|
Advantages of having 2 HardDrives...
|
|
Senior Member
|
18. April 2007 @ 12:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hey people. Im wondering whether or not to have 2 harddrives or just one BIG one.
I was just wondering if one of you kind people *twinkles eyes* (LOL!) could explain to me the advantages (and disadvantages if there are any), of having 2 or more harddrives.
I already know of one of them...thats that if one of them screws up, you can boot from the other one and try to fix the other harddrive...right?
Be greatful for any input. thanks :)
P.S...my rig will be for gaming and storing etc etc so there will be alot of data stored...
Thanks ireland!![afterdawn legend]
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
18. April 2007 @ 14:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
theres not much difference bettween a big drive and two drives. i would probably just go with what is cheapest. also how much storage are you looking for?
GAMING COMPUTER - Intel q9550 @ 3.4ghz | EVGA GTX 260 core 216 | Gigabyte ds3l | 6gb Gskill DDR2 800 ram | Silverstone 700 watt psu | WD 640gb hdd | Seagate 300gb hdd | LG dvd burner | Samsung dvd burner | Antec p182 case | logitech 2.1 speakers | logitech g11 keyboard | Samsung 25.5in 1900x1200 monitor | 19in 1440x900 secondary monitor | Windows 7 64bit | SERVER - Gigabyte 785g motherboard | AMD Phenom 9650 | 6gb ram | three 1.5tb hdd | Seagate 1tb hdd | WD 750gb hdd | two 300gb hdd | Maxtor 200gb hdd | Ark rackmount case | CentOS 5.5
Steam name = "krj15489" alias = Jordan-k
|
Senior Member
|
18. April 2007 @ 14:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
Personally im looking for about 200gb or something....but im planning on selling it on ebay when its built, as a gaming rig...and crazy people want like 500gb. lol.
Thanks ireland!![afterdawn legend]
|
Senior Member
|
18. April 2007 @ 14:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
500 gigs i would just get 2 250 drives. the 500 are usualy more expensive. you could get 2 smaller drives for less than 1 bigger drive
GAMING COMPUTER - Intel q9550 @ 3.4ghz | EVGA GTX 260 core 216 | Gigabyte ds3l | 6gb Gskill DDR2 800 ram | Silverstone 700 watt psu | WD 640gb hdd | Seagate 300gb hdd | LG dvd burner | Samsung dvd burner | Antec p182 case | logitech 2.1 speakers | logitech g11 keyboard | Samsung 25.5in 1900x1200 monitor | 19in 1440x900 secondary monitor | Windows 7 64bit | SERVER - Gigabyte 785g motherboard | AMD Phenom 9650 | 6gb ram | three 1.5tb hdd | Seagate 1tb hdd | WD 750gb hdd | two 300gb hdd | Maxtor 200gb hdd | Ark rackmount case | CentOS 5.5
Steam name = "krj15489" alias = Jordan-k
|
Senior Member
|
18. April 2007 @ 14:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
Thanks mate.
Thanks ireland!![afterdawn legend]
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
18. April 2007 @ 14:44 |
Link to this message
|
"Some people have no damn sense." - Nephilim, March 27 2007 @ 18:08 |
Newbie
|
18. April 2007 @ 16:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'd go for one big drive, because two drives also use double the power, and in the end the amount of money that you "save" from buying two smaller drives is a very small amount, which isn't really worth the hassle.
|
Senior Member
|
18. April 2007 @ 23:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
Oh ok ill do that :) Thanks.
Was just wondering why i hear of people who have multiple drives... thanks.
Thanks ireland!![afterdawn legend]
|
|
Auslander
AfterDawn Addict
|
19. April 2007 @ 07:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
two drives in general is, for me, a redundancy thing. i have one drive partitioned with a small boot section for windows, then a large storage partition, and i ghost the entire hard drive to another physical drive every now and then. it's a good fail-safe.
|
Senior Member
|
19. April 2007 @ 09:05 |
Link to this message
|
you can run raid with 2 or more drives, if your mobo will allow you. this will give you much faster seek, read and write times as you have twice as much hadrware doing the job than if you only have 1 big hard drive. there is also the downside to this setup, if one of the drives in this kind of array fails you lose all you data. raid 0 (striped)
you could also run another type of array where the same data is writen to both drives so you always have a backup in case of a harddrive failure. raid 1 (mirrored)
wiki has the answers
edit to fix link
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. April 2007 @ 09:05
|
Senior Member
|
19. April 2007 @ 09:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
Oh i see! That would be cool if i could do that raid mirrored thing.....
Ill try that out.
Thanks ireland!![afterdawn legend]
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
19. April 2007 @ 10:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
Personally i have 4 internal drives and one external. I use them to store different things and always need the extra space. So multiple drives are a must for me becaue one drive (at least one i can afford that is 300GB or so) would just not have enough space. I am a pack rat of sorts and back up a lot of thigs and store them on hard drives just in case.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. April 2007 @ 10:29
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
19. April 2007 @ 15:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
To me the subject is not about NOT having multiple Hard-drives. Its about what would be better at once. The way I feel is that multiple hard-drives are a good thing. But the way I bought my hard-drive(s) is that I bought the biggest one I could get with the best deal. So in my case a 500 Gb seagate drive with Sata 3G and 16mb buffer for $140. Good deal and only used one spot in my harddrive cage area. So I have lots of room to expand.
"Some people have no damn sense." - Nephilim, March 27 2007 @ 18:08
|
|
The_Fiend
Suspended permanently
|
19. April 2007 @ 18:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
Multiple drives = good, IF you are using large drives.
