Basic HD Questions

[RU_469]

Been a while since I built a system and I have a couple of quick questions.

Here is the system:
E6400
Asus P5B Deluxe
OCZ 2G 800mhz

My questions regarding hard drives:
Is there a best way to configure SATA drives? I.E. Windows on a small drive, applications/games on another drive and data on yet another?

Or is there so little difference anymore that I should just buy a big drive and back up the important stuff with my external drive?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Oh yea, I'm leaning toward the Seagate barracuda......thoughts or better options?

 

[nobly]

My questions regarding hard drives:
Is there a best way to configure SATA drives? I.E. Windows on a small drive, applications/games on another drive and data on yet another?

Oh yea, I'm leaning toward the Seagate barracuda......thoughts or better options?

Usually I find that partitions are a personal thing. Some will partition the OS separate from games, data, etc in case the OS becomes corrupt, etc. Some will just put it all on one partition. shrug, its up to you.

I'd get a barracuda myself if I had to get a new HDD today. I'd get the new Perpendicular Recording ones.

 

[PCcashCow]

My questions regarding hard drives:
Is there a best way to configure SATA drives? I.E. Windows on a small drive, applications/games on another drive and data on yet another?

Oh yea, I'm leaning toward the Seagate barracuda......thoughts or better options?

Usually I find that partitions are a personal thing. Some will partition the OS separate from games, data, etc in case the OS becomes corrupt, etc. Some will just put it all on one partition. shrug, its up to you.

I'd get a barracuda myself if I had to get a new HDD today. I'd get the new Perpendicular Recording ones.
Nobly is on the money, it's prue preffrence on disk partitioning. However at the very least moving the PageFile and keeping the OS separate is always a secure proven path used by many peeps.

 

[RU_469]

Thanks for the advice,

Since there seems to be no real advantage to multiple HD's I'll just go with one for now. I'll partition a chuck for XP.

 

[g-paw]

Thanks for the advice,

Since there seems to be no real advantage to multiple HD's I'll just go with one for now. I'll partition a chuck for XP.

One advantage to 2 hdd is that if you use the second one as a back up drive and the 1st one goes south, you have your data.

 

[RyanMicah]

There's a big advantage with Raid-0 when it comes to loading games. In my opinion, you should get two 7200rpm 16mb WD drives and set them up in a striped array. Buy a third hard drive for backup storage. If you just play games and don't have much media like pics and vids, just get a small third one and use it for copies of saved games. If you have a lot of media, get a 500gb one for backup. Two 250gb drives striped = about 480gb's total after windows install I believe. So you'll have two drives, with about equal portions for data. 4 drives total will give you AUTO redundancy in raid 0+1, but is actually less safe than just copying important stuff to a single drive. Make a disc that includes all the most current drivers you may need to install if you do a clean install of windows on your Raid-0, and keep your favorite games in a group. Most people will do a fresh install at least once a year anyway to clean up windows registry and remove any adware or viruses they picked up and can't detect. I use the pop-up blockers that come with browsers, but no virus software, as it slows down computers quite a bit. The reason I recommend WD drives is that they're cheaper and I think most come with a 5 yr warranty. I've never had a problem with the 4 I have.

 

[Guest]

My personal preference is also on a 2 HD configuration.

Even if benchmark don't show that much, the feel of Raid0 is really worth it to me.

I really like to have my OS on a small Hd like a raptor 70gig or 2 36gig raptor in raid0 and have all the data on a larger disk.

Whats great about a 2 or 3 hd configuration is that you can wipe the OS any day without worrying about back up. You put the My Documents,he data and the Pagefile on the data HD and the OS/games/apps on a OS hd. Also imaging software is a most for quick OS wiping.

 

[RyanMicah]

Imaging software? Why not just use XP's built in System Recovery feature then?

 

[AppleCertifiedPro]

What do you guys think about WD? I'm thinking about getting a WD R2 (or sumthing like that) 250 gb at 7200...... the 250 is prob for games, vids and other media. and then i wil get a 50gb with my files and data and the os will also go on this in another partition. I'm REALLY noob........ I just want to hear everyones opinions.... So hit me with everything you've got!!

