Windows Disk 0

[Hedvige Ransonet]

Thefollowing image shows the Disk Management overview for several drives. Disk 0 has three partitions, and Disk 1 has two partitions. On Disk 0, the C: drive for Windows uses the most disk space. Two other partitions for system operations and recovery use a smaller amount of disk space.

Disk Management might show the EFI System Partition and Recovery Partition as 100 percent free. However, these partitions store critical files that your PC needs to operate properly, and the partitions are generally nearly full. It's recommended to not modify these partitions in any way.

Disk Management supports a wide range of drive tasks, but some tasks need to be completed by using a different tool. Here are some common disk management tasks to complete with other tools in Windows:

My disk cleanup seems unable to delete a lot of messages worth of "temporary files" that it sees, even after I went and deleted contents of various temporary folders I found myself. I would like to try delete such files manually, but for this I need to figure out just where are those "temporary files" that Disk Cleanup is detecting and offering to delete.

The "Temporary Files" folder that Disk Cleanup is referring to is the one pointed to by the environment variable %TEMP%. You can go directly to this folder by typing %TEMP% in the Run box or in the address bar in Windows Explorer.

Disk Cleanup's list of "places to cleanup" is stored in the registry key HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\VolumeCaches. The Temporary Files item is in a key named, unsurprisingly, Temporary Files.

I just bought a new computer with a 2TB hard drive that has only a single partition. I would like to divide this into at least 4 partitions, but when I try to shrink the current partition, it says the total size is 1888171 MB and that the size of available shrink space is only 939075 MB. The used disk space is at 40gb right now - why can't shrink it to somewhere around that?

I had the same problem, 500GB harddisk and the shrinking process didn't shrink less than 230GB.. I did the below steps and I was able to shrink to exactly the space allocated by the windows files itself.

WARNING: Re-sizing partitions can also delete your partition (since you are trying to re-size your root partition, this can happen only if you try to re-size externally (without booting into OS)).

Usually Disk management inside Windows won't allow re-sizing the partition because of unmovable system files. But if you try to defrag your partition, you can shrink it beyond the previously limited size, but of course to some extent. But, third party tools can let you re-size the partitions beyond that too. So, you might want to try one of them. I'd recommend Acronis Disk Director / MiniTool Partition Wizard if you are trying to re-size from inside the Windows, else, GParted Live CD is always the best option.

Make sure that you defrag the drive before trying anything. Also, though GPT scheme allows to create more than 4 primary partitions (128), it also requires that you have to switch from BIOS to UEFI booting. So, if you are going to setup multi-OS system, then you must choose the OSs that support EFI boot.

I figured the same problem and finally came to the conclusion:deactive system restore by going into control panel.. system protection and then reduce the hard disk to your desired requirement.once that is done active system restore again.

I would recommend following the procedures given in the article you cite to temporarily eliminate most of the problematic system files, and then use the Perfect Disk program mentioned there to do a boot-time defragment with free-space consolidation. I have done exactly that in the past, and it worked very well. As others have noted, you can have far more than 4 partitions if you make an extended partition and create logical partitions inside it. Don't forget to re-enable changes.

Select one of the raid drives in the Disk Management.Then on the right (with Windows 7 Professional) I have the option "More Actions", when I click that there popups a new menu with the option: Refresh.

You may go for months, years before resynching occurs, if so, you are lucky. Any implementation of RAID will potentially suffer from this resynching downside. It will occur whether HW or SW raid, but these notes relate specifically to XP/Vista/W7 software RAID 1. In W7, mirroring will yield higher performance than a solitary disk, but resynching could be handled better.

A Raid 1, mirror set, will always need to resynch after anyunusual shutdown of the system. If one has to hit the power buttonbecause the system is completely locked, or it goes down in a power outage, then one will have one's Raid 1resynching at the next start. (There are suggestions that WindowsUpdate can cause resynching by applying updates to only one disk of the set. This mayor may not be true.)

Windows 7 (one can always hope that things may be different in W8) synchs atabout 10% normal disk speed. I have 80MB/sec disks, but they resynchat about 7MB/s. Any activity on the mirror set will slow thingsfurther.

