help me design a new hard drive scheme!

S

soulax

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 4, 2003
Messages
112
Currently I have 5 drives running in my PC. 2 30giger's mirrored (mp3's only), 2 10 giger's mirrored (docuements only), and an 80gig WD SE with a few partitions (windows, downloads,stuff-to-burn,video).

I hate having 5 drives, and i want to cut it down to 3.

Right now im thinking about get an SATA card and a 36gig raptor for Windows and all my Programs. Then getting 2 200gig drives mirroring them for all my documents and my media.

I like mirroring because although I do back my data up once a month (External 200gb), im always scared for that hard drive failure to screw me up.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

How does this sound:

Drive 1: (36gig Raptor SATA)

C: Windows / Programs

Drive 2/3: (200 gig 2mb buffer, cheapest I can get!)

D: Data (Documents / Media / Downloads)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I got a raid controller on the mobo, but need to get a SATA card, should I go SCSI instead?
 
I suggest you have a separate partition for your Important documents and data.

This is my scheme:

Disk 1 (or partiiton 1 on disk 1) - NTFS:
C: Bootable, Windows, Program Files

Disk 2 (or partition 2 on disk 1) - NTFS:
My Documents, Outlook folders, storage of Disk 1 ghost Image and some (a few) of your favorite CD rips.

Disk 3 - Partition 1 - NTFS
Bootable, install your same OS on this partition while having the other drive unplug. Give it its own Program Files. Have your basic and important programs installed so that you can still work if the disk 1 is down.
This is very helpful for me, like when your box is down and you got papers to type...

Disk 3 - Partition 2 - FAT32 :)
(and all the remaining storage you have
This is for mass storage whatever you need space to store, non-critical data.

I use FAT32 for the big storage partition so that within linux I can get data off that partition, or when I need to copy something to some older computers running Win 98 :D.

Hope this helps
 
whoa!

I used to be partition happy, until I discovered two things. First of all, you never leave enough room in the proper partitions. Secondly, too many partitions will slow down your computer. WindowsXP handles data differently then older OS's, so cut down on those partitions.

Depending on if your motherboard has sata, here's another option.

200gig hard drives can be pretty expensive still, although there are deals to be found. Instead of wasting all the room on the mirror, spend a little less money on more hard drives and spread them out across controllers. Even with the mirror array, there are still problems with fried controllers and spikes that can fry both of them.

Seperate the 200gig hard drives. Not only will that give you a ot more room, but there are other ways to back up your data. There are FREEWARE programs available that will back up your data to another hard drive on a nightly basis. You could have 5 folders saved as zip files on another hard drive for example.

Disk 2 (or partition 2 on disk 1) - NTFS:
My Documents, Outlook folders, storage of Disk 1 ghost Image and some (a few) of your favorite CD rips.
Click to expand...

I wouldnt partition the raptor. Plus, I dont believe you can ghost from one partition to another on the same drive. Again, you can use backup programs to zip up your favorites and documents on a nightly basis if you'd like.
 
I was wondering if there is an advantage to having your operating system (windows xp pro) on a seperate drive, say a 40 GB hard drive? In addition to having another larger drive (200-250GB) for data? Would the system run better?
 
Originally posted by tszykowny
I was wondering if there is an advantage to having your operating system (windows xp pro) on a seperate drive, say a 40 GB hard drive? In addition to having another larger drive (200-250GB) for data? Would the system run better?
Click to expand...

in my experience, quite often the older hard drives are smaller.
 
Originally posted by onetrueday
I used to be partition happy, until I discovered two things. First of all, you never leave enough room in the proper partitions.
Click to expand...

a little forethought and or Partition Magic

Secondly, too many partitions will slow down your computer. WindowsXP handles data differently then older OS's, so cut down on those partitions.
Click to expand...

you forget to turn off the indexing?
NTFS isnt exactly new, nor is anything much in XP its basically W2K w\ eyecandy, there are substantial performance increases available with partitioning, refer to the Advanced HDD Issues Sticky thread for In Depth NTFS vs FAT32 linkage
There is no comparision, NTFS hands down.

Partitioning and Volume Position @ the PCGuide & Storage Review
The choice of how the hard disk is partitioned can have a tangible impact on real-world performance. This is due to several different but related effects that you should keep in mind when deciding how to partition your drive:

Cluster Size: The way that the hard disk is partitioned in most cases determines the cluster size of the partition, which has a performance impact. See this section for details.

Zone Effects: Modern hard disks use zoned bit recording to allow more data to be stored on the outer tracks of the hard disk than the inner ones. This directly impacts the media transfer rate of the disk when reading one zone of the disk as opposed to another; see here for details. Hard disks fill their space starting from the outer tracks and working inward. This means that if you split a hard disk into three partitions of equal size, the first partition will have the highest transfer rate, the second will be lower, and the third lower still. Therefore, you can put the more important files on the faster partitions if transfer performance is important to you.

Seek Confinement: Seek times are roughly proportional to the linear distance across the face of the platter surfaces that the actuator must move the read/write heads. Using platters of smaller diameter improves seek time, all else being equal, and partitioning can have the same net effect. If you split a drive into multiple partitions, you restrict the read/write heads to a subsection of the physical disk when seeking, as long as you stay within the same partition. The tradeoff is that if you do a lot of moving data between partitions, or accessing multiple partitions simultaneously, you'll force the heads to "jump" back and forth between two completely different areas of the disk, reducing performance. Some who truly desire performance over all else will buy a hard disk with double the capacity that they need, partition it in two pieces and use only the first half! Or use the second half only for archiving infrequently-used data.

