Ideal W7 disk setup

[saverio]

In anticipation of a fresh install of W7 when the retailbox ships, I'm playing with various configurations for storage and looking at various scenarios.

I'm thinking of ditching my RAID 0 array and looking at setting the disk controller up as AHCI now that 7 supports this out of the box.

I'm thinking of the following:

Drive 1 Sytem and programs

Drive 2 pagefile (what sort of capacity woudl suit this?)

Drive 3 User files perhaps partitioned for x2 user (or would a drive for each user be better)

Drive 4 dumping ground for pictures, downloads etc.

What are your thoughts, and if you had say two to four drives kicking around how would you organise your PC?

 

[zigzag3143]

ideal w7 setup

In anticipation of a fresh install of W7 when the retailbox ships, I'm playing with various configurations for storage and looking at various scenarios.

I'm thinking of ditching my RAID 0 array and looking at setting the disk controller up as AHCI now that 7 supports this out of the box.

I'm thinking of the following:

Drive 1 Sytem and programs

Drive 2 pagefile (what sort of capacity woudl suit this?)

Drive 3 User files perhaps partitioned for x2 user (or would a drive for each user be better)

Drive 4 dumping ground for pictures, downloads etc.

What are your thoughts, and if you had say two to four drives kicking around how would you organise your PC?

Hi
Ok drive 1 yes, drive 2 sure if you use a pagefile (small), drive 3 ok, drive 4, ok. what abt a drive for backups?

KEn

 

[saverio]

I suppose either drive 4 or an external. Is there any advantage to having pagefile on it's own volume I wonder?

 

[Orbital Shark]

I suppose either drive 4 or an external. Is there any advantage to having pagefile on it's own volume I wonder?

I've read that if you are going to have a seperate drive for a page file it does run faster. You could use your download drive, and personally, i'd set your page file at 1.5x you memory as i've also read that this can really help

   Note

If you are just partitioning seperate drives then page file performance will not increase as it's still using the same physical drive, if you have a seperate physical drive then you will gain PF performance

If I find the source information then i'll post here too

 

[Antman]

...Drive 1 Sytem and programs

Drive 2 pagefile (what sort of capacity woudl suit this?)

Drive 3 User files perhaps partitioned for x2 user (or would a drive for each user be better)

Drive 4 dumping ground for pictures, downloads etc...

Use volume, not drive, and this is just like my setup. I use RAID0 volumes for 1 and 2. Page volume can also contain every temp file/folder you can wring out of the system drive. The best method is to WAIK the install (something I have not mastered in 7).

Page file size is debatable.

Individual drives/parts for Users might be overthinking. You can protect a folder as easily as a drive so I don't understand your goal. Part'ing the users doesn't give you portability - so I miss the point.

In addition, I have a RAID5 array (soon to be RAID6) for archiving. My RAID5 is internal but could just as easily be elsewhere, NAS or eSATA. I house it internally in an Addtronics 4-in-3 bay just so I don't have to boot a file server for access to the archive.

 

[saverio]

I see Antman.

I don't understand the term WAIK so if you could tell me more I'd very much appreciate it.

I suppose the moving of users onto a different drive just came from my old habit of keeping all my personal files separate from system volumes etc. as for partitioning the volume I suppose it just goes back to giving users their own physical space.

I suppose I had this vision of the main OS disk just being as pure as it could be without clutter from everything else, and thus making for a speedy system but I suppose even a programme on a separate drive will still install into C directories anyway so I understand when you say what is to be gained from this.

I'm running raid at the moment, and after a bios update I didn't have the expertise to recover the system as it said that a boot disc couldn't be found and so I just re-installed everything again from a system image.

 

[HerrKaLeun]

I had a similar idea. Right now I have RIAD 1 with 2 partitions (one ofor data, one for all installations incl. windows) for redundancy. I make occasional backups on a USB drive.

If SSD would be cheaper I would just keep all data on the RAID 1 and put the system and all installations on the SSD. OR is there a benefit of having W7 and all application installations on separate drives? the problem is, with all my isntalls I needed 120+ GB and that is outrageous expensive with SSD. but I like the SSD solution better than having 2 separate disks for pagefile and W7

the only thing I needed to speed up would be booting up and possibly starting AutoCAD and other heavy applications. The rest is fast (WD Black Caviar HDD)

 

[Antman]

WAIK - Windows Automated Installation Kit 7

You can set the environment variables for USERPROFILES (and PROGRAMFILES if you wish) to whatever drive letter you choose. It is the only way to get the registry and most temp/log files off of C:, and it is the ONLY way to get ALL USER files off of C:.

