Ideal Partitioning with multiple HDDs

[Kelthar]

Hello guys,

I'm currently upgrading my gaming rig and I am starting with the hard drives as the rest of the components still manage to perform pretty well in intensive games.

I have now ordered two Seagate 1TB 3.5 inch 7200RPM 64MB Cache SATA3 (model is ST1000DM003), which were considerably cheap ($150 for both), from Amazon.co.uk. In my current rig I have two old hard drives, which are just normal hard drives:

- SAMSUNG HD753LJ - 700GB, 7200 RPM, 32MB cache, SATA II - 436,5 days POT
- Maxtor 6V300F0 - 270GB, 7200 RPM, 16MB cache, SATA II - 922,9 days POT

My plan is to setup the two Seagate drives I have ordered in RAID 0 and keep the other two drives functioning as normal. [that's another thing I want to discuss, should I use RAID 1, although all data which would be a serious loss is frequently backed up? That'd cut my capacity by half, and reduce write performance, but is it necessary and would it be worth it?]

But now I'm having a certain problem: how exactly should I partition the drives? Basically I'm looking for your suggestions. I'm planning to have at least 4 partitions: System; Media; Games; Miscellaneous.

I could leave the RAID setup for gaming only, but I would end up wasting a lot of space. However, if I were to use it for system as well how much would it hurt in terms of performance? Should I place my pagefiles inside the RAID setup so that they are read and written to much faster, or should it be outside not to hurt those disks' performance?

Another thing I remember reading about some time ago was the partition placement: data in the beginning of the drive is read and written faster than that in the outside as the arm has to move less. Was this a myth? Or should I take it into account and place the sectors that need faster access in the beginning of the drive?

My drives will only arrive in a couple of weeks (dispatch is in two to five weeks), so this is not extremely urgent.

Thanks,
Kelthar

 

[bambiboom]

Ideal Partitioning with multiple HDDs

Kelthar,

As for RAID, if you set your new 1TB Seagates to RAID 0, you will have a higher performance, but as you know, the total capacity would be 1TB and if one drive fails, all is lost. However, as you have the other two drives- 700GB and 200GB, you might set the two 1TB's to RAID 0 and then place a system image in a partition on each of the two old drives and also have a duplicate set of partitions for backup files. I'm not certain, but I don't think the old drives can be RAID 1 (mirrored) as they are different capacities, or it might only see two 200GB drives.

The old drives might be setup for a differential backup so that every time a file changes, it is updated on the backup drives. Then, if one of the RAID 0 drives fails, you can restore the system and applications from the system image stored on the old drives and rebuild the RAID 0, then separately reload the files from the backup partitions on the old drives. Of course, the two old drives could contain different contents if you need the additional capacity. My thought in using the old drives in a sort of semi-duplication is that they are more likely to fail before the new drives.

As for partitions and their relationship to performance, if you have a defragmentation program that graphically shows the distribution of files across a drive, it's possible to see files may be scattered from one end to the other. I'm not sure why the DOS does this, perhaps there are big swap files sitting around such that it keeps writing farther out. This scattering of files means the read/write head has to flutter back and forth over the entire radius of the platters, lengthening access time. To counteract this, there is a technique called "short-shifting" in which the operating system and applications are placed in the primary C: partition so that it is the total size of those folders plus 25-30%. On my 500GB drive, my C: partition is 149GB of which 112GB is used. The restricted size of the partitions means that files can't be scattered over the entire drive- they can only go so far. Also, as the disk platters are a smaller diameter towards the center- and the data is laid from the center out- the head will move over a smaller portion of the platter radius to help reduce access time. It works, when I first did this -and I had fewer applications on the drive, it seemed that programs would almost "snap" on. You might notice that large files transfer at higher rates than small, so, the short shifting technique also helps when there are a lot of small data files.

Another way to optimize drives is to use a disk defragmenter that places system files in a hierarchy according to frequency of use, again "short-shifting" and reducing access time. Also, defragmenting done inside Windows means certain files are "immovable" as they're needed to run Windows so some of these defrag programs also are able to do this in a boot mode outside of Windows so that every file can be moved. This makes the consolidation more complete, again, shortening seek times. Intuitively, it seems that these techniques- restricted partitions and optimized file placement might extend the life of drives in that read/write head movements should be reduced.