 

[RyanMicah]

I pretty much only buy WD...right now they have some of the best prices and performance. It's RE2, and the RE2's are 16mb buffers and come in either a 400 or 500gb drive. The SE16's are also great, however aren't quite as big. For a noob, I can't really recommend RAID...but if you read up on it you might want to give RAID-0 a try. I usually recommend two smaller drives in raid 0 and another single drive to use as a backup for important files. Raid-0 is essentially two drives being used as one, and it can improve performance, mostly when loading a game or dealing with large files, because it can read and write simultaneously to both drives. I've never had any problem with raid, in fact I won't go any other way until flash hard drives become mainstream. The RE and RE2 drives are supposedly (from what I've come to understand) a business grade hard drive. They're slightly more REliable...thus the RE.

~Ry

 

[SomeJoe7777]

Raid-0 is essentially two drives being used as one, and it can improve performance, mostly when loading a game or dealing with large files, because it can read and write simultaneously to both drives. I've never had any problem with raid, in fact I won't go any other way until flash hard drives become mainstream. The RE and RE2 drives are supposedly (from what I've come to understand) a business grade hard drive. They're slightly more REliable...thus the RE.

Ummm ... some misinformation here.

RAID-0 cannot read and write simultaneously to both drives. That's not how it works. RAID-0 stripes the information across both drives, thus improving the overall transfer rate. But the controller reads from both drives simultaneously or writes to both drives simultaneously, never both and read and a write at the same time.

The benefits of RAID-0 are not as large as you have stated. There is only a minimal to marginal improvement in game load times and boot times. RAID-0 can only shine in applications that move large amounts of data in big files. Examples are video editing, DVD mastering, Photoshop work, etc. RAID-0 improves the sequential transfer rate, not the latency or I/O's per second.

The RE drives from Western Digital are the RAID Edition drives. They have a much shorter drop-out/time-out time than normal drives so that the RAID controller can see that a bad drive has dropped offline rather quickly. This allows the controller to immediately inform the user of a bad drive. They're no more or less reliable than WD's other enterprise drives, they're just meant to be used in a RAID setup. Of course RAID-0 is not redundant, so the RE drives don't do anything or help with anything in a RAID-0.

Also, imaging software is not the same thing as a system restore in Windows XP. I've had system restore refuse to work on many occasions, and often it doesn't actually restore the system to an exact previous state. Imaging software like Norton Ghost or Acronis TrueImage is far more reliable for keeping a backup of your system state.

I would advise that you research your information more thoroughly before posting, as many new computer users browse these forums for advice and running into misinformation is the last thing they need.

 

[RyanMicah]

Maybe you misinterpreted what I said, I apologize for not writing it more clearly. I didn't mean it can read and write at the same time, I meant it can read from both simultaneously and write to both simultaneously. I had posted a thread recently about RE drives and nobody responded. So I wrote "what I understand" and I have also read that they're designed for raid but forgot that they stood for Raid Edition. Still, what I said about them being better for business and being more reliable stands true...they are more reliable in a raid setup.

You wrote "RAID-0 can only shine in applications that move large amounts of data in big files." Thanks for repeating what I wrote in countless other threads.

"I would advise that you research your information more thoroughly before posting, as many new computer users browse these forums for advice and running into misinformation is the last thing they need."

I would advise you to try not to be such a prick by considering yourself all-knowing and everyone else who attempts to offer input a moron. Everything you wrote I already knew and have posted in countless threads. I forgot what RE stood for. Maybe you should spend more time learning manners and reading forums before trolling and trying to make yourself look good.

 

[mmattb]

I am a Seagate fan myself, not WD.

