# Can I move XFS partitions ??

## Tealc

I've some partitions for SuSE Linux but since I've installed Gentoo Linux they're worthless for me. Now I would like to know if I can move the XFS partition (which contains the Gentoo Linux) to the beginning of the harddisk (after deleting the other partions) without getting problems. ??

Best regards,

Tealc

----------

## klieber

 *Tealc wrote:*   

> Now I would like to know if I can move the XFS partition (which contains the Gentoo Linux) to the beginning of the harddisk (after deleting the other partions) without getting problems. ??

 

I'm not aware of any re-partitioning tools that will work with XFS.  Parted won't work and, AFAIK, even the commercial apps don't work (Partition Magic, etc.)  Not sure about that, though.

However, why do you want/need to move the partitions?  If they're working now, they won't work any better if you move them to another location on your hard drive.  You could just delete the suse partitions and recreate a new XFS/ext3/reiserfs/whatever partition(s) for gentoo.

--kurt

----------

## Guest

Many harddisks are faster on the beginning of the medium.

----------

## klieber

 *Anonymous wrote:*   

> Many harddisks are faster on the beginning of the medium.

 

Sure -- with the difference being measured in milliseconds.  And unless you're defragging on a daily basis, any benefit obtained with repartitioning will be wiped out because of the multiple seeks.

Sorry, but that theory just doesn't fly.

--kurt

----------

## Nitro

 *klieber wrote:*   

>  *Anonymous wrote:*   Many harddisks are faster on the beginning of the medium. 
> 
> Sure -- with the difference being measured in milliseconds.  And unless you're defragging on a daily basis, any benefit obtained with repartitioning will be wiped out because of the multiple seeks.
> 
> Sorry, but that theory just doesn't fly.
> ...

 

I've seen my disk vary by a few MB/s when I run hdparm -t on a partition at the beginning versues a vs a partition at the end.

----------

## klieber

 *Nitro wrote:*   

> I've seen my disk vary by a few MB/s when I run hdparm -t on a partition at the beginning versues a vs a partition at the end.

 

```

M3:/var# hdparm -t /dev/hda1

/dev/hda1:

 Timing buffered disk reads:  64 MB in  1.70 seconds = 37.65 MB/sec

M3:/var# hdparm -t /dev/hda1

/dev/hda1:

 Timing buffered disk reads:  64 MB in  1.64 seconds = 39.02 MB/sec

M3:/var# hdparm -t /dev/hda1

/dev/hda1:

 Timing buffered disk reads:  64 MB in  1.76 seconds = 36.36 MB/sec

M3:/var# hdparm -t /dev/hda1

/dev/hda1:

 Timing buffered disk reads:  64 MB in  1.95 seconds = 32.82 MB/sec

M3:/var#
```

disk reads can vary depending on a lot of things -- the above commands were all run on the same partition within 60 seconds of one another with a ~6MB/s variance in read times.

--kurt

----------

## Nitro

I did some more tests, and you are right.   :Embarassed: 

But so am I to a point, but the difference was on average less then one MB/s, and that doesn't really matter now does it.   :Rolling Eyes: 

I think I need a new harddrive too.  My server's HD blows the hell outta this one.  Guess I need a job first though huh?

----------

## klieber

 *Nitro wrote:*   

> I think I need a new harddrive too. 

 

The Western Digital WD1200JB is supposed to be the king of the performance hill these days, at least for 7200RPM IDE drives.  With its 8MB buffer (compared to 2MB for most other IDE drives) its able to push data through at a pretty pace.

Of course, if you don't want your computer to sound like a jet aircraft, you might go for the Seagate Barracuda IV.  It doesn't have quite the performance of the WD, but it's by far the quietest drive on the market and has respectable performance to boot.  (that's the drive that posted those hdparm numbers I quoted above.)

--kurt

----------

## Nitro

I couldn't help it, but look: http://www4.tomshardware.com/storage/02q1/020305/wd1200-04.html#data_transfer_rates_almost_50_mbs

Look at the first graph, seems that speeds do vary by about 15MB/s from beginning to end on the 120GB HD you recommended (I think I'm going to buy it  :Cool: , prolly two of em).

Seems like your disk is lagging a little behind their test disk.   :Rolling Eyes: 

----------

## klieber

 *Nitro wrote:*   

> Seems like your disk is lagging a little behind their test disk.  

 

Is it?  I'm not sure how hdparm does its reads.  Seems like the minimum read speed for the Seagate was ~27MB/s and the max was ~42MB.  My reads are anywhere from ~33MB/s to ~39MB/s, which seems to be right in the middle, which would seem right assuming hdparm is reading from random places on the hard drive.  (then again, like I said, I don't know how hdparm does its reads)   If you've got any tuning tips, let me know.  :Smile: 

For me, a quiet hard drive with decent performance is much more important than a high-performance hard drive that makes a great deal of noise.  In that respect, the Barracuda IV is perfect for me.  (Now, if they'd just release a 120GB or even a 160GB version...)

--kurt

----------

## Nitro

 *klieber wrote:*   

> In that respect, the Barracuda IV is perfect for me.  (Now, if they'd just release a 120GB or even a 160GB version...)

 

I mis-understood you then, I read it as if you has the WD drive.

----------

