• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Dual Hard Drive Setup.

N

Nocontact

Weaksauce
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
107
Hi, I have two Maxtor HDs a 40GB and an 80GB. I was going to install my OS (xp pro) on the 40 and just use the 80 for extra storage. I know an intermediate amount about pcs but I still don't really understand the benefit of partitions.
What I'm wondering is, what would be the best way to setup these two drives, or would I be fine just setting them up as IDE 1 and 2 and leaving them as is, or installing partitions on them? Any ideas would really be appreciated.
Thanks
 
I would do the following:

80gb: System drive, program files, most things

40gb: Archives, downloads, music, videos, backups
 
Id rather agree with Talonz on the simple premise that the 80GB hd more than likely has better performace vs the 40GB hard drive (faster RPM, larger cache, and/or faster IDE interface).

As far as partitioning the hard drives? I'd prolly suggest not cutting them up. There is no speed increase or data security/safety by partitioning. Only good reason I see to partition a drive is to install a different OS on your computer and have a dual boot Win/Lin or some such thing.
 
Partitioning a hard-drive(not including dual boot, in which case its good idea :p) is the single most pointless, stupid, wasteful, did i mention pointless? and idiotic thing you can do unless you share share (I.E 50/50) the machine with someone else and they're all like "Hey mang, stay on your side of the limit" etc. So, knowing that, i'd steer away from every doing that :).

If they both have the same performance features (RPM & cache) then i say put your OS on the 40 gig and use the 80 for backup. Means you can store 80gig of misc crap and if your OS starts to slow down, just blow the 40 away, if you were on the 80 then you'd only be able to save 40gig of stuff.

But... most likely the 80gig has cache in which case its sorta of 50/50 as to which one to use for the OS. I'd probably still lean towards the 40gig if they have the same RPM, but thats just me. It depends what your using it for really. If you play lots of games and are obsessed with max performance, use the 80. If you use the PC for everything but that, then use the 40, as more storage would be a better idea.
 
They do have the same specs, 7200 rpm 8mb cache. So putting the OS on the 40 would be ok then?
 
Nocontact said:
They do have the same specs, 7200 rpm 8mb cache. So putting the OS on the 40 would be ok then?
Click to expand...

That's what I'd do.

Actually, what I would do involves a few hundred dollars and a SCSI controller, but that's neither here nor there. ;)
 
I think the idea of a partition for the OS seems like a good idea. If I had done that with my old machine it would have saved me a lot of trouble. How big a partition should I use for the installation?
 
If you're not going to use My Documents, have multiple user accounts or use the same partition for swap space then 3Gb should do it. Because I use My Documents and have 2 accounts I made it 10Gb just to be safe.
 
What do you mean by "use My documents?"
Also, how do partitions show up in My Computer and Windows Explorer? Do they just come up as separate letters like drives?
 
If you put all your files in My Documents so they are secure and other users can't access them. I'm not sure if there is a way to put My Documents on a different drive, I'm pretty sure there's not though.

The partitions show up as other drives and have the D:, C:, E: etc. on them. You can also label the drives with names.
 
Partitioning large drives has multiple advantages in my opinion, seperating things from each other being the most obvious. Operating system from data is always good. if you run any type of shares, network or otherwise, it's sometimes good to seperate things with partitions.

Also, and I realize it's not that important anymore but as drives get larger, so to cluster sizes. if you have smaller drive sizes you effectively use your drive more efficiently. meaning that a small partion (0M to less than 260MB) has a cluster size of 512 bytes, but a large partition (32GB through 2TB) has a cluster size of 32kb. Over a large space that would be a lot of "wasted" space.

I'm not saying format your drive into a bunch of 260mb partitions but this site will show you the different cluster sizes and you can decide what is a good setup for you.

http://www.mcmcse.com/windows_xp/guides/filesystems.shtml

just my $.02 since my drives are all single partitions, i figured it was easier for me to have everything in the same places.....

QM
 
I'll be the only user on the computer, I'm just more interested in efficiency and organization, and no network.
I guess the main thing that appeals to me is the idea of being able to re-install the OS on the partition.
 
quasimodem said:
Partitioning large drives has multiple advantages in my opinion, seperating things from each other being the most obvious. Operating system from data is always good. if you run any type of shares, network or otherwise, it's sometimes good to seperate things with partitions.

Also, and I realize it's not that important anymore but as drives get larger, so to cluster sizes. if you have smaller drive sizes you effectively use your drive more efficiently. meaning that a small partion (0M to less than 260MB) has a cluster size of 512 bytes, but a large partition (32GB through 2TB) has a cluster size of 32kb. Over a large space that would be a lot of "wasted" space.

I'm not saying format your drive into a bunch of 260mb partitions but this site will show you the different cluster sizes and you can decide what is a good setup for you.

http://www.mcmcse.com/windows_xp/guides/filesystems.shtml

just my $.02 since my drives are all single partitions, i figured it was easier for me to have everything in the same places.....

QM
Click to expand...

Things I noticed:

Windows 2000 Professional and XP Professional cannot FORMAT a volume larger than 32 GB in size using their native FAT32 file system.
Click to expand...
This can be a problem for people who don't know what they're doing...
&
Code: 
Default NTFS file system cluster sizes
Partition Size 	NTFS
7 MB-16 MB 	512 bytes
17 MB-32 MB 	512 bytes
33 MB-64 MB 	512 bytes
65 MB-128 MB 	512 bytes
129 MB-256 MB 	512 bytes
257 MB-512 MB 	512 bytes
513 MB-1,024 MB 	1,024 bytes
1,025 MB-2 GB 	2,048 bytes
2 GB-4 GB 	4,096 bytes
4 GB-8 GB 	4,096 bytes
8 GB-16 GB 	4,096 bytes
16 GB-32 GB 	4,096 bytes
32 GB-2 terabytes 	4,096 bytes
FAT32 is dead; there is no practical reason to be using such a shoddy filesystem these days. Besides, when formatting a volume under Disk Management it is possible to specify NTFS cluster size.
 
In conclusion, buy a Raptor for your boot HDD and use your other two for storage :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top