In setting up your drives, you might use the new Seagate drives in RAID 0 and divide them into four partitions > 1. OS/Applications C: Primary partition, and then three Logical Drives > 2. Active Files 3. Archive Files, and 4. System Image. The size of these partitions would be set according to the capacity needed. For the short-shifting to be effective, the Primary OS/ applications partition should be set somewhat economically- not too much rattle room. Example > My primary drive, in the process of being reset, is a Western Digital RE4 500GB and will have a 150GB OS/Programs C; partition (112GB used), then a 100GB partition for active files (50GB used) an 100GB partition that is archive (30GB used), and a 100GB for system image (85GB used) for a rapid restore. Also, when the system image is made before a lot of computer use, it will be "pristine" and even if there isn't a drive failure, a restoration of the clean, error-free image will revive the performance.

There are also your two old 700GB and 270GB drives to consider-and these are great value in the dangerous world of RAID 0. My thought when using old drives is that they are more likely to fail before the new drives, so you might make these dedicated backup drives so that both simply duplicates of the primary drives, except there would be no OS/applications partition so each file storage partition could be increased. If you have extensive sound or video files that are not often accessed, that would be the place for them. The system image partitions could be increased to hold two since computers tend to evolve and add programs. But, again, having that very clean, early image is very useful.

Another way to use the old drives is to place one or both in an external USB enclosure and use them for backup. The value of this is that you can run these only when backing up, accessing files, or making a large transfer to another computer not on a network. These might be used to backup files from work as a safety measure. In my old architectural office, the head draughtsman took either a tape cartridge or portable drive with all the current projects home every night. In this use, these drives are running the minimal time necessary, and will therefore last much longer, and are more highly protected- electrical, thermal, or theft. Your eggs are not all in one basket. In fact, one could be kept at a separate location, or at least in the other room. The greatest disasters I've seen with computers is not mechanical or viruses, but theft- laptops especially, and when everything is carried away at once, it can put prople out of business a long time.

Another disk system optimixzation is through the use of PCI plug-in Disk controllers. I'm waiting for the arrival of an LSI Logic SAS/SATA RAID Controller (SAS3080X), which plugs into a PCI-x (not PCI-e) 133MHz slot. The PCI-x was common in servers until about three-four years ago and was transitional between PCI and PCI Express and was there purposely for these controllers- I can't recall any other device being made for PCI-x. This kind of controller takes advantage of the greater bandwidth of the later PCI variants. I'm hoping this will improve this will disk performance. Currently, on my elderly (2009) computer, reads are running about 133MB/s and writes at 130MB/s - not bad for these 3GB/s drives on a conventional onboard SATA controller, but the LSI card is supposed to provide up to 2.4GB/s. I'll see if there is such a dramatic improvement, but as long as I'm using mechanical drives, the disk performance is a weak link in my system. I am not so interested in instant startup as in having fast large file transfers- 10GB and more, which I seem to do often because of obsessive backing up.

If you find you are are dissatisfied with your disk performance, LSI and others make SATA RAID controllers for the PCie slot that can control a lot of drives- up to 500, at very high performance, and in all RAID configurations. I don't even know what RAID 60 is, but it sounds expensive and these controllers can make it. As an example of the PCIe controllers benefit, my Dell Precision T5400 has a disk score of 935 on Passmark Performance Test 8, whereas an i7-3960X / GTX 680 system using an LSI MR9265-8i (RAID unknown, drives unknown) has a disk score of 30,051.

And to think, my first computer (IBM 486 @ 50MHz, 2MB RAM) with mechanical hard drive- 1993- had a capacity of 85MB and that included DOS6, Windows 3.1, AutoCad 10 DOS, Corel Graphics Suite 3, Wordperfect 6- the first graphical interface, and all my files. In six months that drive was filled. DOS could only see 528MB and the replacement 540MB drive was $570- more than $1/MB. That price per MB would make your two 1TB drives together cost about $2,200,000. Adding 2MB of RAM to have the maximum 4MB cost $180- or the equivalent of $9,000 per GB. At that rate, the 16GB RAM in my Dell Precision would have cost me $144,000. I can even top that horrifying accounting. My father worked with computers since the early 1960's and in the 1970's his company bought for their IBM 360, one of the first magnetic hard drives. It was the size of an oil drum- fifty, twenty-four inch diameter platters, had a storage capacity of 5MB, and cost about $50,000, or $10,000 per MB. Lets see, your 2TB would then add about $20,000,000,000 ($20 Billion) to your credit card.

