The C: System Partition is too small RRS feed

  • General discussion

  • Does it make sense to fix the System partion at 10GB? I see a lot of concern about running out of space on the C: partition to the point that I think it will have a chilling effect on the development or popularity of add-ins and extensions. Another concern is I assume that some day, v1 of WHS will be upgraded to a Longhorn based v2. Will migration be impossible due to a lack of space on C:? This is a product where the original hardware should have an exceptionally long useful life (I would think 5-7 years) and so we should be thinking about how to keep from painting ourselves into a corner.


    Suggestion: Make the size of C: a percentage of the total. Maybe 5-10% of the total size of the primary disk with a 10GB minimum. Even 10% would be OK with me given the already low cost of 500gb drives with 1TB drives probably generally available by the time WHS is released. Some might complain initially about having an additional 40GB "wasted" but it would seem that having this space would future proof us much better.


    Maybe I'm missing some reason why having everyone with a fixed 10GB is important but certainly it seems unnecessary and short-sighted.

    Wednesday, May 9, 2007 3:42 PM

All replies

  • The next build will be 20GB, if that helps.
    Wednesday, May 9, 2007 4:42 PM
  •  yes that helps.


    Why not give the option to size the C: \ in installation of the OEM version.

    Wednesday, May 9, 2007 6:27 PM
  • But where do you stop? 50GB? 100GB?? A whole drive - then how large? 1TB?


    Once there is room to install other stuff on the C: drive, then people will, and where do you stop? The whole point of a small C: drive is that there isn't room for all that Smile

    Sunday, May 13, 2007 9:06 PM
  • Honestly, I haven't even come close to filling up the C partition.


    The larger the system partition, the less space is available for server tasks.  Keep that in mind.  Personally, I wasn't happy to hear that it'll be bumped up to 20GB.  That means that I'm losing 10GB of usable space.


    So, personally, I'm saying no, I don't agree with this.  The system partition should be kept small.  In normal use, you should not be installing stuff onto the system partition (except for extensions, and even then, they shouldn't take up multiple GB).

    Tuesday, May 15, 2007 6:02 AM
  • I agree with both. The defualt should 10 or 20 GB which ever size they agree on. I think there should be a more advanced feature to change it. I personally would prefer to seperate the operating system drive from the data drives. We all know when the hard drive goes over 50% its performance suffers. So I hope MS has more advanced features for the power users. We all know they are going to be the first to purchase it.


    2 - WD 10,000 rpm drives for my operating system

    18 terabytes for my data
    Tuesday, May 15, 2007 8:35 AM
  • I think it should be bigger.  The main reason is simply for patches.  While one patch is not large, a box that is running for several years as this is expected to will collect a lot of patches, a few service packs and they add up fast!  Not only that, but third party add-ons such as virus scanners, etc will only add the the amount of space needed.  While the development team has stated it is not to be used to install a lot of software, they have stated that they purposely based it on W2K3 to allow for development and different things to be installed.  And while you will "loose" some usable space making C: bigger, in essence you'll save the whole server for longer.  Besides, disk is cheap, resizing a full disk, not so fun....
    Wednesday, May 16, 2007 1:15 AM
  • Why not let the individual pick the size of the drive. I'm thinkg of running WSUS. I've just pulled to v3 of WSUS so we'll see.

    Saturday, May 26, 2007 6:14 AM
  • Moving to 20GB system is a good idea and to the person who says he is losing 10GB by going to 20GB makes no sense, it's only 10GB.
    Monday, May 28, 2007 12:03 PM