I have a HDD Toshiba P300 2 Tb and I have 1 Tb of data to write into it. But only 50 Gb of that data is to be accessed by me regularly.
Is it true that if there were a logical partition for those 50 Gb, this whole partition would be located compactly on adjoining tracks? which would optimize the work of an HDD.
FS is ext4.

Any physical partition, primary or logical, will occupy a single contiguous region on the disk. It matters not at all.
However the filesystem can only be the same size, or slightly less - in your case 50G say. The rest of the 1T of data would need to be on another partition/filesystem.

it depends on a lot of things like: how do you access that data (is this a database, file[s], or ???), do you want only to read or write/alter/update/modify it (or add/delete records/files)? How often do you want to access it? How much RAM (cache) do you have?
Playing with partitions is not the best way to optimize it (also why do you want to optimize it at all)?

syg00
Yes. My question is if it is a good idea to divide HDD as 50Gb + 1950Gb. Or make a single 2000Gb partition.
I'd like to know if a separate 50Gb partition would be a continious space physically.

pan64
It's mostly small text and graphic files. They are mostly being written and deleted, sometimes modified. It usually happens from a few dozen times a day to a few hundred times a day.
I have 6 Gb RAM.
I want to optimize partitions (if possible) to have a quicker access to HDD and also to protect moving parts of HDD (as the heads) from unneeded deterioration.

so if you use smaller amount of data than your RAM (in a day) HDD will not be used at all, because everything will be cached.
Optimizing partitions and protect moving parts will not give you significant improvement. Splitting your drives into smaller partitions also may lead to performance degradation.
Don't forget your system needs to read a lot of other files for the regular work (binaries, libraries, config files, scripts), so it is not that simple.
I would rather try to buy more RAM (if you want to speed up that host).

pan64, thanks.
My OS and all installed software are located on a different physical drive. That's where they load to RAM from.

Concerning the HDD in question, I write files there from Internet and those files are not cached on that HDD.

My system is very old and I hope to upgrade most of it some time.

As a partition is created from blocknumber XXXX to blocknumber YYYY it is contiguous in block numbers, But if that's physically contiguous too depends on the mapping your disk uses from block numbers to physical addresses on-disk. You cannot control that and with modern cached drives it really doesn't matter all that much.

BTW: this method is a limitation too: if you haven't got a range of 50GB of block numbers available, you cannot create a new partition OF that size. So if the disk is rather fragmented in partitions, you'd best start anew.

PS: on SSD disks logical block numbers can be all over the memory, they almost certainly are not physical contiguous.

1 members found this post helpful.

ehartman, thanks.
In this case the single partition seems to me the best option.

I remember having read somewhere that modern HDDs first write to those sectors which have the shortest access time. If it's true, it's probably worth writing the most often accessed files first (whe the HDD is still empty).