The good old days of computing are now!

Cheers,

BambiBoom

[Dell Precision T5400, 2X Xeon quad core x5460 @ 3.16GHz, Quadro FX 4800, 16GB DDR2-667, RE4 and Seagate 500GB][Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit > AutoCad, Revit, Solidworks, Adobe CS4, Corel Technical Designer, WP Office, MS Office]

 

[Kelthar]

Thank you for the long answer: when browsing IT forums short answers usually mean that either the OP knows nothing about what he's talking or the issue is simple, since this isn't simple I'd take a short answer as an insult! (just joking)

Now, on to "business"! Wouldn't RAID 0 make use of the total 2TB? I thought only RAID 1 reduced the size to half (due to mirroring). According to my motherboard's user guide, which also includes a chapter on RAID, drives of different size can be used on RAID 1 but their capacity gets cut down to the lowest size (so it'd become a 200GB drive), so it's not a good idea to use those two smaller drives in RAID (which I had previously considered). All of the RAID setups recommend drives with the same performance so that they can all perform at their best, and equal storage to maximize space, according to this guide.

My old drives are in perfect quality, to be honest. All the information given by S.M.A.R.T is perfect (no reallocated sectors, no command timeouts, no spin retries, no soft read errors, among others). All of the values that usually mean some sort of disk failure are at 0. But as I had said before, all the information which needs frequent backups IS frequently backed up. Any other information loss would not incur any serious damage. I have the option of buying a 2TB Western Digital Caviar Green from my brother for 50€, if it does seem fit, and I would keep a system image there, but that's another option since I believe it is unnecessary to backup my ENTIRE drives (even if because my gaming data is automatically backed up by Steam, so the only loss comes from time spent restoring it from the internet rather than from a disk)

The real thing that was bugging me was related to the performance, really. I will be installing two OSes, Windows 7 and Linux (probably Ubuntu), so defragmentation can be assumed to be perfect as I will defragment Windows using Linux and vice-versa, and I'll reserve about 100GB for Windows and less (maybe 50GB) for Linux, since I'll use it way less. Anyway, exactly how much of a performance hog will having the OS in the same disk as my games be? And is disk speed THAT important for gaming, in the end?

As of now I'm undecided between two partition organizations I can use, if possible to hear your opinion on each that'd be great!

Spoiler

Samsung HD753LJ - 699GB
- 100GB - Windows 7
- 100GB - Linux
- 499GB - Media

Maxtor 6V300F0 - 279GB
- 9GB - Pagefiles
- 270GB - Miscellaneous

Two Seagate ST1000DM003 - RAID 0 - 1862GB
- 1862GB - Games

Spoiler

Two Seagate ST1000DM003 - RAID 0 - 1862GB
- 100GB - Windows 7
- 50/100GB - Linux
- 1712/1662GB - Games

Samsung HD753LJ - 699GB
- 9GB - Pagefiles
- 500GB - Media
- 190GB - Miscellaneous

Maxtor 6V300F0 - 279GB
- 9GB - Pagefiles
- 150/200GB - Backups
- 120/70GB - MYSTERY FILES

I'll definitely keep the Pagefiles away from the RAID setup so that it can read the information from that setup at the same time it writes to pagefiles, with better performance. The gaming partition is huge because I expect at least 500GB for games (currently using 275GB and there are many games that I would like to have installed which I can't because of space). The rest of the huge free space is because I'd like to distribute the load between the disks and there's nothing that seems to fit there without disrupting that balance, in my opinion.

All these things kind of bug me because I keep wondering about it being a waste of space if I end up using the RAID setup for gaming only, but if I don't do it I keep wondering how much performance will I lose. Sometimes I wish I knew nothing about computers, no more nerdy dilemmas, haha!

Off-topic: I believe RAID 60 is some sort of combination, probably RAID 6 + RAID 0, just like RAID 10 is RAID 1 + RAID 0.

