Just wondering if you will gain any significant performance in a RAID setup by using Western Digital 8MB cache hardrives compared to regular 2MB cache hardrives? Or will performance level stay the same?
Boy, I love my WD 80GB JB, but I haven't yet even installed an OS on it. My new P4 system is sitting there doing nothing with nothing installed at the moment. Anyway, which is best for purely performance, FAT32 or NTFS?
:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
purely performance wise i belive fat32 is better, however fat32 have some well known limitations such as the 4gb file limit, HUGE cluster sizes for large partitions and troubles with super sized clusters over 64gb.
when i first used win2k i had a mix of ntfs and fat32.
in the end its easier to do all ntfs. specially with todays modern drives.
P.S. i also reccomend a seperate system partition
So I fixed my BIG PC problem by pressing the reset button. I'm not a moron am i?
when you say that, you mean load windows on one hard disk/ and or partition, and all your data on the second partition (drive letter) or separate hdd?
doesnt that make all your typical folders and directories in the different "custom" place, witch makes it hard to hunt for everytimes you are asked to find a file/ and or egghhh!, I dont know. its just everything has to be off the root of C: otherwise I find myself lost in the FS.