Defragmentation Time: Larger partitions tend to become full of, well, more data, obviously. :^) A larger partition can take much longer to defragment than a smaller one. Since fragmentation reduces performance, some people prefer to partition their drives to reduce defragmentation time, enabling them to do it more frequently.

I wouldnt partition the raptor.
Click to expand...
that would of course depend on what your using it for, but a dedicated swapfile partition might be a good idea, would depend on the overall strategy, and that is always a very personal thing, that typically changes over time anyway.

Plus, I dont believe you can ghost from one partition to another on the same drive. Again, you can use backup programs to zip up your favorites and documents on a nightly basis if you'd like.
Click to expand...

you cant restore an image to the same partition its been stored on, but if its on a different partition on the same drive you can

Zip??? LOL sorry
But I consider it unreliable antique tech, that you shouldnt waste your money on
Iomega has all but given up on zip, and migrated their main efforts to SAN\NAS,
Use CDR, DVD, and of course Tape is still viable under certain circumstances

Id also recommend that everyone read As the Disc Spins
 
I wish they made super fast small drives, just for the OS and Apps. Im talking like a 10gig raptor type thing. I don't need 36 gigs for my OS/Apps -but i want something fast!


As far as installing Windows on another Drive, nah. MY plan is to use the 200gb external drive I have to hold compressed images of every partition on evey PC I have. This way if something fails, I can just pop it on a new drive.
 
Originally posted by Ice Czar
there is always 15k 18GB SCSI ;)
Click to expand...

Well assuming im looking for a fast small sized drive for my OS and apps, you guys think im better off going with a SCSI card and SCSI HD for my OS, as opposed to Serial ATA card & HD?

So it'd be:

HARD DRIVE 1: 18GB 15K SCSI (C:) --OS/APPS
HARD DRIVE 2/3: 200GB 7200RPM RAID1 --DATA/MEDIA/DOWNLOADS


Id Have the SCSI HD on the SCSI Controller Card (PCI), the 2 200GBS on the RAID IDE Port, and 2 DVD Rom on the IDE Channels. Leaving the second IDE channel open.

The 200GB's would be mirrored for data security, and backed up once a month onto an external 200GB for file integerity. The External drive will also hold images of all my PC's boot partitions incase any of them fail. (Pop in new HD, drop image, good to go!)
 
if its within your budget go for it
dont bother with a U320 SCSI card, youd be unable to touch that bandwidth with a single HDD, just get a U160 compliant SCSI controller (make sure its PCI 32bit 33MHz compatible most are)

they will still kick a Raptor

http://www.storagereview.com/comparison.html

typically they employ 18GB platters with yeilds of 18, 36, or 73GB depending on the number of platters in the HDD

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200304/200304068C073x0_1.html
http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200304/20030429MAS3735_1.html
 
Cool, I think im gona go the SCSI route.

As far as the large Raid1 array, i found these super cheap high capacity hard drives:

http://store.yahoo.com/justdeals/gswl120gb5400.html

(I could wait for a deal online, but I have too many outstanding rebates as is)

Im thinking about geting three of these boys.

-1 for my Tivo
-2 for the RAID1 in my PC.

It's not 200 gigs, but I think ill be fine with 120GB's anyway.
Im gona get these first, and run my OS off my WD 80gb SE Hard drive until I get the SCSI card and drive. How does this SCSI drive look?

http://www.dljsystem.com/detailsSto.asp?productID=1306

It only has a 4MB buffer as opposed to my WD SE's 8mb buffer, but 15K > 7.2k

---------------------------------------------------
New Scheme:
---------------------------------------------------

[PC]

-HD1 (9 gig 15K scsi) [os/apps]
-HD2/3 (120 gig RAID1)[data/media]
-HD4 (external 200gb) [BACKUP!]


[Tivo]
-HD1 (120 gig Cheapo-5400rpm drive)


[Xbox]
-HD1 (80 gig WD SE)

----------------------------------------------------

(Until I get the SCSI the Xbox will be stock, and the WD SE will house my OS for my Windows PC)
 
http://www.dljsystem.com/detailsSto.asp?productID=1306

hmmm...
thats a first generation 15k Cheetah the X15
http://storagereview.com/articles/200006/20000601ST318451LW_1.html < same vintage

ftp://ftp.seagate.com/techsuppt/scsi/ST39251L.TXT
http://www.seagate.com/support/disc/iguides/scsi/29485b.pdf

the "current" crop of U160 Cheetahs
http://storagereview.com/articles/200103/20010313ST336705LW_1.html

it would benchmark lower (it most benchmarks) than a Raptor
but you could buy 2 for the price of a single 36GB Raptor
would make a hell of a RAID array

think I'll consider snagging 4>6 and a RAID card didnt realize those where so low, but I have a 64bit PCI bus, not sure how many you could put on a 32bit PCI RAID controller before you saturate the bus.
 
Originally posted by Ice Czar
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProdu...e=0&propertycode=&propertycodevalue=3333,2970

worth every bit of the extra $15 (per)

read
http://www.storagereview.com/php/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BrandMostReliable

a known good vendor with lots of HDD handling experience and experienced shipping channel, not to mention the extra spindle speed, the cheap 2mb cache model will suffice
Click to expand...


With Shipping factored in the WD's from newegg come out to be 30 bucks more then the the cheapo hard drives, so I guess Ill hit up new egg yet again!

This SCSI stuff is scaring me. So that vintange cheetah is no good? Any recomendations on a low priced PCI SCSI card? (Ill only be running ONE drive off it)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top