 

[bambiboom]

Kelthar,

I'm not a RAID expert by any stretch, but my understanding is that RAID 0 uses two drives of equal size- and preferably equal speed to stripe the data in a kind of parallel way, dividing the files equally between the two drives. There are apparently RAID configurations that stripe in even greater division. This striping between two drives means that each drive contains only half the files- hence the danger of RAID 0 since losing one drive- half the files- makes the other half useless as well. Yes, having two 1TB drives in RAID 0 gives you 2TB of total storage. But, the possibility of a failure of any kind- loss sector on one drive is the reason for my idea of keeping a system image so as to make a quick restore if one drive of the RAID fails. In RAID 1, where everything is mirrored- which to some degree degrades the performance, while it copies every action, the two 1TB drives will yield a total of 1TB.

Of course there are the complex RAID configurations that combine the performance of striping with the safety of mirroring such that the whole RAID can be rebuilt if any one drive fails, and I believe RAID 5 using tree drives is the simplest of these in which the striped drives are mirrored to a single drive that can rebuild everything.

Of course, your query as to the need for RAID at all is the key. This is where I lack the knowledge of the way games are written to answer well- I've never played a computer game or even seen one played- but my thought is that they are fairly large programs that swap libraries of animated 3D components- and that may well be disk intensive- as well as CPU intensive- though mostly single threaded so not using multiple cores typically, and of course the GPU is intensely recalculating pixel positions, so the GPU as coprocessor becomes important. As well, the RAM quantity and speed is not usually emphasised but it would seem to me that RAM latency would be very important. Again, this may be a naive view, but my idea is that games should become highly multithreaded - above rendering tasks, and thereby balance processing with the GPU. To me, gaming seems to be among the most demanding PC tasks because of the intensity of complex, rendered 3D in real time. In CAD or MAYA digital animation, it's possible to wait for anti-aliasing and rendering of every frame with light from multiple sources, but not in games at high frame rates.

To return to RAID, as you have a natively fast -6GB/s disk system, you could consider experimenting and try a non-RAID configuration first, and only optimize the OS/Application drive as well as possible. It might be interesting to do this if only to compare with the RAID 0 performance experientially. If there is stuttering in a game, it would then be possible to identify the bottleneck- CPU, or GPU, or disk system. Again, my concept of gaming reliance on swapping libraries may off the mark, but if you have 500GB of games, they must be large sets of rather large files- though I can also imagine that a reasonable amount of RAM and given that the game will be the only principal application running, that sufficient RAM would make an extremely high performance disk system less necessary. Even recording games can only require so much in the way of resources. Still, if you setup a RAID 0, you'll never have to consider the disk system as the weak point.

Your idea of a multiple OS configuration is interesting. As I assume this would be a dual-boot system, they would be operating independent of each other and not a virtual machine running within another OS- which I've found are terrible, and so I would expect good performance with each OS. I'm at all familiar with the use of pagefiles, but from my limited understanding, should they be on the RAID 0 drive as they are a kind of prefetch/ demi-RAM substitute and therefore be in the fastest access position?

There are aspects I don't understand- are you listing multiple configuration concepts?, which is (are) the boot drive(s)?- but you've outlined present some brilliant possibilities-as well as complex- uses for all those drives. If you'd care to describe discrete configurations, it would either be educational for me, or I might be better able to comment!

I was a reluctant computer user and actually bought my IBM 486 as fro one thing it seemed inevitable plus I had to produce a paper for a symposium in Italy in 1993 that would be published. I had so many computer disasters over the years- I'll never forgive Microsoft for Windows 95, I was like a person that bought a sports car and was forced to be a mechanic, engineer, and master diagnostician or I couldn't drive to work on Monday. When architecture turned to CAD and then to 3D CAD, I had to be aware of performance, and when the economy in California destroyed architecture, I've had to turn to industrial design and now have to contend with the amazing complex performance requirement- and learning Solidworks and the like. Not to mention the cost,..

Cheers,

BambiBoom

 

[popatim]

Raid 0 is stripped and two 1Tb would give you 2tb total with nearly twice the speed.
Raid 1 is mirrored and the same two drives would give you 1tb capacity with quicker reads but the same speed.

As for partitions. The ones on the outside read/write faster and have faster access times (the heads start from the outside the disk and have to move inwards - like an old record player) The partitions are created from the outside in so the first one you make will be on the outter section.

Raid 1 would make recovery much easier but backups are still recommended.
Raid 0 would just about guarrantee recovery would be from your backups.
Which one you choose is up to you and what level of 'risk' you're willing to take.

