1 Or 2 HDD's

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

I know this is a silly question, but apart from the obvious (more memory), Is there an
advantage to having 2 HDD's?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

1. Extra disk can be used as the "scratch" disk for virtual memory speeding
up system processes, especially when there is not appropriate amount of RAM
available.
2. OS can be installed on one drive while using the second to store data
files. Should system become corrupt there is much higher probability of
being able to retrieve data.
3. using backup software (ie Retrospect, or similar software)a duplicate
copy of first hdd can be made on 2nd hdd
4. If the drive is installed in a rack mount even more versatility is gained
from being able to back up and actually remove data to an offsite location
for greater data safety.


--
Jan Alter
bearpuf@verizon.net
or
jalter@phila.k12.pa.us
"Paul Maskell" <paul@maskell17.plus.com> wrote in message
news:bWhdc.28415$h44.3991599@stones.force9.net...
> I know this is a silly question, but apart from the obvious (more memory),
Is there an
> advantage to having 2 HDD's?
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Paul Maskell" <paul@maskell17.plus.com> wrote in message
news:bWhdc.28415$h44.3991599@stones.force9.net...
> I know this is a silly question, but apart from the obvious (more memory),
Is there an
> advantage to having 2 HDD's?

Well, it doesn't *automatically* buy you more storage (unless you add a
second one to an existing one). You can buy 2 40G drives or 1 80G drive.
Obviously there will be a limit to how high 1 drive can go. But it can also
help performance with 2 drives. For example, if you put your swap drive on
one and the system drive on the other, they can work at the same time.

 

[DJ]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

more memory ???????? No

otherwise yes, very useful to backup data on the primary drive

dj

"Paul Maskell" <paul@maskell17.plus.com> wrote in message
news:bWhdc.28415$h44.3991599@stones.force9.net...
> I know this is a silly question, but apart from the obvious (more memory),
Is there an
> advantage to having 2 HDD's?
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Paul Maskell" <paul@maskell17.plus.com> wrote:

>I know this is a silly question, but apart from the obvious (more memory), Is there an
>advantage to having 2 HDD's?

Hmm, not really more memory. More storage, yes.

And yes, there are several. You can read from or write to each of them
at the same time, which brings different advatages depending on how
you set up your system (for performance and/or reliability, or
neither).


Tim
--
Love is a travelator.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Paul Maskell wrote:
>
> I know this is a silly question, but apart from the obvious (more memory), Is there an
> advantage to having 2 HDD's?

I like to keep different OS's on their own drives. That's the main
reason I have 2 or more HDs in most of my boxes. It keeps things nicely
separated so I can reinstall windoze without it futzing with Linux and
what not.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"DJ" <d@123btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:c54d93$2nf$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> more memory ???????? No
>


physical - no. virtual - yes

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Bitstring <bWhdc.28415$h44.3991599@stones.force9.net>, from the
wonderful person Paul Maskell <paul@maskell17.plus.com> said
>I know this is a silly question, but apart from the obvious (more
>memory), Is there an
>advantage to having 2 HDD's?

Redundancy - the ability to keep going if one falls over (even if you
have to re-install some stuff). Ability to keep critical files on both
disks.

Speed - you can have programs on one disk and data (or swap file) on the
other disk both being accessed at once (especially if the disks are on
different EIDE cables).

RAID (0, 1, 0+1, 5, etc.) can be used (with 2 or more identical disks)
to achieve either or both of these benefits .. however you can also get
some of the same benefit just by cunning use of two disks.

Downside - it uses more power, generates more heat, and makes more
noise, than just having one disk (even one twice the size).

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

If you have the money, it most cases its desirable to have two. Regardless
of how they are arranged, wether or not they are set up as a redundant
array, two is better than one...

One of my favorite responses when someone asks why I have so many
harddrives:

"Well, what happens if my backup's backup fails to backup my backup's
backup? Well, I have another backup."

The more, the merrier.

Elp.

"Paul Maskell" <paul@maskell17.plus.com> wrote in message
news:bWhdc.28415$h44.3991599@stones.force9.net...
> I know this is a silly question, but apart from the obvious (more memory),
Is there an
> advantage to having 2 HDD's?
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

The last time I looked into it, the W2K kernel would issue a disk operation
and then WAIT (by polling) for it to complete. It simply does not have the
smarts or the hardware supports to keep a transfer going on more than one
physical drive.

There is value to "mirroring" where the OS continuously makes a copy of your
main disk to an auxilliar disk. Should disaster strike, you can revert to
the second drive. Of course, this RAID configuration slows your computer
because it must wait for two transfers to complete. On disk read
operations, it verifies that the two copies are identical.


"Paul Maskell" <paul@maskell17.plus.com> wrote in message
news:bWhdc.28415$h44.3991599@stones.force9.net...
> I know this is a silly question, but apart from the obvious (more memory),
Is there an
> advantage to having 2 HDD's?
>
>

 

[Si]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

I would have thought 2 would be the minimum required these days. Personally
I have 4 and I'm running out of space!!

