Optimal Hard Drive Configuration???

[Starbuck1975]

I have several builds under my belt, but to be honest, I have never given much thought to my hard drive storage configuration. In the past, the frequency of my system builds was every two years, so I never hit the need to perform a fresh OS install for an existing build.

My current build is showing its age, and I probably should have done a fresh OS install years ago. What discouraged me from doing so was that I wasnt particularly disciplined in how I installed software and stored files. I just "dumped" all my applications and files on one large primary drive, and then had a second large secondary drive for backups.

I am about to pull the trigger on a new build, and I want to be a bit more deliberate in how I setup my hard drives.

From what I can tell, it appears that the optimal configuration is to have a high speed drive as the primary for OS install and primary applications, with perhaps games and secondary applications run from a secondary drive and of course a potential third large drive for backups.

I am sure there is documentation out there on how to most optimally configure hard drives. My primary desire is that with my new build, should I hit the need for a fresh OS install, I can essential wipe the primary drive and reinstall without it being too disruptive.

So what is the conventional wisdom on hard drive configurations?

 

[Zap]

Right now, the hot ticket is to go with an SSD for your boot/app drive and a fast HDD for games and backup. Third drive strictly for backups would be optional. The thing is that some games will still need installation even if installed on a secondary drive if you were to reinstall Windows on the primary drive. Seems like WoW and Steam are ones that are totally fine without being installed, but other games aren't that great at it. Basically you will still end up reinstalling a bunch of stuff even if it was backed up or installed on a secondary drive. You can minimize it with a secondary drive, but you won't eliminate it (unless you use portable apps).

 

[bruceb]

What I would prefer to do, is install the OS and the Program Apps on the main C drive. Put all your downloads and install files on another drive and also your personal files (like My Docs). This way when you do your backup images, they are smaller and easy to reload to the main drive, if/when it has issues. A third drive or an external hard drive would be good to store your backup images on.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Thank you both for the recommendation. My application spread, beyond the OS, is iTunes, video editing software, photo organizing software, MS Office, financial management software, utilities and games/Steam.

So if I am reading you all correctly:

Primary Drive, high speed, SDD: OS, applications and utilities
Secondary Drive, reasonably high speed, HDD: games and backups
Third Drive, speed fairly irrelevant: backup images

Questions:
1. What should I set as the capacity for the Primary Drive. SDDs are fairly expensive, and not sure what capacity I would need for a WIN7 build with my current application spread. Also, as I am unfamiliar with SDDs, any recommendations on which I should choose as my primary drive?
2. I have two existing WD Caviar SE16 250 GB SATA 2.0 HDDs. Can I salvage either of them, or would you recommend swapping them out entirely?
3. Regardless of the answer on question 2, I will probably purchase a 1TB drive to serve as my backup drive.
4. I have heard the term imaging before, but my typical backup routine is to use a utility that selects specific files for backup, which I run weekly. So rather than image my entire drive, I pinpoint what I specifically need to backup and run as needed. Any problems with this approach?

 

[bruceb]

Can't say how much space you need for the OS and Apps, but using one of the 250GB drives for it will work nice and be of zero cost. As to an external hard drive, look at the Western Digital Elements line. They come with no software of any sort on the drive, as opposed to some in the WD line that have the Smartware crap installed on them. I just got one (a 1TB model) from Amazon.com shipped for $69.99
What you are currently doing is backing up your important files. That is a good habit.
What imaging does, is make an easily restorable image of the installed OS and All Apps/Data.
When the OS crashes, say a virus, you just restore the Image and everything is as if nothing changed (except for personal data files or newly installed programs created after the image)
Some programs do incremental backups as well. Look into Acronis TruImage for use with Win 7

 

[Starbuck1975]

Thanks again Bruce B. I will probably follow your recommendation and salvage one of my existing drives as my primary/OS drive.

Noticed you recommended an external drive for back-ups? Assuming there is a back-up benefit to having the back-up drive external in the event of a total system meltdown.

Any benefits to say having a 1TB internal back-up drive and a secondary external back-up drive, or is that redundancy on overkill?

 

[kamikazekyle]

Most of my boxes follow the SSD + HDD for data routine. I use Dropbox for all my documents, so that's synced offsite and to my other systems as well.

Currently, in my build I just did last night, I'm running a 60GB SSD, and after all my apps are installed PLUS the swap file, I'm only using ~30GB. So, unless you plan on using some *really* large apps, a 60/64GB SSD should be great. The performance boost is incredible as well.

My data drive is actually a Windows software stripe/RAID 0 over two 500 GB hard drives. I had a bunch of 500 giggers left over from my server upgrade, and my current mobo is an all-or-nothing RAID setup. Single drive performance was medicore, but a Windows software RAID 0 doubled performance almost to the T. I'm not sure on your version of Windows, but assuming you're using a compatible version *or* your motherboard supports RAID, you could always do a RAID 0/stripe configuration to get some more life out of old drives. Honestly, I'd do that since you're already planning a backup solution, and put the money towards an OS SSD. You'd get dramatically improved OS performance, and your larger media (games, videos, etc) would get a boost as well without having to buy additional hard disk drives.