Page file? Who still uses one? I zero'd mine out almost 2 years ago with no ill effects yet but back then I had 16gb ram and now I have 32.

Lastly, I do recommend you research how well these drives work in raid. Some drives work very poorly in raid configs.

 

[Kelthar]

It's rare to be in contact with someone who actually experienced old computers firsthand, the only other being my father, it's always interesting when the characteristics of such old computers are brought up in comparison to the ones you find today, which just makes you think if such comparison will repeat itself with time, and if in years a small flash-drive will have far greater storage than any hard drive you find today. One can only wonder...

It would be a dual-boot system, Linux would only be used for certain specific tasks which would require a virtual machine. I've had experiences with them, although I can say it works great for certain tasks, I can also assure you that when you're running something that is intensive the fact that you have to run another external layer of software, Windows in this case, doesn't help at all. And keeping Linux separate will be great when defragmenting: I've used a Live-CD to do it before but now that I have the option of not doing so, I think I'll go with it.

I have absolutely no idea as to how are games read. I've read on some forums that the only thing being read is initially, to load everything required into RAM (maps, models, etc) and then everything else is calculated without any disk operation, but I've also read that to minimize resource usage only critical files are loaded into RAM and the rest are read when required. I have absolutely no idea, especially when these two completely different ideas collide.

From what I've read regarding pagefiles they're only used in situations where the system actually benefits from the slower access speeds: an example I've found being used plenty of times was the example of a browser, where in situations where RAM was not enough the pages not being viewed would be written into the pagefiles. A delay that lasts for only a few miliseconds would barely be noticeable when switching back to such pages, even 100 miliseconds wouldn't represent any problem.

I was listing configurations I could use to better take advantage from the fact that I'm using multiple drives, first listing the drive which I would then divide and then listing its partitions (in order). The purpose on both setups was to place files which required faster access time on the RAID setup, and then on the non-raid I'd begin with a partition for pagefiles, as the first partition is faster in access time, and then the rest. The organization of everything on the two older drives is simply in order to maximize the storage, since I know for example I'll have more media than miscellaneous, and anything with a formatting of 50/100 means it'll be either 50 or 100. And I also enjoy having everything organized on my computer into these neat categories.

Here's the description of each setup, and the reason for each partition:

Spoiler

Samsung HD753LJ - 699GB - To be used almost as dedicated drive for each OS.
- 100GB - Windows 7 - Placed here because Media is assumed to have almost no I/O so the OS will be running as if using a dedicated drive. Placed before Linux in order to have better performance.
- 100GB - Linux - Well, Linux...
- 499GB - Media - Movies, series and music, which don't require supersonic read/write speeds.

Maxtor 6V300F0 - 279GB - Unnecessary things, rarely accessed.
- 9GB - Pagefiles - Simple pagefiles, placed first for faster read/write.
- 270GB - Miscellaneous - Anything that is not frequently accessed.

Two Seagate ST1000DM003 - RAID 0 - 1862GB - To be used for games only in order to boost performance.
- 1862GB - Games - Placed alone in order to maximize performance, but is it worth it?

Spoiler

Two Seagate ST1000DM003 - RAID 0 - 1862GB - To be used for files which require fast read/write access.
- 100GB - Windows 7 - Placed before Linux as it'll be used more often, so it requires better performance.
- 50/100GB - Linux - Simply Linux, either 50GB or 100GB of space, still undecided.
- 1712/1662GB - Games - Self-explanatory, placed here for performance reasons.

Samsung HD753LJ - 699GB - To be used mostly for files which are sometimes accessed.
- 9GB - Pagefiles - Simple pagefiles, placed first for faster read/write.
- 500GB - Media - Every media I have, from movies to music, placed here just because it fits.
- 190GB - Miscellaneous - Anything that doesn't fit into the other categories, mainly downloads, random storage, archives that don't require backups, among others.

Maxtor 6V300F0 - 279GB - To be used mostly for files which aren't accessed frequently.
- 9GB - Pagefiles - Simple pagefiles, placed first for faster read/write.
- 150/200GB - Backups - Size depends on the size of the OS partitions on the other drive.
- 120/70GB - MYSTERY FILES - Whatever needs to be placed here, I have no idea. Maybe to be used for backups as well? Basically just unallocated space, so far, as I plan to use every single byte available.