There is serious advantage to two harddrives. Many system-intensive applications try to write to multiple parts of the hard drive at once. For instance, a memory-hungry game may be loading game data while forcing the system to use the page file. Partitioning a single drive does not help this because you are still seeking on the same physical system. Putting the page file on a separate physical drive from the binaries can significantly increase performance. Also, if you have a collection of music and movies like most people do, it is effective to put that on a separate drive. This lets your system multitask better when you are ripping or playing media. The gist of it is what RyanMicah said: you can access data simultaneously on two different drives. Partitioning a single drive does NOT help this. Of course if it comes down to an extra HD and upgrading the CPU or RAM, you should not go with the HD.

My setup:

HDD0:
C: Binaries/windows
R: Art

HDD1:
M: Media/pagefile (movies music, downloads, etc..and of course the pagefile)

Notice that the media and pagefile are separate from the binaries. That, in my experience, is what makes the biggest difference.

 

[SuperFly03]

Raid-0 is essentially two drives being used as one, and it can improve performance, mostly when loading a game or dealing with large files, because it can read and write simultaneously to both drives. I've never had any problem with raid, in fact I won't go any other way until flash hard drives become mainstream. The RE and RE2 drives are supposedly (from what I've come to understand) a business grade hard drive. They're slightly more REliable...thus the RE.

The benefits of RAID-0 are not as large as you have stated. There is only a minimal to marginal improvement in game load times and boot times. RAID-0 can only shine in applications that move large amounts of data in big files. Examples are video editing, DVD mastering, Photoshop work, etc. RAID-0 improves the sequential transfer rate, not the latency or I/O's per second.


I concur there. I have had to debunk that myth several times. There is 0 performance gain in RAID 0 as compared to a regular setup because the bottleneck is the CPU. benchmarks from maximumpc showed it to acctually redcued load time by 1 sec, not increasing. As you stated Somejoe, the only real advantage is in large file movements. RAID has no affect on seek times, only throughput, but when your data is waiting to be decompressed by the CPU it makes no difference how fast you can get data to the CPU if the CPU is the slowest part.

 

[SomeJoe7777]

You wrote "RAID-0 can only shine in applications that move large amounts of data in big files." Thanks for repeating what I wrote in countless other threads.

Well, you may have said it in other threads, but you didn't say it in this one. You specifically posted that:

Raid-0 is essentially two drives being used as one, and it can improve performance, mostly when loading a game

And that's misleading.

I would advise you to try not to be such a prick by considering yourself all-knowing and everyone else who attempts to offer input a moron. Everything you wrote I already knew and have posted in countless threads. I forgot what RE stood for. Maybe you should spend more time learning manners and reading forums before trolling and trying to make yourself look good.

It's not my business to research all of your other threads to properly evaluate your knowledge. If you actually do know what you're talking about, you certainly didn't show it in this thread, which is why I responded they way I did. Further, if you expect such an evaluation from me to you, then you would be expected to return the favor prior to calling me a "troll" who's seeking recognition. Perhaps you could start with the FAQ thread at the top of the forum.

As far as my response, let's just say that the diplomacy and restraint that I have shown here far exceeds what you would have been subjected to if Wusy had seen your post first. 8O

 

[RyanMicah]

There is serious advantage to two harddrives. Many system-intensive applications try to write to multiple parts of the hard drive at once. For instance, a memory-hungry game may be loading game data while forcing the system to use the page file. Partitioning a single drive does not help this because you are still seeking on the same physical system. Putting the page file on a separate physical drive from the binaries can significantly increase performance.

The gist of it is what RyanMicah said: you can access data simultaneously on two different drives.

YES, thank you! Better put!

Partitioning a single drive does NOT help this. Of course if it comes down to an extra HD and upgrading the CPU or RAM, you should not go with the HD.

Yes, but he already has a good system...if getting into games and having that extra couple of starting seconds is important, raid-0 will help.

Raid-0 is essentially two drives being used as one, and it can improve performance, mostly when loading a game

And that's misleading.

It's true. You must not play games.

It's not my business to research all of your other threads to properly evaluate your knowledge. If you actually do know what you're talking about, you certainly didn't show it in this thread, which is why I responded they way I did.

I thought I did pretty well, other than a bit of poor communication.