I've also used Window's built-in disk imaging in the past and do so for my domain controller, and it's served me well. Though, on the client side, I don't like how it "hides" the actual backup files with a special folder/icon. It fills the bill, however, and is integrated directly into the OS.

(update) Just noticed your last question about the 1TB internal and external. The main benefits of the external aren't speed, but rather off-site storage and/or an added barrier in the event of a catastrophy to your system. You could do staged backups, meaning you back up to the internal 1TB drive for the big speed boost, then copy from the internal to the external for off-site or additional reliablity.

Really, though, assuming you're doing incremental changes (with a backup program or system imaging program), the external speed wont' be an issue beyond the first baseline transfer. I'd stick with just an external backup drive rather than both internal and external unless you have some massive data change rates.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Most of my boxes follow the SSD + HDD for data routine. I use Dropbox for all my documents, so that's synced offsite and to my other systems as well.

Currently, in my build I just did last night, I'm running a 60GB SSD, and after all my apps are installed PLUS the swap file, I'm only using ~30GB. So, unless you plan on using some *really* large apps, a 60/64GB SSD should be great. The performance boost is incredible as well.

Out of curiosity, which SDD drive did you go with for your build?

 

[kamikazekyle]

OCZ Vertex2. I got it on a rebate + instant from NewEgg a little while back. Nowadays, until the next generation of drives comes out, I'd go for a SandForce 1200 based SSD (such as said Vertex). Most the stuff you're going to be dealing with on the OS/App drive are going to be small, random access files. SandForce excels at those and has a good bang for the buck ratio. SandForce also has built-in compression, so you can feel free to fill up the drive without worrying about degraded performance.

Also, most SSD's get faster the more space you have due to the MLC design. It's kinda like a RAID0 inside the drive. The more NAND banks you have, the faster the speeds, just like physical drives in a RAID array. Though, 256GB SSDs are still OMG expensive to me so they're not worth the price

Games and media are usually large, contiguous files which benefit not nearly as much from SSDs. SSDs are more ideal for random access.

Oh, one last thing. If you *do* get an SSD, make sure you're running Windows 7 for built-in trim support. SandForce drives do have built-in garbage collection, though they still benefit more from native OS trim functions to keep the junk tidy.

Edit: As an update, my old hard drives in a software RAID are pushing ~110-120MB/s sustained with both read and write operations going on at once. Individually, each drive could only handle 50-60 MB/s sustained. Just letting you in case you want to see about getting more performance out of your older drives without shelling out for a new drive. Just make sure to keep backups

 

[bruceb]

You can put it internal if you want. Provided you have a spare controller port (sata or ide as needed) and have spare power connectors and room to mount it. External has advantage, that it is portable between computers, if needed. They also connect to USB 2 (some new ones USB 3), but usually have a small ac power adapter to run them.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Edit: As an update, my old hard drives in a software RAID are pushing ~110-120MB/s sustained with both read and write operations going on at once. Individually, each drive could only handle 50-60 MB/s sustained. Just letting you in case you want to see about getting more performance out of your older drives without shelling out for a new drive. Just make sure to keep backups

I've never run enough drives to even worry about or consider a RAID setup. What are the benefits to a RAID configuration, and are you aware of any resources I can use to educate myself on the configuration and installation?

 

[bruceb]

All about raid is here:

http://www.acnc.com/04_00.html

 

[mfenn]

Thanks again Bruce B. I will probably follow your recommendation and salvage one of my existing drives as my primary/OS drive.

Whatever you do, do NOT do this!

If you don't plan to buy an SSD, you would be far better off from a performance point of view to continue using a single drive for everything. Your old 250GB drives are terribly slow compared to a new 1TB drive. Every single "desktop task" relies on the HDD, so you will be shooting yourself in the foot by using an old drive.

As for the SSD capacity, 60GB should be plenty for Windows 7 plus some apps (no games). Get something Sandforce based like the Vertex 2, Phoenix Pro, Callisto Deluxe, or Force.

 

[mfenn]

I've never run enough drives to even worry about or consider a RAID setup. What are the benefits to a RAID configuration, and are you aware of any resources I can use to educate myself on the configuration and installation?

I would not go for a RAID0 on a storage drive. You're doubling your chances of failure for not a huge amount of benefit. Sure, the sequential performance scales linearly, but random access (which is what makes a drive "feel" slow) doesn't.