You can also install an application set, apply registry mods, run post install commands and install exactly what drivers you want. In XP, it is how I was able to install RAID drivers without "Press F6". Of course, that is not such a hassle in 7, but you can still do it.

I do not recommend placing PROGRAMFILES on another volume. This can create challenges with repair processes. There is not that much performance gain, if any, with the advent of SuperFetch.

I first started using this concept in XP when I overwrote Documents and Settings once. It was much easier in XP. I am working on a WAIK disc but haven't focused much on it since my first attempt was an epic fail - I love these terms, dudes.

Sorry to hear that you chose to re-install following the BIOS update. It may have been possible to resurrect your boot. Water under the bridge.

RAID0 is risky, but with all of the user data on a separate volume + effective archival practices, you will be fine. Again, I RAID0 everything with system/background I/O. I use Karen's Replicator to copy all user data to a RAID5 every few days, or after a significant addition/change of data.

RAID6 is in my near term future. You can make donations via PayPal at my website.

 

[pparks1]

What are your thoughts, and if you had say two to four drives kicking around how would you organise your PC?

I'm probably alone in my own simplistic world, but i likely wouldn't put multiple drives into a single workstation computer unless I really had a need for massive amounts of disk space.

I don't like or use RAID0 because the failure potential is 2x and I just don't seem to have a need for the performance shown mostly within benchmark utilities to justify the potential for lost data.

I don't do a RAID1 mirror either at home...because I honestly feel that many files are deleted on accident and a RAID1 doesn't really prevent that from happening. I just prefer to backup regularly using something like robocopy to an external drive..which I can keep offsite in case my house burns to the ground.

While you can get a performance increase from having the page file on another drive....I'm not sure with the speed of drives today if the benefits are really that obvious anymore. I'm sure some can make the argument for it...but over the course of a day...I just don't think that the real world performance gains are worth it.

So, I would rather just have a single drive, consuming the least power and leading the least amount of cable clutter in my box. I do often keep a second hard drive mounted as a "sandbox" area and when a new OS comes out, I simply move the power and the SATA cable over to the playground OS and run from there.

 

[mikinho]

Here is my setup on most of my systems

Volume 1 - Single 60 GB SSD broken into 2 partitions. C: [System]; D: [Apps]. On 1 of my systems I have it as two volumes since I had a couple smaller SSDs laying around.

Volume 2 - Pagefile, P: [Pagefile]

Note: Always keep at least the minimal appropiate (will try to find a reference for the proper size, I believe it is 256 MB but I honestly can't think if this is for 32-bit or 64-bit) sized pagefile on your system drive as well for your kernel mode or full memory dump analysis.

Volume 3 - Data - G: [Data] On my server this is a RAID6 setup. On my HTPC a single disk. I use WAIK to move my User folder to this drive. You can do it after the fact as well with a registry change and low level file copies (I wrote a tool for this).

I don't have my system or apps in a redundacy setup because it is honestly easier for me to reformat and reconfigure. I have my base setup built from WAIK and all my data on my redudant data volume.

So for your setup it depends on the size of your drives and whether you had a backup system in place. If you had a backup system in place I'd either 1- One drive for System\Apps, one for page (if the drive is small) and one for data, or 2- Two drives setup as RAID0 for System\Apps\Pagefile, two drives as RAID1 for Data.

 

[mikinho]

Btw, I don't recommend using different partitions\drive for System\Apps. I do it mostly out of habit. Most of my products I develop are for servers. In a server environment the performance of having a seperate app drive is worth it as the disk I\O is common bottleneck in modern applications. I'm slightly anal (well very anal to be honest) and like all my systems to be configured the same even if it offers no performance benefit.

For a typical user and home use keeping your apps on a separate volume really offers no benefits as Antman mentions.

 

[cricket]

page file only on 4gb usb device would it help?

 

[mikinho]

page file only on 4gb usb device would it help?

You never want to have your pagefile on a removable drive. USB devices can be removed without warning (physically or even with software problems), your pagefile can contain data that has not been committed or does not exist elsewhere and will crash your system if removed.

USB for ReadyBoost is great as it is used to contain file sections that have already been read from disk into RAM to store as a cache. It is fast read but if needed can go back to the pagefile or re-read from original location.

Edit: I also don't think Windows will let you specify a removable device for paging without hacks. This is one of those times (quite common actually) that just because a hack\tweak exists doesn't mean you should do it.

