With my IT outfit, we have templates to deploy servers with a dinky C drive/partition (10GB) and a larger D drive/partition. Why do this? Windows (at least until recently and at that minimally) has no real use of dynamic mount points in general server deployments.
So with many of the comments below a synopsis:
- It's faster to recover a smaller partition. This includes a corruption of NTFS,which would be kept to a paticular partition instead of messing up the enitre system.
- You get some protection from runnaway processes. This includes the ability to set quotas.
- Provides some cost savings for Raid configuration
- A religious hold over from the days before virtualization, raids, and high bandwidth networks.
Aside from #3 ( which, I think, is an argument against partitions), I still see no reason to have separate partitions. If you want to protect your data, wouldn't you just put it on another set of real or virtual disks or otherwise map to a shared resource somwhere else (NAS, SAN, whatever)?