Which is fastest hdd setup?

Printable View

19-02-2007, 03:20 PM
kalniel

Which is fastest hdd setup?

Two hard drives - 1) 120gb 7200rpm 2mb cache ATA133 old server class, 2) 320gb 7200rpm 16mb high density platter SATA300. Obviously the second one is fastest, but what's the best distribution of files:

A) Windows on slow hard drive, data + swap on fast hard drive.

B) Windows + swap on fast hard drive, data on slow hard drive.

C) Windows + swap + data on fast hard drive.

D) Other (specify)

?
19-02-2007, 03:36 PM
MadduckUK

i would go for b, installing everything on the fast one while using the slow for pics, music, vids, ISO's etc.

infact thats exactly what i already do
19-02-2007, 03:37 PM
dave87

I'd say Windows & swap on the 120gb and stuff on the 320gb.

That way, you've kept everything simple, and in case of the old drive failing, still got your data :) Not the fastest, the fastest would be what Madduck said, but I'd go for reliability over the minor difference in speed.
19-02-2007, 04:59 PM
Apex

or have the swap on another hdd compleatly to the windows install
19-02-2007, 05:00 PM
kalniel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apex

or have the swap on another hdd compleatly to the windows install

Do you mean option A? Or another varient (Windows + data on fast disk, swap on slow)?

I should clarify - data includes game data, so I don't want that to be too slow.
19-02-2007, 05:05 PM
CrazyMonkey

Raid? Put 2 Raptors in RAID 0?
Thats gotta be some seriously fast speed. And prehaps even a big HDD for music etc on the side?
19-02-2007, 05:13 PM
Flewis

Sometimes it really helps when people read posts before replying.
19-02-2007, 05:16 PM
b0redom

What you have to remember is that mean-time-to-failure (MTTF) for disks is around 3 years. Putting any sort of critical data on an old disk probably isn't a fantastic idea.
19-02-2007, 05:25 PM
GSte

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flewis

Sometimes it really helps when people read posts before replying.

:lol:
21-02-2007, 09:29 AM
Nox

yeah, option b) is generally considered to be the best option for 90% of people who are likely to be visiting these sort of forums (ie can get their heads around there being 2 different drives inside the computer!!)

Nox
21-02-2007, 11:49 AM
kalniel

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0redom

What you have to remember is that mean-time-to-failure (MTTF) for disks is around 3 years. Putting any sort of critical data on an old disk probably isn't a fantastic idea.

Hmm good point - that drive is at least 5 years old now.
21-02-2007, 05:48 PM
killie99

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0redom

What you have to remember is that mean-time-to-failure (MTTF) for disks is around 3 years. Putting any sort of critical data on an old disk probably isn't a fantastic idea.

MTBF for hard drives is much more than 3 years, your looking more like 10-20 years.
21-02-2007, 06:37 PM
kalniel

That would be ok then - the drive is in good condition as far as SMART reports go - something like 95% health and 92% performance.

I may go with option A first of all and see how I get on - that's the one that doesn't require any re-installation of OS etc. and also I'm kind of annoyed at the speed of the data read/write at the moment, which was why I considered RAID 0 a while ago (Vista drivers have put me right off that idea).
21-02-2007, 06:59 PM
LaughingJon

why not

D) Windows and swap file on fastest drive/raid array + additional swap file on second hard drive/raid array

its my understanding windoze will use which ever isnt being used.
21-02-2007, 11:32 PM
IAmATeaf

I'd put windows + maybe swap onto the 120gb then look at some stage to getting it swapped out for something newer and data on the SATA drive. That way when it comes to swap time you only have 1 drive to mess with.