You can observe the activity using performance monitor. Hit the startbutton, type perfmon and then you can start the perfmon.exeapplication. In the LH window, click on Performance Monitor. Then usethe green menu item to select Physical Disk, then Disk Bytes/sec, andwhichever instances you prefer. Tailoring the graphical display is aquestion of trial and error, but the read/write bytes will appearjust below - use the 'average' to see how fast the disk is updating.

Using the average from the sixth step, and the size of the disk, you can now predict the total time before the mirror set is 100%. Forexample, I have 1.5TB mirror set, and I find that my average update is about 7MB/s, yielding an ETA of 60hrs. I find that this is pretty exact. I do not bother with any photo or video editing in the interval, which is a bit of a nuisance, but the work would be very

sluggish and delay the ETA.

I do hope that this reassures people who have hit this problem. These times will get longer as disks get bigger and I would like to see MS do a few things: first, use some adaptive algorithm to enable faster use of the disks speed, especially allow the priority to move up when the system is not in use, it would be more like 5 or 6 hours if the full io rate could be used; second, keep track of sectors resynch'd so that one can restart if necessary for other reasons.

You say that the drive only has 150GB of data for one pair, but the ENTIRE drive must be synchronized. The OS is making the drives EXACT copies of each other. The speed at which they will sync depends on a few factors:1) Size of the RAID setup

If you're actually trying to use the drive, you're slowing down the process. If you can leave the computer alone, and nothing is actively trying to access data - reading OR writing - to the drive, then the resync will go faster.

In my case, I actually partitioned my drives in such a way that I have four partitions, each having a RAID mirror on another drive - but they're NOT situated in the same order. One has ABCD, and the other is CDBA - the reason for this is that I had something get in my computer in the past, and it started at sector 0 and started wiping data... well if that happens again, I'll have the mirrors intact, because they're not in the same place on the second drive as on the first. (Something that starts at the partition's sector 0 will obviously destroy the data, but my idea was to ensure that something like what I had happen before cannot happen again.)

Using RAID to mirror your system drive might seem like a good idea, but it's really not. It's true, you'll have a backup if one dies... but that's what backups are for. If the system crashes, then the machine needs to be rebooted, and your RAID might be out of sync for important files such as the registry data -suddenly you're in a world of pain as the system tries to not only make sense of two disparate files, but at the same time trying to resynchronize your array. Also, using the RAID for your swap file is NEVER EVER a good idea. Each time you write data to it, you need to write twice, and it will slow down the use of the swap. The swap space should, if possible, be on its own drive/partition, and if possible not the system drive if you use a partition for it. The swap file should be considered something that goes away when you reboot - not something that you need to protect by using a RAID mirror.

As to seeing the percent completion of the resync, it will show up automatically in the Disk Management screen in time. It seems to take 15-30 minutes of resynching before it shows a status; after that it will show a percent completion.

I have a Virtual core win 2019 server with several drives that are the same size. I now need to extend the size of one of the drives but have no idea which hard disk in the VM (vmware) it is?

Has anyone got any life hack suggestions for this?

Hi all. Decades in IT and I'm ashamed to say, this topic has always eluded me. Back in the NT/2000/2003 days, I briefly touched on the topic of basic vs. dynamic disks (actually I think just 2003, but **bleep** if I can remember). I remember there were too many pitfalls with switching a hard drivec to Dynamic disk, such that I always followed the rule of not ever using that feature.

Ok so fast forward to today, and I'm on a Win 10 Pro box that had been restored from a full image backup. Original SSD was 240 GB, the replacement SSD is a Samsung 500GB SSD (Evo 860 mSata). Disk Management shows about half the space as unallocated. I have no options to do anything with the partitions/volumes, but right-clicking on the Disk 0 item on the left of the middle main pane, has the option to convert to Dynamic Disk, which I assume then will allow volume expansion or whatever else, to join that unallocated space to the C:.

So my question is, is it now a simple process in Win 10, hassle free? If it's one of those "you can do it but if it's a UEFI thingy with GPT or if it's got an OEM partition formatted as FAT32 and you gotta update the firmware on Serial I/O this or that etc. etc. etc.", forget it, not worth screwing around with, but if this is considered in 2020 a hassle free no risk process, please advise. Thanks :)

3a8082e126