 

[pparks1]

Edit: I also don't think Windows will you specify a removable device for paging without hacks. This is one of those times (quite common actually) that just because a hack\tweak exists doesn't mean you should do it.

I think you are right. I once tried to put 4 USB flash drives in a RAID0 stripe to have the fastest portable storage that would fit in my pocket...but the system would not allow it.

 

[mikinho]

An interesting read and mostly on-topic for this thread: if (ms) blog++; : Tweaking for Performance (Disks & Volumes).

His process wouldn't work well for me but would work well for quite a few. Just another idea.

 

[saverio]

thanks for all your input so far, it's been truly educational.

I'm going to try going onto one drive to see if there is any appreciable slowdown, i'm using this opportunity to have a play so that when 7 retail hits my mat i've got everything ready and my mind in order.

I've looked at SSD, but the price is so prohibitive at the moment, and currently i have x2 velociraptor 300gb in raid 0.

I'm going to take out discs 3+4 as they are 7200 WD discs 250gb each, and just leave my WD caviar green 500gb dump/music/iso's and backup disc.

I was toying with mucking around with another OS (OS X) on the second velociraptor if I go to single disk tests for a while, but when retail comes along, i'll look for a nice use for it, perhaps either put it back in raid or use it for music or images.

I'm quite anal about backups (since a mac workstation shat it's cheap and nasty fujitsu drive and wiped out a week of solid video editing work ) doing a disc image and also an easy transfer backup 1 -2 times a week, or after any new software installation.

I'll probably not move the users folders after Antman's and others comments, and just make sure I religiously backup.

Which leads me onto... the latest disc image I have is of the raided volume (600gb) can I restore this onto one drive (300gb - but the data and files come to only 180gb) or does it actually need the phyical speifications of the volume originally imaged?

 

[Antman]

... the latest disc image I have is of the raided volume (600gb) can I restore this onto one drive (300gb - but the data and files come to only 180gb) or does it actually need the phyical speifications of the volume originally imaged?

You do not need to match the specs. If it fits, it's OK.

 

[mlevy]

With the way 7 works with being able to add a directory to the Libraries, I don't feel it's needed to install the OS in such a way that it permanently moves the location of certain files, such as My Documents. Right now, my PC is set up with two 250 GB drives, one is my OS drive (partitioned 200/50 for XP/7, should have given more to 7), the other contains my data files. I then added the folder with my data files to the Documents library.

Regarding moving apps off the system drive. Look into how the filesystem handles Symbolic Links. It allows you to link a folder from one drive to another. Kind of like mounting a partition in an empty folder but it doesn't have to be a whole partition.

Example, say you want your OS on a standard HDD but want all your game files on an SSD, you'd make a game folder in the Program Files folder then link it using a symbolic link to a folder on the SSD.

Backups. I've found the hard way that Windows 7 will NOT do an image backup to a removable drive. I have a 500 GB MyBook that I can NOT do a system image to. I think I'll plan a 1.5-2 TB internal for this purpose when I build my Win 7 rig.

 

[DJG]

Try this setup:

- Keep the WD 250s.

- Create a 120GB RAID 0 volume using the two Velos and the two WDs (4 spindles - it'll fly, forget about the 7200/10K RPM stuff). Make two 60GB partitions for two boot OSs if you want. Or make it a 60GB volume for one OS and have more left over (see below).

- You still have ~ 110-130GB x4 - create a RAID 5 volume with the rest and use it for image backups & stuff, fault tolerant. Yes, you lose from each Velo, which get reduced to 250, but you gained 250x2 from the WDs, plus speed and a fault-tolerant image repository.

Because the RAID 5 is used mostly for backup, the shared spindles with the RAID 0 won't affect system speed normally which will be fast with the 4 spindles.

All in theory, of course, although I use something similar, but with more and bigger drives.

 

[saverio]

DJG, mlevy thanks for your input.

I think I will do as you suggest. And use the velo's in raid.
As it is, I've found someone to take the WD's off my hands and I think they were causing me a few spin up and chkdisk problems which i'd not encountered before they were installed.

Vendors here in the UK are starting to discount v-raptors as the technofashion youth are all pestering for SSD's. I still can't justify the vast sums per GB of an SSD, and until I start seeing enterprise use them I'm going to throttle back. I've yet to see a server farm invest in any despite the figures claimed and that makes me nervous.

I like the idea of using the second partitions as raid 5 - so in theory - I could have 4 or 5 drives, partition them and use the primary partion blocks as OS / programs and the second partion for image backups and stuff as you say..

So for the 500GB volume I could lose it altogether