Opinion: How would you utilize two HDDs

loaba · 06 Feb 2012

DeaconFrost said:

I have three OCZ PSUs, from 500W to 700W. The most expensive was $60. If you shop around and stick to quality brands, you can get a good deal.

Newegg.com - OCZ ModXStream Pro 500W Modular High Performance Power Supply compatible with Intel Sandybridge Core i3 i5 i7 and AMD Phenom

The $10.00 promo runs through today, but I do hate rebates.

DeaconFrost · 06 Feb 2012

That's one of the PSUs I have. Their rebates have been great, although they come in the form of prepaid Visa cards.

loaba · 06 Feb 2012

After testing the 1TB and the 500GB drives, it would appear that the 1TB drive is just a bit faster.

Test file size: 1000mb
1TB: Read 119.5 / Write 116.2
500GB: Read 96.99 / Write 95.24

I wonder what the results would be if I were to RAID the 500's. That might be the very best way way to get maximum efficiency.

Thoughts?

ignatzatsonic · 06 Feb 2012

There are many versions of RAID. Which are you considering?

RAID has kind of fallen into disfavor for the typical user, at least on these forums.

With so little difference in performance between those 2 drives, I would base my decision on other factors----how much storage space do you require for data? What is your backup scheme? How old are those drives? Etcetera.

loaba · 06 Feb 2012

ignatzatsonic said:

There are many versions of RAID. Which are you considering?

In terms of performance gain (if any), I'd be looking at striping, or Raid 0.

ignatzatsonic said:

RAID has kind of fallen into disfavor for the typical user, at least on these forums.

I used to run Raid 0 all the time but have never done so on my current box.

ignatzatsonic said:

With so little difference in performance between those 2 drives, I would base my decision on other factors----how much storage space do you require for data? What is your backup scheme? How old are those drives? Etcetera.

The 1TB drive is less than 2yrs old while the 500GB units are probably more than 3yrs old.

What I'm really trying to do is simply separate Windows from everything else (System drive and a Data drive.) Looking at my current usage for each drive, it seems like Windows could happily live on one of the 500's and data could live on the 1TB.

As per a previous suggestion, getting a USB enclosure for the 1TB and using the 2x 500's (non-Raid) for System and Data might be the very best configuration.

DeaconFrost · 06 Feb 2012

I wouldn't consider RAID at this point. That hype died out a while ago. If the two drives are close in performance, you could use a 500 GB for C and the TB for D. Then in time, if you go with an SSD, you can move your TB drive over to be D for data storage.

ignatzatsonic · 06 Feb 2012

loaba said:

Looking at my current usage for each drive, it seems like Windows could happily live on one of the 500's and data could live on the 1TB.

I'd agree---but.

The 1 TB is younger and may last longer before a failure?

Which drive would you prefer drop dead: your Windows drive or your data drive?

Shouldn't matter much if you have a decent backup strategy in place.

But if you have 400 plus GB of data, it's pretty tough to put it on a 500 GB drive.

loaba · 06 Feb 2012

ignatzatsonic said:

The 1 TB is younger and may last longer before a failure?

Which drive would you prefer drop dead: your Windows drive or your data drive?

Shouldn't matter much if you have a decent backup strategy in place.

But if you have 400 plus GB of data, it's pretty tough to put it on a 500 GB drive.

In terms of security, having Windows on the 500 isn't bad at all. If the 500 dies, then I install its twin and keep on rolling. Data on the newer (and therefore more reliable) 1TB drive makes more sense.