[Prijker]

Partition size, as a matter of fact...
Well, it's simple: I did a clone of my 10.2.6 system to another partition with Carbon Copy Cloner, and restarted from the new cloned system.
The speed difference was amazing, couldn't believe it! Everything takes about 50% less time to launch, open, close, etc. Rebooting itself, from the chime to the desktop, takes about 40 sec. Almost Classic, actually!

I don't understand. Not that i'm not happy. But what happened to my system with the cloning procedure in order to produce such an amazing speed difference? I mean, it's the exact same system (a clone, actually...), with the same set of extensions and prefpanes, so why does it behaves so differntly?

The only explanation I think of is partition size. The original system is on a 25 Gb size partition, the new cloned one is on a 5 Gb. Does OSX run better in a smaller partition, let's say less than 8 Gb?

I am thinking about cloning back the system to the original big partition, but i'm not sure it's not a risky situation.

vic
----
G3 500 - 384 Mb - 30 Gb - X 10.2.6
----

[pat++]

The original partition is probably fragmented. Try PlusOptimizer to defrag it...

[Prijker]

It's not. I always keep my 2 partitions defragmented and clean.

[bradoesch]

I think the first partition is the fastest (outer area of the disk.) You are using the same hard disk, right?


edit: I happened to get confused again. I meant outer area, not inner.

[anoetic]

Isn't the outer part of the disk always the fastest?

[Camelot]

Originally posted by anoetic:
Isn't the outer part of the disk always the fastest?

Generally, yes, but it depends on a number of factors... for example, is the disk using ZBR (Zoned Bit Recording), CAV (Constant Angular Velocity), or CLV (Constant Linear Velocity) for its tracks.. that can make a difference (most modern disks use ZBR, but it's not guaranteed).

Since most disk drivers start at the outside of the disk and work in, the first partition is typically towards the outer edge of the disk and later partitions work inwards towards the spindle.

In a ZBR disk the outer tracks contain more sectors than the inner tracks and this increases performance for the first partitions.

In CLV disks, though (including various CD-ROM formats), this doesn't apply. The drive spins at different speeds depending on where you're reading from the disk... it spins faster for the inner tracks and slower for the outer tracks so that it can maintain a constant data rate (important in audio CD applications). Note that this distinction blurs in high-speed CD-ROM drives (say > 16X) which often employ a combination of CLV/CAV to improve performance and confuse the issue.

In any case, CD-ROMs start recording from the inside track and work outwards, so there's no benefit from using the first partition - in fact the outer edge of the disk in a high speed drive) is faster, so you want to use the last partition on a CD-ROM <sigh>

But for the purposes of general use, most people should find the first partition of their hard drive as being the fastest.

[Prijker]

I don't think the question is about what part of the disk my cloned system is on. Even though there could be some difference, it hardly could justify how much difference speed i get.

I've been doing some benchmarks and i get troubling results:

-startup (from chime to Desktop):
1:Older (big) partition: 2'05''
2:Cloned system: 42''

-PS7:
1:41''
2:30''

-Office X. Hard to say, but launching Entourage fron cloned system takes too times less. Word opens in 2-3 sec. I never got those values launching Office X from my original system.

-Safari opens any site almost intantly from the cloned system. The effect in surfing is amazing. Now i believe safari is the fastest browser.

Some other issues:
-Free memory at startup. I use the freeware MenuMeters prefpane to display the free/used memory. In my original system, after booting, MenuMeters showed a 170/214 memory ratio (max is 384). But with the cloned system, i get now 128/256. That means 50 Mb more free memory! And i have exactly the same system, a cloned one. There must be something here.

-Pageouts and used memory. In the old system, a typical session launching some apps, like Entourage and Safari, early leads to use all free RAM, and get some pageouts. Now, with the clone, it hardly raises to 290 Mb used memory, which means MenuMeters always shows about 90 Mb unused. And no pageout.

In the meantime, i'll start from my second, cloned system. It's worth it! But i'd like to understand.

Vic

[- - e r i k - -]

Hmmm. I'm intrigued by your finds. I'm getting my new PowerBook 17" in five days (sitting on needles). I've always partitioned my disks before, but I couldn't really see the advantage.

I've contemplated NOT partitioning my HD for the PowerBook, but if there's really a speed-advantage to have the OS on a smaller partition, I might reconcider.

Anybody else have some insight on this?

[biscuit]

Well, this might sound stupid, but I've read tips stating that having your swap space on a separate partition speeds up OS X quite a bit. Maybe the cloned system can see the old swap files and is using those automatically.

Yep, that sure did sound stupid...

biscuit

[bradoesch]

Originally posted by biscuit:
Well, this might sound stupid, but I've read tips stating that having your swap space on a separate partition speeds up OS X quite a bit. Maybe the cloned system can see the old swap files and is using those automatically.

Yep, that sure did sound stupid...

biscuit

Don't worry about sounding stupid. You'd have to say stupid stuff all the time (and you're idea isn't stupid in the first place) and get a reputation for saying dumb stuff before people will comment about it.

[step]

i bet this is that damn speed boost that some users get when switching to a new user or root account , it's very real, but it falls off over time and no-one seems to be able to pin down it's cause, or 're-cause' it at will