 

[kamikazekyle]

The choice to use a RAID depends heavily on the particular situation. I wasn't going to go with a RAID setup in my recent build, but I didn't want to fork over another $70 for an extra Spinpoint (which did give comparable -- if less stable -- results to my RAID0). It certainly is true that sequential data -- being striped sequentually -- has performance increases pretty close to linear (in my case, double as I doubled the disks). If it's random data, then it will not have nearly as high of a benefit.

Of course, you have to define your data. Assuming one was going with an OS/App drive as SSD for the random benefits, and then a storage drive utilizing bulk data (most of which should be large, sequential files), a RAID setup can be an easy way to get additional performance out of platter drives. As my SSD contains the majority of my random access information and my RAID0 contains larger sequential files, I see a huge benefit from RAID0.

Now, if the OP wasn't going to do a split between OS/Apps and Bulk Data (assuming your average movies/music/games/pictures), I would recommend against a RAID0 due to the lower risk versus performance increase.

The choice on a RAID setup depends wholly on the data and situation. Heck, as a multivendor Storage Admin managing hundreds of terabytes of data in a day between NAS and SAN configs across all sorts of different drives, I utitilze almost all types of RAID configurations.

I usually recommend against a RAID setup for the *OS* drive in any personal computer anyway (of any kind of RAID), simply because it introduces an additional layer of incompatability potential. For example, since I'm using Window's built-in software striping the disks are now dynamic, which basically limits them to Windows only for all intents and purposes.

*Anyway*. Long winded story short, RAID0 can be used to extend the life of platter drives and increase performance, assuming you know the risks and utilizing data that benefits the most from a RAID0 setup.

 

[Fallingwater]

I find that standard 3.5" drives are quite fast enough for gaming purposes, without having to bother with high-speed ones (though you may want to avoid the 5400rpm ones). Modern systems rarely spend a long time loading stuff nowadays - the days of waiting 3-4 minutes for a level to load are a thing of the past.
A SSD for the OS, a few apps and the most-used games might be a good thing, but it's hardly necessary, and as it's a fairly expensive option I don't do it yet.

One thing that is often overlooked is the download drive. Anyone doing lots of torrenting and such would do wisely to avoid downloading them to the main system drive, as constant writes shorten its life. A good idea is to find some surplus drives (old IDE ones work perfectly well if your motherboard has an IDE controller) and use them solely for downloading stuff, then when the files are done move them to the main system drive. Size is not important, as they are strictly scratch disks - even old 20GB ones are useable, though you probably want to stick to 40GB+ as some bigass torrents can fill a 20GB drive all by themselves.

Note that eBay is a lousy source of old drives, because they're either broken and sold "as is, didn't have time to test" (yeah, right) or working but sold at far more than they're worth. The best source is usually old computers that people throw away when they upgrade. Many people often forget to wipe them, or don't think about doing it, which depending on your tastes and their fetishes can either translate to free porn or to neverending nightmares and a serious drop in your respect for the people in question.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Thank you all. I am still questioning whether or not I actually need the SSD. Recognize the performance boost, but its not like I sit with a stopwatch when my OS launches, and get frustrated if its not instantaneous.

 

[mfenn]

Thank you all. I am still questioning whether or not I actually need the SSD. Recognize the performance boost, but its not like I sit with a stopwatch when my OS launches, and get frustrated if its not instantaneous.

I hate how SSD's get pidgeonholed into "fast boot". That is really the least of the benefits. Think about every application that you use on your system. Now imagine if it opened instantly. That is what having an SSD is all about. Personally, I can't even use a system with an HDD anymore without getting really frustrated.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I hate how SSD's get pidgeonholed into "fast boot". That is really the least of the benefits. Think about every application that you use on your system. Now imagine if it opened instantly. That is what having an SSD is all about. Personally, I can't even use a system with an HDD anymore without getting really frustrated.

As you have probably gathered from my other posts, I am not exactly an early adopter of tech. I read through the SDD sticky, and have some concerns over wear to the drive from constant writing and rewriting to it.

I do see the other benefits to having an SDD, but not clear on how to best optimize installation to it.

OS is obvious. Stable applications like MS Office and such I imagine I would install to it as well. But what about things like iTunes, photo managing software, etc. Would it make sense to install the core apps to the SDD, but they files they actually manipulate or manage to say an HDD?

 

[mfenn]

OS is obvious. Stable applications like MS Office and such I imagine I would install to it as well. But what about things like iTunes, photo managing software, etc. Would it make sense to install the core apps to the SDD, but they files they actually manipulate or manage to say an HDD?

First off, it's Solid State Drive (SSD) not SDD.

You are right that you don't want to put media on an SSD but for the wrong reasons. The wear on the drive is pretty much a non-issue. The drives last for 3+ years under heavy load. Under more typical loads, you're talking 6-7 years easily. The reason that you don't want to put media on an SSD is because media doesn't really benefit from the fast random access times of an SSD and is way too large to economically store on one.