Which HDD?

[ArisVer]

I have 2 mechanical disks, both are 465GB.
Disk 1. Seagate 7200rpm with 16MB cache. SATA 1.
Disk 2. Hitachi 5400 rpm with 8MB cache. SATA 2.

Which one would you use for an operating system?
Their benchmarks are almost identical with Hitachi having a slight edge. Keep in mind that the operating system is on the Seagate disk at the moment.

 

[Elixer]

I would use neither.
A SSD is the way to go for the OS partition.
Is that an option for you?

 

[denis280]

I would use neither.
A SSD is the way to go for the OS partition.
Is that an option for you?

Agree with Elixer,but if you cant.i would use the seagate

 

[Puffnstuff]

You can get a ssd these days super cheap and you only need one large enough to hold the OS which is 60gb. I would then use the Seagate to install my programs on since it is the fastest hd you have.

 

[mikeymikec]

Initially I would have said "use the 7200rpm as the boot drive", but then the benchmarks seem to suggest that the Hitachi is better all-round.

The Seagate has to be pretty old to only be SATA1... for its era, its results don't surprise me.

I wouldn't say those results give the Hitachi a "slight edge" btw; you want the access times to be as low as possible for a boot drive, but aside from that the Hitachi beats the Seagate in every test and trounces it in the burst speed test.

 

[ArisVer]

Thanks for your answers. I will go for an SSD by the end of the year and the 60GB is not an option as I need a 120GB minimum. It is possible but I wouldn't like to squeeze things too much. I forgot to mention that in the OP but since you mentioned it, this question came in my mind.
The rig I am talking about is my notebook in the sig below and serves as my 24/7 internet computer without any problems. I happen to have a 120GB SD card which is enough for this purpose. So my question is obvious now. Is it possible to transfer (or make a clean install) of Windows 8.1 on this card? I know it can be done, at least with Windows XP, but I don't know how. Another option is to install linux on the SD card, either Mint or Debian, which I think it's quite possible.

 

[Elixer]

I don't think you can boot with a SD card, not even sure I would attempt it, since SD cards were not made for that kind of use.
As for cloning to a SD drive, in theory, it should work with something like dd in linux, maybe acronis will support that as well, dunno, never tried.

 

[MongGrel]

I'm not sure how much room you have to fit things into a notebook, I've never had one.

But saw this the other day looking around, looks like something you might be able to use if the bay is large enough.

WD Black2 Dual Drive 2.5" 120 GB SSD + 1 TB HDD Kit (WD1001X06XDTL)

http://www.amazon.com/Black2-Dual-D...e=UTF8&qid=1432575528&sr=1-6&keywords=ssd+1tb

Seems to me you might be a bit limited all over IMHO, seems to be a hard spot between Sata1 vs Sata 2 on slower drives.

I was going to say put OS on the Seagate, but Sata 2 faster access.

I'll just leave it at that, I doubt one or the other going to matter much.

 

[Charlie98]

Thanks for your answers. I will go for an SSD by the end of the year and the 60GB is not an option as I need a 120GB minimum. It is possible but I wouldn't like to squeeze things too much. I forgot to mention that in the OP but since you mentioned it, this question came in my mind.
The rig I am talking about is my notebook in the sig below and serves as my 24/7 internet computer without any problems. I happen to have a 120GB SD card which is enough for this purpose. So my question is obvious now. Is it possible to transfer (or make a clean install) of Windows 8.1 on this card? I know it can be done, at least with Windows XP, but I don't know how. Another option is to install linux on the SD card, either Mint or Debian, which I think it's quite possible.

Just save your money for the correctly sized SSD, use the Hitachi HDD for now.

I don't normally recommend even a 60GB SSD for OS-only applications... it always seems like there is something else to download, taking the total file size over the 80% full mark... the free space needed to keep an SSD operating correctly. 120GB minimum, 250GB preferably.

 

[ArisVer]

I have been reading a bit for the SD card and it is "easy" if your computer can boot from the card reader, and mine does not. There is a way but it involves loading grub first from any bootable device (HDD, usb stick) so it can load the card reader driver. A bit too complicated.

So apart from getting an SSD, it's better to use the Hitachi as it has faster access time and SATA 2. Thanks for your time people.

