• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Does it really help to have 2 hard drives instead of one?

Bona Fide

Banned
Well right now I have a 200GB Samsung in my computer, but I've been looking around here, particularly at Duvie's posts, and he suggests that having 2 separate drives is much better than having 1 big one.

Ex. 60GB for OS/apps and 120GB for storage vs. 200GB for everything

Does it really help to distribute the storage across 2 [or more] drives? I know that's the concept behind RAID, but does it still hold true without RAID?
 
1 word: Backup
If not RAID, too. So I got 3 drives 😀 The 40G is only for backup purposes and experimental stuff (e.g. Vista).
 
Yes, yes it does. I have a 40 that holds my OS(dual boot XP/Linux)/Apps and all of my important stuff stored on a 160. It makes for VERY easy reinstalls. Also, I don't have to worry about screwing over my data when I screw over my OS (enevitable if you really want to play with it...).

Cliffs: YES, very worth it.
 
I use a Raptor for OS and 2 other Internal Drives...1 for Data and 1 for Backup...Sure it helps to keep stuffs out of the Mainvein running OS HD
 
Well I was talking mainly about transfer speeds and I/O performance, as opposed to security. Never saw the security aspect of it, thanks for pointing it out!

But Duvie was talking about how splitting up files can actually increase I/O, since one drive can read while the other one writes [or something like that].
 
You can certainly see a boost in transfer speeds (doing editing and such) moving data from one drive to another. If you understand how the drive works, its quite clear. If you are moving the file from one part of the drive to another, you are constantly having the drive jump from one point to another (much like a fragmented drive) to read and write. If you are reading from one drive, and writing to the other, it can just "stream" the data so to speak. If you deal with large or multiple files often (like editing) then it makes a big difference.
 
I love having two drives. Paging is sped up when the file is moved to secondary, unraring and stuff is much faster when downloaded to the first and stored on the second and semi-temporary backups of irreplaceable files can be done with ease without having to burn a DVD every day. Only way to go IMO.
 
Moving data inside of one HD is A LOT slower then moving data between 2 HD's. I can move 350mb files in about 8seconds or so. Feels so fast.

Koing
 
Bozono has the correct answer. Keep the OS and paging files on one drive and your apps and data on another. You will not see any difference in speed if your workload is not disk intensive, but, if you play with large files, you will notice a big difference. Also, if your system is a little tight on ram, having the paging file on a drive that has little access will be a big benefit.
 
Alright, I'm getting a 36gb Raptor for a pretty good price ($60). From what you guys have posted, my allocation should be as follows:

Raptor - OS, paging file
Samsung - Applications, storage

Or should I have it like this?

Raptor - OS, applications
Samsung - Storage, paging file
 
Originally posted by: Bona Fide
Alright, I'm getting a 36gb Raptor for a pretty good price ($60). From what you guys have posted, my allocation should be as follows:

Raptor - OS, paging file
Samsung - Applications, storage

Or should I have it like this?

Raptor - OS, applications
Samsung - Storage, paging file
I'm guessing the second one would be better.
 
I think you are focussing too much on speed. Of all the components in the PC, the one that will certainly fail and cause the most aggravation is the hard drive - so IMHO there must at least be two partitions if only one hd is used, and even better to have two drives with a small one for all OS related files and the other preferably large, but not huge, for apps and data - if need be, add a third hd for archival data.
 
yes 2> 1 always

and 6 > 2 😀

i have 3 80gigs a 120 a 160 and a 40 in my computer currently

well 1 80 and the 40 are in USB 2 enclosures and used for backup, but hen i turn them on there are 6
 
Originally posted by: Bona Fide
Alright, I'm getting a 36gb Raptor for a pretty good price ($60). From what you guys have posted, my allocation should be as follows:

Raptor - OS, paging file
Samsung - Applications, storage

Or should I have it like this?

Raptor - OS, applications
Samsung - Storage, paging file

second config would be much better, you want the applications closer to the OS for defraging and letting the OS "speed up" the more frequently used programs. not that it'll matter as much with an X2 and 1gb+ of RAM 😉

i've heard though that having the paging file is indeed better if on a seperate HD than the OS but never found out why. anyone wanna shed some light?
 
Originally posted by: notanotheract
Originally posted by: Bona Fide
Alright, I'm getting a 36gb Raptor for a pretty good price ($60). From what you guys have posted, my allocation should be as follows:

Raptor - OS, paging file
Samsung - Applications, storage

Or should I have it like this?

Raptor - OS, applications
Samsung - Storage, paging file

second config would be much better, you want the applications closer to the OS for defraging and letting the OS "speed up" the more frequently used programs. not that it'll matter as much with an X2 and 1gb+ of RAM 😉

i've heard though that having the paging file is indeed better if on a seperate HD than the OS but never found out why. anyone wanna shed some light?


That used to be the case a few years ago but I think with HDs as fast and efficient as they are now and the fact that we now put gigs f ram in our systems that the pagefile placement doesnt matter much. IMO
 
Back
Top