What should I do having 3 hard drives. Best way to optimize their use would be?

black dog · 01 Mar 2009

I would be using the 150gig drive for C drive, the 250 to store a cloned ( i use Acronis) copy of C drive and the 500 for storage.

premier69 · 03 Mar 2009

angryman said:

Personal experience over the years from building computers since the pentium 200mhz days to today and benchmarks.

I think you misunderstand my post however. For example, I personally think your system is as fast as your slowest HD, but this really depends where your data is. Once I took off my older 60gig HD from my new rig it blazed away, nothing was wrong with the older drive, it was just slower.

overall, less items to access, less power, cooler etc.

i have many hdd's

1 x 10.000rpm for OS with limited page file of 1 gig
1 x 1tb 7200rpm for downloads, temp storage and for the rest of the page file
1 x raid array for tv series
1 x raid array for movies and dvd/bluray rips of tv series
1 x 500gb usb drive for backups and temporary storage untill moved to other drives.

angryman · 03 Mar 2009

premier69 said:

i have many hdd's

1 x 10.000rpm for OS with limited page file of 1 gig
1 x 1tb 7200rpm for downloads, temp storage and for the rest of the page file
1 x raid array for tv series
1 x raid array for movies and dvd/bluray rips of tv series
1 x 500gb usb drive for backups and temporary storage untill moved to other drives.

Yes, too many for my opinion, like I said, its personal experience, the more HD's I had connected over various confiqurations of PC's I personally built I noticed the slower hard drive would slow its performance.

Just my 2 cents, doesn't make it law

premier69 · 03 Mar 2009

my experience is: I hate slow hdd's so a little raid fixes that, i have a good solid 129mb/s speeds from one raid to another.

but my computer is top notch so, no problems with speed and with win7 its a real treat with true virtual folders...pitty they distroyed that in vista

angryman · 03 Mar 2009

Yes, raid/SCSI helps, but for a casual user that is often past their understanding point.

Another thing I dislike for raid is the increased chance the HD's will fail, and if one fails, they both go. Maybe they've fixed that, but it was the case when I was looking at raid before I built this rig.

premier69 · 03 Mar 2009

no the failure part is still there...but i upgrade disks pretty often so atleast wear and tear isn't a concern.

johngalt · 03 Mar 2009

It also depends upon other statistics as well, size and RPM are not the only factor.

For example, take a look at my specs - care to guess which drive gets the stuff that I rarely ever access, that acts as a storage repository for all things I want to keep but never use on a daily basis?

Yep - the 250 GB 7200 rpm 8 MB Cache drive.

The other 2 are identical - and thus one gets used for OS and one for storage.

If the 250 GB HD has, say, a 16 MB cache and the 500 GB has an 8 MB cache (pretty much unheard of but I have seen worse) then you're better off using the 250 GB for storage that you access a *lot* and the 500 GB for storage that you don't access a lot - unless you have no way around it because of size constraints.

Finally, if you were to combine them together in any way, manner or fashion (such as RAID) your performance takes a hit as the fastest drives operate at the slowest one's speed.

Also, As for storing all your libraries on a separate disc - I have been doing that since XP, back then using nLite, and then in Vista, and now 7, using the method that DA outlined. All my data (Documents, Desktop, Downloads, Contacts, Pictures, etc) all reside on the second 500 GB HD, with the primary being used for OS and apps. In addition, I also use the second 500 GB drive as my games install drive, so my games can run uninterrupted without any UAC issues at all - which may be one reason I have much less problems with games in Vista and W7 than other folks, especially those stuck in a single drive configuration.