Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

Does it really perform better than a single partitioned installation?


share|improve this question

migrated from May 18 '11 at 7:13

This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.

No. Unless you are running crazy high-demand servers. – user28209 May 18 '11 at 7:09

Even if the performance increase is non-existent, there are several reasons to split up your installation:

  • If one file system corrupts, the rest of your data is intact
  • A process gone (i. e. writing excessive log files) only fills one partition
  • You can mount your /home directory in several installations


Wikipedia has a great summary on the benefits of multiple partitions.

share|improve this answer

Multiple partitions are helpful when you want to upgrade your distribution, change to another distribution etc, especially a separate "/home" partition. All your data resides on the /home partition, so its very easy to reinstall a distribution without losing any of your data.

More info here -

share|improve this answer

I mainly use the multiple partition for a couple of reasons:

  • Upgrading or changing distros is easier. Having your /home partition gives you the peace of mind that you can always easily backup (to a /media/Data) and start the upgrade.
  • Backup protection, just in case a file system gets screwed, you have only limited loss.
  • OS information is separated from my data files which is beneficial for organization and loss prevention. If my OS partition gets corrupted, I can easily reinstall the OS.
  • Multi-boot
share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .