To maximize speed how should I set up my OS on harddrives?

[MikeD]

I recently got a new computer and have a Maxtor 20gig and a WD 120gig both ata-100 @7200rpm The WD has 8mb of cache. They way I have it set up now is the 20 gig is partitioned into two drives, 5gig for the OS and the rest is open. On the 120 gig I have it set up as 80/20/20. Both the HD's are on the same IDE cable. I am wanting to know the best set up for this so that I can maximize speed for gaming and just fast computing! The 120gig has the 8mb of cache so would that be better for the OS and programs to be put on? I also have a TON of mp3's and other media files I wanna store on there. Any other info you need? Any help will be greatly appreciated.

System Specs are a P4 1600; 256mb; gforce 3 ti500. XP Pro

 

[Snoop]

Put everything on the 120, its the fastest ide drive on the market. Use the maxtor for file storage, and mp3's.

 

[miken]

Put the OS on the master, and the Swap file on the Slave.

 

[vash]

With a two drive setup, I would go with the following:

1. Partition the 20gig into at 5gig and leave the rest as one drive.
2. Leave the 120gig as one partition.

With the main drive setup as two partitions, load the OS there, along with the swap file. Install most of the applications that you want speed from on the 120gig, so its the most noticeable when launching applications, loadings maps, etc. Just avoid having swapping/os/games on the 120gig, or you won't feel the speed difference.

I have a similar setup, but a little different. My setup has 3x SCSI drives (2x 10k rpm and 1x 7200rpm): one boots the OS (10krpm) and loads the program files, one has games only and one drive is dedicated to swapping. If any of my games need to swap, they can do so without interfering with my gaming.

vash

 

[Jojo1971]

Use the 20 GB for your OS and the 120 GB for STORAGE only...Even though the 120 GB has a bigger cache, you'll notice that the 20 GB Maxtor seems faster especially when the 120 GB gets full with files- that's because of fragmentation, unless you defragment on a regular basis....(This is from my personal experience -I have a 20 GB MAXTOR 7200 RPM and 80 GB Seagate... I have 50 GB of mp3s + 8 GB digital pictures in my 80 GB seagate..)

I would recommend you use FAT 32 on your 120 GB hard drive so that it becomes accessible by both W9x and NT systems..who knows you might try all the OSes one day.. or you might transfer your bigger harddrive from one pc to another..

 

[MikeD]

Ok...explain the "swapping" to me. Is that something I have to to or is it automatically done with XP? I also see no need to use fat32 at the moment so i'll just stick with NTFS, although I should use it for the OS partition. Should the drives be on seperate IDE cables or the same or does it really even matter?

 

[Snoop]

<< Even though the 120 GB has a bigger cache, you'll notice that the 20 GB Maxtor seems faster especially when the 120 GB gets full with files >>


Ahh, you have to be kidding, the 120 is much faster drive, not just because of the cache. Also, if you partition the 120 gig, and set aside maybe 5gigs for the OS, you avoid any fragmentation problems of the OS, because it resides on its own partition.
Trust me, if you are looking for the fastest setup available from those components, setup is as follows:

OS Partition 1, 5gigs 120 WD
then partition the remaining 115 gigs how you want, but make sure for games and such, put them on the 120, it will be noticeble faster than the maxtor defragged or not.

Here is the setup:
IDE 0 Master-- WD 120
IDE 0 Slave-- Maxtor 20

 

[slackware1995]

Everyone seems to have good recommendations on this issue, except for missing one MAJOR thing.

On IDE channels, only 1 device may be accessed at a time per channel. This is a very important concept and doesn't apply to SCSI.

Therefore, for maximum performance, you want to put the two drives on _different_ channels.

Your next concern will be for your optical drives (ie CDROM, DVD, CDR/CDRW). Depending on your configuration and usage of these drives, you may want to get a PCI IDE controller for them. Or if you don't use them much, put them on the least used IDE channel.

Therefore, my basic recommendation with your two drives, and 1 CDROM (for games) would be:

IDE channel 0 : 120GB (partitioned per your preference) for OS and games, as master
IDE channel 1: 30GB (if memory serves right) for basic storage of MP3's etc., as master
: CDROM as slave

The only performance penalty you should see with this setup is ripping MP3's from the CDROM to the 30GB drive. Although you probably won't see that bad of a performance drop, and unless you rip alot, this is your cheapest, best performance setup.