 

[Brado78]

A Kingston V300 SSD will blow those drives out of the water and they are cheap I would get a 120gb version.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Right now almost every retailer is having sales on cheap ssd's and you can pick one up very reasonably for a boot drive. Once you've used even the cheapest ssd for a boot drive you will never go back to a mechanical drive. Use the ssd for the os and a few of your programs that require speed and put the rest and your data on a hard drive. I learned a long time ago not to store data on the boot drive so when it tanks your data is preserved. Also back up your files often so you can recover them later in the event of an unexpected failure. With win 8.1 onedrive makes it convenient to backup your files. I place important files on an optical drive as well to insure that I don't lose them.

 

[Data-Medics]

I'd use the Hitachi for now, throw the Seagate on eBay (or in the trash where it truly belongs), then put the money toward an SSD for your OS.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I'd use the Hitachi, if it was made to run under the SATA-2 spec.

Then -- IF I HAD SATA-3 ports on my motherboard with a recent Intel controller that allows for ISRT in BIOS RAID-mode and the software configuration, I'd buy something like a 60GB Mushkin Chronos or Patriot Blaze for $40 to $50.

If no SATA-3 on the motherboard, there's the option of picking up a $60 PCI-E SATA3 card controller; fit it to an x4 or x16(as x4) slot.

Install the OS on the HDD.

With ISRT and an Intel mobo controller, configure IRST for SSD-caching and acceleration of the HDD.

Without ISRT and Intel mobo controller, using the PCI-E controller, cable both the SSD and HDD to the controller. Some controllers have Marvel chip with Hyper-Duo, replacing ISRT.

If not, you have the option to buy $30-worth of rock solid software that would do it for any controller and a mix of AHCI and RAID-mode drives. But you would at least like to have SATA3/SATA-III capability in the system, so you still buy the PCI_E card.

Then calmly shop for an SSD of decent 512GB or 1TB capacity, and buy it next year after you save for a slowly declining price.

Or -- just buy a 512GB SSD and only consider the caching so you can add programs and datafiles alike on the HDD and get varying improvements ~= 80% of SATA3 SSD performance. In that case, you spend a lot up front, with only an option of spending the additional $100, or not spending it at all.

 

[ArisVer]

A Kingston V300 SSD will blow those drives out of the water and they are cheap I would get a 120gb version.

This was the best price I have found after my search and it will cost me 65 euro. Going to order one in the next few weeks. It's going in my notebook as a boot disk with all the programs. I also have an SSD in my tower, a Crucial M500 223GB and thinking whether (most likely) I should exchange them.

I am not sure why the speed of the disks is slow though. It doesn't look like SATA 2 speed and I am not sure whether my notebook supports that speed.

 

[Essence_of_War]

I'd use the Hitachi, if it was made to run under the SATA-2 spec.

Then -- IF I HAD SATA-3 ports on my motherboard with a recent Intel controller that allows for ISRT in BIOS RAID-mode and the software configuration, I'd buy something like a 60GB Mushkin Chronos or Patriot Blaze for $40 to $50.

If no SATA-3 on the motherboard, there's the option of picking up a $60 PCI-E SATA3 card controller; fit it to an x4 or x16(as x4) slot.

Install the OS on the HDD.

With ISRT and an Intel mobo controller, configure IRST for SSD-caching and acceleration of the HDD.

Without ISRT and Intel mobo controller, using the PCI-E controller, cable both the SSD and HDD to the controller. Some controllers have Marvel chip with Hyper-Duo, replacing ISRT.

While this might be fun to mess around with, I don't recommend spending any amount of money greater than "free" on small capacity SSDs. It just isn't worth it.

120/128 GB SSDs can reliably be found for 50-60 USD, and the SanDisk Ultra II and Intel 530 are both available at 240/256 GB for $80. Cacheing an OS drive made sense a few years ago, but it doesn't make economic sense now.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

While this might be fun to mess around with, I don't recommend spending any amount of money greater than "free" on small capacity SSDs. It just isn't worth it.

120/128 GB SSDs can reliably be found for 50-60 USD, and the SanDisk Ultra II and Intel 530 are both available at 240/256 GB for $80. Cacheing an OS drive made sense a few years ago, but it doesn't make economic sense now.

$40? For a small SSD? You'll still spend $200 on a decent 512GB SSD for a boot disk.

The difficulty with it seems likely to be the tedium of setting it up. But it could be an "eye of the beholder" thing. It IS an extra expense, although a small one. I've got about three of those 60GB SSDs -- two deployed as caching disks. I'll find a similar use for the third one soon.

I'd certainly recommend the best solution of a decent capacity SSD as boot disk. I use the caching feature to extend my "Program Files" directory to an HDD, also used for data. The data access isn't going to benefit much from the feature, but it helps get the programs into the cache.

