Video Production Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for engineers, producers, editors, and enthusiasts spanning the fields of video, and media creation. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

When organising visual assets for Video Production,

Does it make a performance difference if an internal 3.5" HD is paritioned (eg: VIDEO 2TB + PHOTO 2TB)

OR is it better to just have 1 parition and 2 folders?

Thanks in advance

share|improve this question

closed as off-topic by AJ Henderson Mar 29 '14 at 7:07

  • This question does not appear to be about video recording and production within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Personally, my vote would be to close this as off topic as I think it can be covered fine by super-user, but I don't want to cast a binding vote without giving the community a chance to decide. – AJ Henderson Mar 28 '14 at 3:09
Optimising storage solutions for Videos and Photos in Video Production doesn't seem too far 'off topic' does it? – Alex_H Mar 29 '14 at 5:40
the thing is that video production doesn't make any difference, it could be music files, database servers, games, whatever. Performance considerations of drive partitions is unrelated to video production in the strictest sense. It's just a question of how broadly do we want to make the jump. The more generalized form of the question would be "What is the impact of drive seek time on Video Production?" and then the non-video production question would be "how does partitioning impact seek time?" to which the answer is "not at all" or "possibly makes it worse". – AJ Henderson Mar 29 '14 at 6:50
This question appears to be off-topic because it is about general computer hardware. This is already addressed on SuperUser in this question. – AJ Henderson Mar 29 '14 at 7:07

I'm not sure this is on topic here, but...

Unless you're doing a lot of simultaneous access to the partitions or folders, there should be no discernible performance difference. It's all head movement and caching.

share|improve this answer
It DOES make a difference, though, that you keep your editing application on one physical drive and your video files on another. But you probably knew that. – Craig Mar 28 '14 at 2:49
Even if he IS doing simultaneous access there still wouldn't be a performance difference. Partitioning makes no difference at all because it's still accessing the same drive. – AJ Henderson Mar 28 '14 at 3:06
AJ - That's why this might be off topic... There are definitely differences in performance between separate folders and separate partitions, but they won't manifest until you stress the drive with a lot of accesses to both 'at once'. One reason is that with two partitions, the MFTs / Volume Indexes are separated by half the drive surface, where two folder entries may be contiguous. But in almost all scenarios there's no practical difference. – Jim Mack Mar 29 '14 at 2:49
I do access both Partitions simultaneously quite often. Might look at simplifying the setup across other 4TBs currently installed. - Thanks all for the input. – Alex_H Mar 29 '14 at 5:43
@JimMack - good point. Partitions may make it worse since seek travel time could be slightly longer, though aren't most drives fast enough now that the head travel time is just about as fast as the time waiting for the platter itself to come around? – AJ Henderson Mar 29 '14 at 6:54

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.