Drive allocation opinions...OS vs. apps

[LintBalll]

My home PC (GW6400) has a C:9gb scsi drive and I also have D:40gb and E:30gb ATA/100 drives. Windows 2K, office2K, and a few basic apps are on C: using up about 2.5gb. Should I start using D:/E: for new apps, games, etc? Or should all critical apps go on the C: scsi drive?

What is the best way to allocate my drive space?

 

[VBboy]

Why do you want to keep you "critical" data on the C: (SCSI) drive? If you think it's more reliable, you're wrong. Besides, your 40 GB IDE is newer, so it's even more reliable.

You should benchmark all drives and decide which one is faster. Store the OS and program files there because it will improve their loading speed. I would have a small partition on the fastest drive dedicated specifically to the OS and program files, this way you don't need to scan the entire drive (but rather just that partition) for disk errors and viruses.

 

[TunaBoo]

Do SCSI drives have a 5 year warrenty vs 3 year on IDE drives for no reason? SCSI drives are built better.

 

[tphong]

I always keep my c: drive as OS drive only. All my applications are on D: and all my "Documents" are on E:

In an event you need to reinstall the OS, you know what are all your applications by looking at my D: drive; and I backed up my E: drive every now and then.

 

[Pabster]

VBboy wrote:

"Why do you want to keep you "critical" data on the C: (SCSI) drive? If you think it's more reliable, you're wrong. Besides, your 40 GB IDE is newer, so it's even more reliable."

ROFLMAO. Bzzzzt, wrong answer. I'm sorry, but you're the weakest link

SCSI drives are more reliable than IDE, there's no "but" or "if" about it. The only storage I do on IDE drives is MP3s and other junk, stuff I don't care if I lose, and I have not a single IDE device on my main rig. Why do you think SCSI drives typically offer a 5-year warranty? Do you see IDE drives being sold that way? And why do you think the MTBF rating of SCSI drives is so much higher?

One can argue the merits of the interface, cost, etc - but on reliability, SCSI wins without a fight.

 

[eLiu]

Have you partitioned up those drives...? Having 40GB on one partition is rather/really wasting space. The smaller the partition, the less space wasted--it all relates to cluster size-the minimum size for any given block of data (file). Soo...if you have a 2kb cluster, then a file with say, 500 bytes will still occupy 2kb. With...32kb clusters, that same 500 bytes will ocupy 32kb. Thing is...larger cluster sizes are necessary for larger partitions...smaller partition sizes=smaller clusters. (do i make any sense...?)

Of course, if you store big files on a drive....then cluster size/space waste doesnt matter as much.

Also...the Win2k partition isn't ususally much over 5GB. OS, all MS stuff, and other system essentials--ie antivirus or something should go on the OS drive. However, since the total drive is only 9GB...you probably might as well make the whole thing for windows...unless you have other non-OS related essential programs...

I would make one drive a "data" kind of thing- downloads, mp3's, office work, etc etc etc

And have one as a "executables"--games, benchmarking, and whatever else you have.

SCSI=most reliable...too bad i can't afford it...DOH