@popatim I have found no information regarding these drives online: I'll find out on my own. I'll run speed tests on individual drives, using a Live-CD in order to have no I/O apart from the testing, and then run the same test again using those drives in RAID.

I use pagefiles because I'm still not upgrading my RAM: 4GB have served me well and continue to, but I'm going to upgrade my computer in phases, first being the disks which were most urgent. When I upgrade my motherboard I'll upgrade both RAM and CPU as well, but that should only happen next year. So these pagefiles are great to free RAM which is being used unnecessarily, but that's obviously not a problem nor is it advised in high-RAM setups.

But basically the only answer I'm seeking, apart from suggestions in order to maximize both storage and performance, is whether or not placing games and the OS in the same disk will represent any performance loss which will be noticeable, or if the gains from running the games individually will ever be significant.

 

[bambiboom]

Kelthar,

Sorry, I realize that the drive configurations you listed earlier were shown in way such that I thought they were missing images.

In terms of potential performance, I think this is the one >

Two Seagate ST1000DM003 - RAID 0 - 1862GB - To be used for files which require fast read/write access.
- 100GB - Windows 7 - Placed before Linux as it'll be used more often, so it requires better performance.
- 50/100GB - Linux - Simply Linux, either 50GB or 100GB of space, still undecided.
- 1712/1662GB - Games - Self-explanatory, placed here for performance reasons.

Samsung HD753LJ - 699GB - To be used mostly for files which are sometimes accessed.
- 9GB - Pagefiles - Simple pagefiles, placed first for faster read/write.
- 500GB - Media - Every media I have, from movies to music, placed here just because it fits.
- 190GB - Miscellaneous - Anything that doesn't fit into the other categories, mainly downloads, random storage, archives that don't require backups, among others.

Maxtor 6V300F0 - 279GB - To be used mostly for files which aren't accessed frequently.
- 9GB - Pagefiles - Simple pagefiles, placed first for faster read/write.
- 150/200GB - Backups - Size depends on the size of the OS partitions on the other drive.
- 120/70GB - MYSTERY FILES - Whatever needs to be placed here, I have no idea. Maybe to be used for backups as well? Basically just unallocated space, so far, as I plan to use every single byte available.

> The above would be the fastest in my view as there would be the best integration between the two OS's and games in terms of file proximity, and on the fastest part of the fastest drives in the fastest configuration of RAID 0. Again, I've not used pagefiles, but from my slight understanding, might the 9GB pagefile partition benefit from being in a partition in the 2nd fastest position, that is, just after the OS and before the games' partition? Just a thought.

You mention a future upgrade to the motherboard, RAM, and CPU. What are these at present? Have you ideas in mind?

In the midst of such changes in the computer world, from my or your father's time until now, it's easy to forget how far it and technology in general has progressed, one of the few realms where something that radically improves also becomes less expensive. I've just begun reading Thomas Kuhn's, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and as a graph of expectation against reality from Galileo to 1962 it might be said that we can't imagine the possibilities in our futures- "we ain't seen nothing yet". Besides digital technology, which is poised for such things as quantum computing, artificial intelligence, superscalar complex systems modeling, holographic memory, and personal supercomputers (very soon!), the advancements in materials science, automated and advanced fabrication, energy technologies, and medical science are already astounding- how about implanted digital retinas that allow persons to see for the first time- in 2009? and relative to the income of the very few people who will be employed- all at less and less cost. BambiBoom's rule, "Every twenty months technological stuff will be twice as good for 32% less." or, something like that,.. All contingent on whether there's still a water supply.

In the fifties, Einstein said to start worrying when the bees disappear. Start worrying.

Cheers,

BambiBoom

 

[Kelthar]

I think I've settled for the partition division I'll use, it'll be the this one

Spoiler

Two Seagate ST1000DM003 - RAID 0 - 1862GB
- 100GB - Windows 7
- 50/100GB - Linux
- 1712/1662GB - Games

Samsung HD753LJ - 699GB
- 9GB - Pagefiles
- 500GB - Media
- 190GB - Miscellaneous

Maxtor 6V300F0 - 279GB
- 9GB - Pagefiles
- 150/200GB - Backups
- 120/70GB - MYSTERY FILES

Now I just need to find the best backup software for me.

Thank you for the help,
Kelthar