Si


"Paul Maskell" <paul@maskell17.plus.com> wrote in message
news:bWhdc.28415$h44.3991599@stones.force9.net...
> I know this is a silly question, but apart from the obvious (more memory),
Is there an
> advantage to having 2 HDD's?
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Chris 159 wrote:

> "DJ" <d@123btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:c54d93$2nf$1@titan.btinternet.com...
>
>>more memory ???????? No
>>
>
>
>
> physical - no. virtual - yes
>
>
>
But you don't want to buy a disk to gain extra virtual RAM, just buy
more RAM

--
But why is the Rum gone?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Si wrote:

> I would have thought 2 would be the minimum required these days. Personally
> I have 4 and I'm running out of space!!
>

That would depend on the size of each disk. e.g. 4 x 40GB vs 1 x 200GB

--
But why is the Rum gone?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Sal Monella <salmonella@idontwantanyemailanyway.moc> wrote in message news:<4075BFD1.C4AD68B4@idontwantanyemailanyway.moc>...

>I like to keep different OS's on their own drives. That's the main
>reason I have 2 or more HDs in most of my boxes. It keeps things nicely
>separated so I can reinstall windoze without it futzing with Linux and
>what not.

I used to be like that, but I've since decided that I
prefer having just one drive with multiple partitions.
A second, small drive is more reliable when it's in
storage not attached to anything. If I need to reinstall
Windows, I just copy over the Windows OS partition from a
backup copy (either from the LAN or from that second,
small drive).

Mainly, I like having just one drive per computer for
noise/power issues, but there's also the matter of
mean-time-between-failures. Hard drives have an annoying
habit of failing when it's inconvenient and I don't
feel like dealing with it. Okay, so there is NO convenient
time when I feel like dealing with a damaged hard drive.
Right?

If I had two drives in each computer, I'd be dealing with
damaged drives twice as often. A RAID can reduce the
risk of data loss, but it doesn't reduce the annoyance
factor of pulling/replacing a dead drive. No thanks!

I'd rather leave all those little drives I used to put
OS's on in storage where they can't fail and ruin my day.
I can live with the small performance hit and modest
storage loss of putting OS partitions on my big drives.

Of course, with just one drive per computer, I can't RAID.
However, any data which I really care about I frequently
copy over the LAN and semi-frequently backup onto CD/DVD.

Isaac Kuo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Trevor Best" <nospam@localhost> wrote...
>
>> I would have thought 2 would be the minimum required these days. Personally
>> I have 4 and I'm running out of space!!
>
> That would depend on the size of each disk. e.g. 4 x 40GB vs 1 x 200GB

Also, put some thought into partitioning, especially if your BIOS doesn't
recognize volumes over 130 or 160 GB (or whatever the recent limit was). I
still remember when my 30 MB HD (yes, that's MB, not GB) was brand new, and it
was too large for the 20 MB limit in some early 286 chipsets...

 

[loz]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"John R Weiss" <jrweiss98155@.comNOSPAMcast.net> wrote in message
news:0bTec.128350$K91.342726@attbi_s02...

> Also, put some thought into partitioning, especially if your BIOS doesn't
> recognize volumes over 130 or 160 GB (or whatever the recent limit was).
I
> still remember when my 30 MB HD (yes, that's MB, not GB) was brand new,
and it
> was too large for the 20 MB limit in some early 286 chipsets...
>

Just what did you use all the space for!?

I had 106mb in my 386 though!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 10:42:04 -0700, Isaac Kuo wrote:

> If I had two drives in each computer, I'd be dealing with
> damaged drives twice as often.

Which is how often? You must have bad luck with hard drives. Or maybe I
just have good luck with them.

 

[TC]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

John R Weiss wrote:

> "Trevor Best" <nospam@localhost> wrote...
> >
> >> I would have thought 2 would be the minimum required these days.
> Personally >> I have 4 and I'm running out of space!!
> >
> > That would depend on the size of each disk. e.g. 4 x 40GB vs 1 x
> > 200GB
>
> Also, put some thought into partitioning, especially if your BIOS
> doesn't recognize volumes over 130 or 160 GB (or whatever the recent
> limit was). I still remember when my 30 MB HD (yes, that's MB, not
> GB) was brand new, and it was too large for the 20 MB limit in some
> early 286 chipsets...

I have read and been told that too many partitions slows down disk
access? Any truth to this?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"TC" <metrotex30@yahoo.com> wrote...
>
> I have read and been told that too many partitions slows down disk
> access? Any truth to this?

Not if you are reasonable about it...

If you restrict the OS to a small partition, the head only has to seek that
space when processing OS calls. Same with apps. Similar with data.

The problem may arise if you have drives C through P on a single physical disk,
and force the heads to move from C to P often. That would be as bad as a badly
fragmented HD with a single partition.

