G
Gordon
I have yet to find a person who had too many backups.
G
Gordon
Probably. You want the OS on the fast disk. The 10K RPM one in this case
F
Flint
I certainly don't mean to imply this suggestion is the right one for
your application, but if it were *my* configuration, it would look
something like this:
160GB 10Krpm: Partition 1 "C:" - OS system drive (60GB in size)
(Disk '0') Partition 2 "E:" - a 'ping pong' partition (100GB)
750GB 7200rpm" Partition 1 "D:" - Documents & Data
(Drive '1') Partition 2 "F:" - Media
Partition 3 "G:" - a separate ping pong partition
equal in size to the one on the
first drive (Drive 0)
Partition 4 (no drive letter)- Acronis Secure Zone
with a vanilla windows image, and
a current config backup image
K
Ken Blake
Although I agree that Windows should usually be on the fastest drive
(*if* the drive's sizes are the same), I'm not so sure that the 10K
RPM one is fastest. It's considerably smaller than the other drive,
and the smaller the drive, the more time it takes for head movement
from one place to another.
I suspect that the 750GB drive is the faster one, but I would not
suggest that it be used for Windows and programs and the 160GB drive
for data. Most people would run out of space on that data drive way
before on the Windows one.
So my view is that efficiency should not be an issue in this case. Any
difference is likely to be small, and what's much more important is
that Windows and programs should be on the smaller drive and data on
the larger one.
J
James Silverton
That seems counterintuitive; perhaps a little more explanation would
be useful.
--
James Silverton, Potomac
I'm *not* (e-mail address removed)
P
Paul
http://www.storagereview.com/Testbed4Compare.srKen said:
Select "Average Random Access Time" from the database.
Western Digital VelociRaptor WD3000GLFS (300 GB SATA) - 6.8
Western Digital Raptor WD360GD (36 GB SATA) - 8.7
Western Digital Caviar Black WD1001FALS (1000 GB SATA) - 12.2
The 10K RPM contributes to lower access time.
When the access pattern is random, that's when those 10K drives win.
Such as loading an OS, loading the DLLs or reading registry for
an application, or doing a non-indexed search on a disk.
And if you need to see what an impact this makes, remember back
to the last 5400 RPM drive you owned, and what a pig it was
when you wanted to run a search.
Paul
K
Ken Blake
The rotation speed is only one aspect of performance. Another aspect
is the time it takes for head movement from one track to another. The
data on bigger drives is packed closer together, and that means that
the heads have less distance to travel, so the time for head movement
is reduced.
C
Char Jackson
They aren't as common as the people who have too few (or no) backups,
but they definitely exist.
One of my customers, a standard home user, makes a daily backup to a
second drive and then makes a copy of the backup to a third drive.
Fortunately, his backups are small at around 8GB for a full backup and
much less for the incrementals.
He makes no significant changes to his system most days, so a daily
backup is arguably excessive. Backing up the backup is just overkill,
IMO, but he has the drive space and feels better when he has something
to store in it.
J
James Silverton
Track to track speed might well be similar and there's no reason to
suggest otherwise. However, more head movement might be necessary on a
smaller disc since the tracks contain less data (at least if the density
is similar.) I guess you are saying that track changing is a slow
process but I've no real idea of how the time to change tracks compares
with the rotation time.
--
James Silverton, Potomac
I'm *not* (e-mail address removed)
B
Bob I
The real pigs were the 4500 RPM drives from WD.
G
Gene E. Bloch
Me, but only because I have managed to confuse myself fairly thoroughly,
even with the help of a spreadsheet to keep track of it all.
G
Gene E. Bloch
Which logic might work if the number of tracks to move is the same in
both cases.
I wouldn't be surprised if the larger drive had more data on it and the
number of tracks to move was significantly larger on any given Tuesday.
And of course the rotational latency is less on the drive with faster
rotation.
A
Aretwodeetwo
I built my son a gaming PC and used a 60Gb Solid State drive for the OS.
It boots in the blink of an eye. (almost)
Put a 10K RPM HD in for D and the puter zips!
It boots in the blink of an eye. (almost)
Put a 10K RPM HD in for D and the puter zips!
G
Gene E. Bloch
Tempting, but I don't game, and my needs are too modest for even me to
justify the cost
J
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Plus, I'm still not convinced about the way SSDs fail: all reports I'veGene E. Bloch said:Tempting, but I don't game, and my needs are too modest for even me to
justify the cost
seen (granted, not many) are that it is sudden and complete, whereas
spinning HDs _mostly_ give _some_ indication. (And yes, I know one
should not _rely_ on that.)
C
Char Jackson
Does it really matter? You maintain current backups, right?
P
Paul
When hard drives have firmware related issues, they can drop outJ. P. Gilliver (John) said:
instantly. Several Seagate models have had problems like that.
Not all hard drive issues are mechanical/platter/head issues. Some
of them are plain crappy firmware.
And some of the firmware related failures, can be fixed with a "tether".
A USB to serial port cable, without RS232 level shifters on the output.
It uses TTL logic levels. And allows a computer to "talk" to the serial
port on the hard drive. Lord knows where they got the documentation
on the necessary command set.
http://www.overclock.net/hard-drives-storage/457286-seagate-bricked-firmware-drive-fix-pics.html
Paul
J
J. P. Gilliver (John)
When hard drives have firmware related issues, they can drop out[QUOTE="Paul said:
instantly. Several Seagate models have had problems like that.
Not all hard drive issues are mechanical/platter/head issues. Some
of them are plain crappy firmware.[/QUOTE]
True, I'm not saying all hard drive failures are gradual. But are SSD
failures _ever_ other than instantaneous? (My experience is purely with
USB memory sticks [and an early mp3 player], which _have_ all died
suddenly and completely - I've never had an SS "drive" as such. So I'm
aware things _might_ be different. But I've _read_ that they tend to go
that way. And _most_ HD ones _are_ gradual, IME anyway.)