Personally, I think a 120GB SSD is barely sufficient for an OS disk, unless program installations are continued on a second drive. I'm using a 256GB EVO now in this system from which I'm communicating now. It's already half full. So -- I say . . . it's still kosher to increase storage with an HDD, and increase its speed accordingly. Probably it's "not for everybody."

 

[Essence_of_War]

$40? For a small SSD? You'll still spend $200 on a decent 512GB SSD for a boot disk.

I didn't compare with $200 500/512 GB drives, I compared with the vastly more price-relevant 50-60 USD 120/128 GB, and 80-90 USD 240/256. Both capacities have been used for boot+application drives for a while. I have a full linux and windows 7 installations on my 250 GB ssd and I'm only using 130 GB of space.

Small capacity (40, 60, 80 GB) SSDs are just not good value purchases right now because NAND has become pretty cheap, and cheap NAND doesn't make controllers or packaging or shipping or warranties any less expensive.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I didn't compare with $200 500/512 GB drives, I compared with the vastly more price-relevant 50-60 USD 120/128 GB, and 80-90 USD 240/256. Both capacities have been used for boot+application drives for a while. I have a full linux and windows 7 installations on my 250 GB ssd and I'm only using 130 GB of space.

Small capacity (40, 60, 80 GB) SSDs are just not good value purchases right now because NAND has become pretty cheap, and cheap NAND doesn't make controllers or packaging or shipping or warranties any less expensive.

Oh, that would be correct about the fixed-cost aspects per unit of product. Truth be told, with a SW like Primo-Cache, you could use a 120GB as a caching drive for a large HDD. At that point, you might wonder if it would be better to put your moderately-sized SSD to use as a Windows boot drive. But I prefer (at least) to put all my software installs on the boot-disk. I'd rather have a 500GB boot-drive SSD. Alternative to buying a larger disk for $200 and up, it seems like a good idea to use a $40 60GB SSD with a 2TB HDD. And then, I might not be happy with a 120GB boot SSD, but a 256GB unit makes more sense.

We're chipping away at margins with these alternatives. Someone with sufficient spare parts in tip-top condition might choose option B to reduce current or subsequent outlays while seeing some kind of performance improvement. Somebody who starts fresh to pick parts for a computer building project might choose option A.

 

[Essence_of_War]

But I prefer (at least) to put all my software installs on the boot-disk.

Sure. So do I.

I'd rather have a 500GB boot-drive SSD.

Obviously I would also

Alternative to buying a larger disk for $200 and up, it seems like a good idea to use a $40 60GB SSD with a 2TB HDD.

Why is it a decision between spending $200 on a 480/512 GB drive and spending $40 on a 60 GB drive and having to hack together an ISRT set-up as well? You're arbitrarily ignoring all of the price points between.

60 GB SSDs are not price competitive with 120/128 GB SSDs, and for most people who have money to discretionarily spend on computer parts, they're not price competitive with 240/256 GB ones either.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Sure. So do I.

Obviously I would also

Why is it a decision between spending $200 on a 480/512 GB drive and spending $40 on a 60 GB drive and having to hack together an ISRT set-up as well? You're arbitrarily ignoring all of the price points between.

60 GB SSDs are not price competitive with 120/128 GB SSDs, and for most people who have money to discretionarily spend on computer parts, they're not price competitive with 240/256 GB ones either.

It depends on the usage to which the small drive is applied. I think you could get a serviceable 2TB HDD for something close to $100. In fact, I think those drives can vary in price so that some are more, some are less. If it isn't a matter of a spare HDD, you'd have faster access to a larger storage device @ 80% solid-state performance for SOME uses and patterns. If you could get a $120 SSD for $60, and if you could afford a 4TB hard drive or an equivalent array, you could do that also. It served me well for 3 years, and I might have waited longer to buy an 840 Pro drive if I hadn't been overhauling other parts of the system.

We also know that there's an Intel NVMe drive -- the 750 (?!) -- which will be introduced with a capacity of maybe 1.2 TB -- could have been more, but not less. Then you have the SATAe speeds of something like 4x in the bench measurements for what you get with AHCI and an SATA-III port.

But . . . do you have $1,000? I think there is an enterprise model already introduced, which has a $3,000+ price-tag. It might have been $5K. I'd have to look again.

It could be that HDDs may become obsolete. As long as they work, I can find ways to use them.

 

[ArisVer]

Coming back to this thread.

I switched the disks at the end of August and benchmarked again. They don't have many differences in speed but the Seagate is not healthy enough to be a boot drive as I checked them with CrystalDiskInfo. Haven't bought an SSD yet, maybe some time soon.