Keep 'em close!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Sal Monella wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 10:42:04 -0700, Isaac Kuo wrote:
>
>
>>If I had two drives in each computer, I'd be dealing with
>>damaged drives twice as often.
>
>
> Which is how often? You must have bad luck with hard drives. Or maybe I
> just have good luck with them.

Just the law of probability, if you have say a 1 in 1000 chance of a
failure with one disk then you have a 2 in 1000 (or 1 in 500) chance
with 2 disks.

--
But why is the Rum gone?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Trevor Best <nospam@localhost> pawed at the keyboard to spell out:

<<SNIP>>
>
>Just the law of probability, if you have say a 1 in 1000 chance of a
>failure with one disk then you have a 2 in 1000 (or 1 in 500) chance
>with 2 disks.

Noooo...it would still be 1 in 1000 for each disk. If one crashed and
took the other with, then the odds would change to 1 in 500, but since
one crashing does not mean the other will crash at the same time, it
remains 1 in 1000 per disk.

--
The Seabat

 

[TC]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Seabat wrote:

> Trevor Best <nospam@localhost> pawed at the keyboard to spell out:
>
> <<SNIP>>
> >
> > Just the law of probability, if you have say a 1 in 1000 chance of
> > a failure with one disk then you have a 2 in 1000 (or 1 in 500)
> > chance with 2 disks.
>
> Noooo...it would still be 1 in 1000 for each disk. If one crashed and
> took the other with, then the odds would change to 1 in 500, but since
> one crashing does not mean the other will crash at the same time, it
> remains 1 in 1000 per disk.

I have never had a HD failure and I almost always use two drives.
Maybe I'm just lucky but none of my friends have called me with a HD
failure issue. Well, maybe one but I cannot remember for sure.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"TC" <metrotex30@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3ybfc.424940$B81.7078019@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>Seabat wrote:

> > Trevor Best <nospam@localhost> pawed at the keyboard to spell out:

> > > Just the law of probability, if you have say a 1 in 1000 chance of
> > > a failure with one disk then you have a 2 in 1000 (or 1 in 500)
> > > chance with 2 disks.

> > Noooo...it would still be 1 in 1000 for each disk. If one crashed and
> > took the other with, then the odds would change to 1 in 500, but since
> > one crashing does not mean the other will crash at the same time, it
> > remains 1 in 1000 per disk.

You snipped/missed the point. Regardless of the extent of
the failure, a bad drive is something which has to be dealt
with and is annoying.

That said, there are indeed some failure modes which can
damage all drives (like a bad power surge or a badly
overvolting PSU or a dangerously overheating case).

> I have never had a HD failure and I almost always use two drives.
> Maybe I'm just lucky but none of my friends have called me with a HD
> failure issue. Well, maybe one but I cannot remember for sure.

I've been unlucky, perhaps. I've had 5 hard drives go bad
in the last three years.

Isaac Kuo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Bitstring <93eq70pjmmdc1s2jv4ifat4ajvuhkie0mv@4ax.com>, from the
wonderful person Seabat <seabatNOSPAM@boardermail.com> said
> Trevor Best <nospam@localhost> pawed at the keyboard to spell out:
>
><<SNIP>>
>>
>>Just the law of probability, if you have say a 1 in 1000 chance of a
>>failure with one disk then you have a 2 in 1000 (or 1 in 500) chance
>>with 2 disks.
>
>Noooo...it would still be 1 in 1000 for each disk.

Yes, but that still comes out at 1:500 for =the system=, which is what
the OP was probably talking about.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.

 

[TC]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Isaac Kuo wrote:

> "TC" <metrotex30@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<3ybfc.424940$B81.7078019@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
> > Seabat wrote:
>
> > > Trevor Best <nospam@localhost> pawed at the keyboard to spell
> > > out:
>
> > > > Just the law of probability, if you have say a 1 in 1000 chance
> > > > of a failure with one disk then you have a 2 in 1000 (or 1 in
> > > > 500) chance with 2 disks.
>
> > > Noooo...it would still be 1 in 1000 for each disk. If one crashed
> > > and took the other with, then the odds would change to 1 in 500,
> > > but since one crashing does not mean the other will crash at the
> > > same time, it remains 1 in 1000 per disk.
>
> You snipped/missed the point. Regardless of the extent of
> the failure, a bad drive is something which has to be dealt
> with and is annoying.

Nope. I got your point. That remark was made by Seabat.

>
> That said, there are indeed some failure modes which can
> damage all drives (like a bad power surge or a badly
> overvolting PSU or a dangerously overheating case).
>
> > I have never had a HD failure and I almost always use two drives.
> > Maybe I'm just lucky but none of my friends have called me with a HD
> > failure issue. Well, maybe one but I cannot remember for sure.
>
> I've been unlucky, perhaps. I've had 5 hard drives go bad
> in the last three years.

But this was my comment. I would say bad luck for sure. Who do you
use? I have used Seagate, WD and Maxtor without issue.

TC