Further, if you expect such an evaluation from me to you, then you would be expected to return the favor prior to calling me a "troll" who's seeking recognition.

That was kind of my point, I didn't. If you have something to add, just add. Don't assume everyone else is an idiot and treat them like one. Why do I feel like I'm repeating myself?

Perhaps you could start with the FAQ thread at the top of the forum.
As far as my response, let's just say that the diplomacy and restraint that I have shown here far exceeds what you would have been subjected to if Wusy had seen your post first.

Oh yes, you are the bigger man I'm sure. My advice is generally sound and some sound advice is better than no guidance at all. I'd really hate to see him run out and get a 5400rpm 500gb IDE drive because it was cheap. Especially with an E6400 and 800mhz DDR2. Anyway, ignoring the troll now...

What video card are you using? What is your primary function for this comp?

 

[SuperFly03]

Raid-0 is essentially two drives being used as one, and it can improve performance, mostly when loading a game

And that's misleading.

It's true. You must not play games.


And you clearly do not pay attention. During game play files may be paged if you are running a RAM intensive game on a computer with 1GB or RAM or less, which is a problem. However, loading a game from a RAID 0 drive does not decrease load times at all. The CPU takes longer to decompress the data sent to it that it does for the HDD to read it.

Check this out

Or check this

Or yet another link

Note the difference in load times is 1 second or sometimes even slower!!!!..... now you tell me is that really worth all the effort and risk you take with a RAID 0 array? I don't think so. There is no proven benefit from RAID 0 in gaming load times.

Two 250gb drives striped = about 480gb's total after windows install I believe.

Hmm actually prior to windows installation you only have 465GB, then you have to install windows on top of that and all the programs you need. You lose about 6.867% in the difference between the way manufacturers measure GB's and the way Windows measures GB's. They all say its pre-formatted capacity, but formatting has almost nothing to do with it. The difference is HDD manufacturers use a 10base to calculate storage space and Windows uses binary 2 base.

 

[mmattb]

Raid-0 is essentially two drives being used as one, and it can improve performance, mostly when loading a game

And that's misleading.

It's true. You must not play games.


And you clearly do not pay attention. During game play files may be paged if you are running a RAM intensive game on a computer with 1GB or RAM or less, which is a problem. However, loading a game from a RAID 0 drive does not decrease load times at all. The CPU takes longer to decompress the data sent to it that it does for the HDD to read it.

Check this out

Or check this

Or yet another link

Note the difference in load times is 1 second or sometimes even slower!!!!..... now you tell me is that really worth all the effort and risk you take with a RAID 0 array? I don't think so. There is no proven benefit from RAID 0 in gaming load times.

Two 250gb drives striped = about 480gb's total after windows install I believe.

Hmm actually prior to windows installation you only have 465GB, then you have to install windows on top of that and all the programs you need. You lose about 6.867% in the difference between the way manufacturers measure GB's and the way Windows measures GB's. They all say its pre-formatted capacity, but formatting has almost nothing to do with it. The difference is HDD manufacturers use a 10base to calculate storage space and Windows uses binary 2 base.

Once when I was in Venice I saw a midget shot from a canon.

 

[SuperFly03]

LOL, wth? Talk about random.... don't get me wrong I am a huge fan of random, but that was just way outta left field. What else you have up your sleeve?

 

[AppleCertifiedPro]

Sorry for not replying guys, just been a bit busy over the days. Well thanks for the help(s) i've learnt a more and gained mroe knoledge LOL! Ill probably get WD I like it because i've had no probs with my current one.

Appreciate the advice and the help!

 

[RyanMicah]

Check this out

From this article..."in real world use there is NO REAL IMPROVEMENT in load up times." He stacked it against a Raptor. Raptors as a single drive are slightly faster than Raid-0 using two 7200's. If you want to pay $50 more for a slight increase go ahead. But we should be comparing Raid-0 to single 7200rpm drives. You might as well compare a 5400rpm drive to a SCSI 15,000rpm drive. God you're a moron. Quit talking and try to comprehend what you read before you type.