Again, if you have more drives, and/or need more performance, get an PCI IDE and put each drive on it's own channel, as master.

Hope this helps

 

[Snoop]

<< On IDE channels, only 1 device may be accessed at a time per channel. This is a very important concept and doesn't apply to SCSI. >>


But that really doesnt matter, as the 20 gig drive -should- be used as a storage/scratchdisk and access speed is not a problem. Also, when loading games, especially ones that require the cd-rom to be installed, leaving an ide channel specifically for the cd-rom will decrease load times and install times, as it will be on a seperate channel from either harddrive that you are loading too.

 

[slackware1995]

<<

<< On IDE channels, only 1 device may be accessed at a time per channel. This is a very important concept and doesn't apply to SCSI. >>


But that really doesnt matter, as the 20 gig drive -should- be used as a storage/scratchdisk and access speed is not a problem. Also, when loading games, especially ones that require the cd-rom to be installed, leaving an ide channel specifically for the cd-rom will decrease load times and install times, as it will be on a seperate channel from either harddrive that you are loading too. >>



You prove what I said...

The primary drive on it's own channel would be able to write/read unencumbered. This means that loading apps, running the OS, games, etc would be able to run at their fastest speed.

With the second drive on it's own channel (for mp3's etc) he'll still have full speed to his primary harddrive on channel 1.

With the CDROM on channel 2, with the second hard drive, he'll be able to install games at full speed (assuming he isn't installing games AND listening to MP3's at the same time).

So, theoritically, during _most_ usage, he would get the highest performance with my suggestion.

As I stated, if he needs even better performance, adding a PCI IDE card and putting his optical drives on that, would increase his performance even more.

But, honestly, I think that we are only talking about small percentage increases unless he is doing some serious disk I/O intensive work, in which case, he'd be better off with SCSI.

Thanks for giving me the chance to be a little more detailed.

 

[Snoop]

<< The primary drive on it's own channel would be able to write/read unencumbered. This means that loading apps, running the OS, games, etc would be able to run at their fastest speed. >>


Your missing my point as well, if he uses the 20 gig drive as a storage/scratchdisk and has his OS and all games/apps loaded to the WD 120, how often are both going to be accessed that having them on the same ide channel will matter . Then again this is assuming its a scratchdisk/storage, now if its is going to be used to hold MP3's, then your setup is probably better.

edit: although, if it were me and I had a 120 gig hardrive I would avoid the problem and sell the 20 gig

In other words, if everything 'important' is on the WD, why not let share the channel?

 

[slackware1995]

<<

<< The primary drive on it's own channel would be able to write/read unencumbered. This means that loading apps, running the OS, games, etc would be able to run at their fastest speed. >>


Your missing my point as well, if he uses the 20 gig drive as a storage/scratchdisk and has his OS and all games/apps loaded to the WD 120, how often are both going to be accessed that having them on the same ide channel will matter . In other words, if everything 'important' is on the WD, why not let share the channel? I understand your point completely, but from my experiance, I think its more important the CDrom or CDwriter is alone on its ide channel. >>



Ok, let's settle this with "both are good" and depend on your personal preferences. My 10 year experience with Windows OS, Novell Netware, and Linux gave me my preferences, but I agree with you too.

 

[Snoop]

<< Ok, let's settle this with "both are good" and depend on your personal preferences. My 10 year experience with Windows OS, Novell Netware, and Linux gave me my preferences, but I agree with you too. >>


Before you posted i edited mine to say about the same thing



<< Your missing my point as well, if he uses the 20 gig drive as a storage/scratchdisk and has his OS and all games/apps loaded to the WD 120, how often are both going to be accessed that having them on the same ide channel will matter . Then again this is assuming its a scratchdisk/storage, now if its is going to be used to hold MP3's, then your setup is probably better. >>

 

[MikeD]

cool...thanks for all your replies....i think I am gonna redo everything like "slackware1995" suggested...no offense to the others...they were all great ideas.

 

[slackware1995]

<< cool...thanks for all your replies....i think I am gonna redo everything like "slackware1995" suggested...no offense to the others...they were all great ideas. >>