate things into different areas and they can consume the entire disk if required. ... and some people live in one room barns. |
fred_fish (15241) | ||
| 1256444 | 2012-01-29 21:27:00 | Ok, C: and D: I can live with but I'd normally use separate drives. Is there a performance impact of multiple partitions? I’d think there must be. As for other OS's, vmware workstation, or something similar, stops all the reboots. Unless of course you need the raw performance. |
gcarmich (10068) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||