Or check this

This is a post from a forum from Maximum PC mag. The article was about putting money into a CPU before upgrading your hard drive. Of course if you have a slow processor your load times are limited. No $hit. Again, reading comprehension. You seem to love to jump the gun. I have two Raid-0 150 gig raptors in a system with fast memory and a slow ass 3000+ Athlon 64. My load times are much faster on my raided 4200+ system that uses 7200rpm drives. You think I don't know this? I bought the cheapest processor with plans to upgrade the system. You run out and get yourself a conroe and a single 7200rpm drive though, and I'll still beat you into a multiplayer game screen. Please quit acting like you know more than you do.

Or yet another link

Quote from that article:
"We were hoping to see some sort of performance increase in the game loading tests, but the RAID array didn't give us that. While the scores put the RAID-0 array slightly slower than the single drive Raptor II, you should also remember that these scores are timed by hand and thus, we're dealing within normal variations in the "benchmark"."

The problem with this test is that it's using raptors again. Your going to be limited by other system components. Raptors are freakin' fast, and the raid will probably slow it down on smaller files. However, on larger files you will see an increase in writing time especially, due to the fact that once the drive finds where it needs to write to the disk, it can then begin writing. These tests were also done with a seperate OS drive. Many of us do use seperate OS drives, but most of us still don't.

Now, if you want to debate semantics more...go ahead. I'm done with it. However, for cost/performance...as of right now, two striped 7200rpm's give you close to the performance of a single raptor drive, and sometimes will even beat it. Cost wise you're going to get double the storage for about the cost of a single raptor drive. It just makes sense. As for how bytes are calculated by different hard disk companies and by Windows, wow...think that up by yourself?

 

[RyanMicah]

Another thing you cocky blow hole...

http://www23.tomshardware.com/storage.html

After reading that, go do some pricing on raptors and 7200rpm drives. That's all that needs to be said.

 

[croc]

My next system, I will probably get a raptor for the primary drive, and a seagate for the data drive. The raptor is faster, albeit noiser and hotter.

I manage quite a few raid arrays at work, (over 500) and they are built for reliability, not speed. Most all of them use dedicated, redundant, controllers, and are fault tolerant to the nth deree. Fast? Well, they do require fibre channel controllers....

At home I do have one NAS that I store backup images on.

Currently I have a couple of old ide drives that work well enough after they have loaded up what ever. XP loads in under 15 sec, but I clean up drivers, and reinstall frequently-ish

I'd never trust my data to a raid0, and probably not my OS as I am a rather lazy ah heck.

That's what I do, and what my next system is planned to do.

Do as you wish.

 

[croc]

My next system, I will probably get a raptor for the primary drive, and a seagate for the data drive. The raptor is faster, albeit noiser and hotter.

I manage quite a few raid arrays at work, (over 500) and they are built for reliability, not speed. Most all of them use dedicated, redundant, controllers, and are fault tolerant to the nth deree. Fast? Well, they do require fibre channel controllers....

At home I do have one NAS that I store backup images on.

Currently I have a couple of old ide drives that work well enough after they have loaded up what ever. XP loads in under 15 sec, but I clean up drivers, and reinstall frequently-ish

I'd never trust my data to a raid0, and probably not my OS as I am a rather lazy ah heck.

That's what I do, and what my next system is planned to do.

Do as you wish.

 

[RyanMicah]

Yeah, those frickin raptors are noisy and hot. I reinstall frequently anyway, as I hate anti-virus and adware programs. They slow down my system. I can boot in Win XP Pro X64 in around or under 20 seconds (I think) with all of my devices and RAID. X64 loads dual registries too. :-( But the system is pretty darn fast once it's up. I barely touch my processor, usually only about 50% of one core when it's loading a good sized program, and ram is only around 20% with a few light programs going. I wouldn't trust Raid-0 to keep important data either, nor would I trust a 3 year old single drive. I use both my raid and single drive for storage copies, and then put all my media on another comp as well via the network.