If you're just using multiple drives because it's cheaper, then you're just being an idiot, IMNHO, because they use double the power *which = more "wear and tear" on the PSU*, take up twice the space, twice the amount of connectors, twice the heat, which might need to be compensated with extra fans or water cooling...
ETC ETC.
irc://arcor.de.eu.dal.net/wasted_hate
Wanna tell me off, go ahead.
I dare ya !
|
|
2colors
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
19. April 2007 @ 18:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
When I bought my computer it came with a 500gb drive. I added 1 internal 250gb. I've also got 2 external 500gb, 2 external 300gb, and 1 80gb(my backup for "C". Why? I store all my music on one, movies on 3(1 for kids,1 for westerns,1 for all the rest. I've also heard some process's can be faster and easier on your drives when your not making 1 drive do all the work. DvdRebuilder I use 3 drives for. 1 has the VIDEO_TS folder, 1 for working and 1 for output.
We never stop learning.
|
Senior Member
|
19. April 2007 @ 23:09 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yeh the reason ISNT to save money, im not partcularly bothered about the money aspect of it, if i want something ill just have to save and get it lol.
I kind of like the idea of storing different things on different drives....very organised.
Tell me, would it in anyway be faster having the films and other large files and media stored on the drive that does NOT have the OS installed on it?
So if i had an extra drive with all my media on it, then the main drive was pretty much empty (pretty much :P).
Would this be faster at all? (stab in the dark)
Thanks ireland!![afterdawn legend]
|
Senior Member
|
20. April 2007 @ 04:23 |
Link to this message
|
with hdd's being so cheap right now i cant understand why anyone would get one smaller than 250gb tbh but ohers may dissagree.
if you want a fast, simple sollution with money not being a real issue get a 75gb raptor for your c drive as it is (along with its 150gb bigger brother) the fastest desktop hd you can get, get the 150 if you can afford it as it works out less cash per gb. then get a big 500/750gb one with sata 300 interface and 16mb cache for your media/data drive (d).
try this link for a performace guide with some newwer hard drives.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
20. April 2007 @ 04:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
I agree with above. I have my C: drive with the OS and the only thing i store on it are programs that run on windows.
The other drives i have are all split up. I have one for movies (external as my DVD player can play from USB hard drives), one for Xbox and PS2 back ups, one for Xbox 360 back ups, one for PC games, then one which i split into two partitions for various stuff, like i save all my EXE setup files for every program i set up. Then every so often i burn them to a CD. That way if i have to re-install Windows i can easily re-install all my programs without searching the internet for weeks.
|
Senior Member
|
20. April 2007 @ 08:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
marsey99.
im interested in your method.
Only....i need you to explain a little better please.
Ive heard about SATA, but i dont know what it means really...
And the 75/150gp Raptor is alot faster than the huge SATA one?
Why is this? What speed/spec is it?
I know yur right, i just want to understand lol. :D
Thanks ireland!![afterdawn legend]
|
Senior Member
|
20. April 2007 @ 08:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
Are they the same as SCSI drives? I just checked on ebuyer and they are like 10000 RPM as opposed to the larger storage which are like 7200rpm...
Thanks ireland!![afterdawn legend]
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
20. April 2007 @ 09:16 |
Link to this message
|
|
FInd the right offer, and 500GB drives can actually be cheaper than two 250s, at least in the UK. I can't add that much topic to this discussion because I have 7 hard drives!
Food for thought, the bigger drives are typically the newest models, and are quieter and slightly faster than previous models.
As for Raptors, there's no doubt they're fast, but there's also no doubt they're expensive, especially if you have a lot of data to store. If you want absolute performance, 2 150GB Raptors in RAID0 is the way to do it, but you're paying for three 500GB drives for the sake of getting only 300GB from it. One hybrid solution is to use a Raptor for loading your OS quickly, and using normal drives to store your files, which is what I did. The smaller the raptor, the worse value you get though, my 37GB version cost £2.00 per gigabyte. 500GB drives are now 15p per gigabyte! The 37GB Raptors (can't speak for the other versions) are also very noisy.
Apart from a Seagate Barracuda 250GB I've had for a while, I mainly use WD and Samsung drives, I've had good experience with them, and they're most often quiet (with the exception of my two 250GB Caviars, but they're two years old now).
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 20. April 2007 @ 09:21
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
20. April 2007 @ 13:16 |
Link to this message
|
Well sata cables are much smaller, I would say maybe an 1/8 of the size of a IDE cable. Here is a site with all the info you could ever need on SATA. The most important article for you to read would most likely be the one about SATA 3Gb/s a.k.a SATA2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SATA
"Some people have no damn sense." - Nephilim, March 27 2007 @ 18:08
|
Senior Member
|
20. April 2007 @ 13:37 |
Link to this message
|
Thanks sammorris and peainapod:D
Sam, i like your idea. I might get a 75gb Raptor drive just to load my OS, then a 500gb SATA drive to store things on.
OR i might get the raptor and 2 250gb's, to store programs and things on one, and films on the other.
:D
What dya reckon to my idea then? well...sams idea haha. :D
like : http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/119026/rb/27113952058
..for my OS drive. What ya think?
Thanks ireland!![afterdawn legend]
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
20. April 2007 @ 15:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
Can I recommend a 74GB Raptor and 2 250GB Samsung Spinpoints? :-)
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Auslander
AfterDawn Addict
|
20. April 2007 @ 15:06 |
Link to this message
|
|
whatever you do, have a separate drive system to back everything up to.
|
