2 HDDs you would recommend for ~$250 total?

[PupChow]

Originally I planned to get a Seagate 750GB Barracuda AS 7200.10 for ~$184, but after reading online, I think I will go with two physical harddrives instead. With a budget of $250 (maybe $300, less the better), what drives would you recommend I look into?

I will using a MSI P7N Diamond board (does it matter which mobo I use?) and running XP.

 

[n7]

Two of the new 640 GB WDs w/ two platters only

Or maybe the Samsung F1 1 TB?

Depends what you are looking for.
Performance?
Maximum storage for the price?
Etc...

 

[PupChow]

Well, for the HDD that will run the OS, I am looking for performance, while the other one storage but still decent performance... The reason I want to go with two HDD instead of one big one is I am afraid of drive failure...

 

[DSF]

Originally posted by: PupChow
Well, for the HDD that will run the OS, I am looking for performance, while the other one storage but still decent performance... The reason I want to go with two HDD instead of one big one is I am afraid of drive failure...

Unless you're mirroring the drives, having the second drive isn't going to do anything about drive failure. The chance of one of two drives failing is actually statistically higher than the chance of a single drive failing.

Either way you're going to have to backup your data.

 

[PupChow]

I am guessing the idea is that if the OS fails, you can swap out that drive and replace it with a new drive with OS. Another advantage seems to be a cleaner drive for the OS (less fragmentation?) It just seems like it's a pretty common practice after reading here a bit, or am I mistaken?

 

[Tweakin]

Originally posted by: PupChow
Well, for the HDD that will run the OS, I am looking for performance, while the other one storage but still decent performance... The reason I want to go with two HDD instead of one big one is I am afraid of drive failure...

Then two of the new WD 6400AAKS drives in RAID 1. That will cut down on your performance but you will have redundancy.

edited: I made a booboo on the RAID Array.

 

[pugh]

Agree with n7 and tweakin

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: Tweakin

Then two of the new WD 6400AAKS drives in RAID 0. That will cut down on your performance but you will have redundancy.

You mean RAID 1 i assume?

 

[The Boston Dangler]

i like using a smaller drive (seagate 160gb) for the os and a bigger one (samsung 500gb) for data storage. should i need to format and reinstall windows, my data is untouched and the format is realtively quick. it also helps, when processing large files, to read from one and write to the other.

samsung makes awesome drives, but the f1 1gb has been plagued by issues. the f1 750gb, although similar, doesn't seem to be affected. my short list would be the the samsung 500 and 750, and wd 640.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Tweakin

Originally posted by: PupChow
Well, for the HDD that will run the OS, I am looking for performance, while the other one storage but still decent performance... The reason I want to go with two HDD instead of one big one is I am afraid of drive failure...

Then two of the new WD 6400AAKS drives in RAID 0. That will cut down on your performance but you will have redundancy.

Thats very INCORRECT!

RAID1 = mirror, space is equal to that of only one drive, data is stored identically on both. If one drive fails, all the data is still there on the other. Write speed is almost identical to that of one drive, read speed is almost twice.

RAID0 = Stripe, data is split between the two drives, space is double that of a single drive. If EITHER drive fails all the data is lost on BOTH drives. Read speed is twice as much, write speed is twice as much.

For someone interesting in redundancy RAID0 is a very bad solution, it makes it twice as likely to loose the data.

 

[SickBeast]

OP: What's your reason for wanting to go with two drives? So you can keep the swap file on a seperate drive?

I personally bought my WD320gb drive when my 250gb drive got full. I put the old drive in an external enclosure and use it for archival purposes. It's left my new 320gb drive nearly empty and very fast.

I'm still trying to benchmark my drive using a small partition. I'm having trouble shrinking my bootable partition in Vista. Nothing is working for me, including Gparted (it can't use my USB KB/mouse).

At one point Vista was letting me shrink it to 152gb, but I want it down to either 100gb or 150gb even (I'm fussy).

Apparently HD Tune and such can't benchmark a partition, so I'll probably be stuck with Sandra.

 

[Tweakin]

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: Tweakin

Then two of the new WD 6400AAKS drives in RAID 0. That will cut down on your performance but you will have redundancy.

You mean RAID 1 i assume?

Yup...made a booboo....