Multiple hard-drives instead of one

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 13:37:10 -0800, Sam <retired RemoveThis @home.net> wrote:

>I'm planning on building a new computer for my wife. A friend of hers
>told her that buying 2 - 250gig hard-drives would be much faster than
>just getting one 500gig drive. No RAID configurations are anticipated.
>
>I'm doubtful, though. I'd think that unless you just happen to access
>data that exists on both drives at the same time, that there really
>wouldn't be much difference. It also seems to me that 2 - 250gig drives
>would use more power and generate more heat than a single 500gig drive.
>
>So, is there a correct answer? Or, does it really make no difference at
>all.
>
It's always better for recovery and backup purposes to have multiple
drives, unless you are willing to lose all data when a single drive
fails.

--Vic
 >> Stay informed about: Multiple hard-drives instead of one 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Multiple hard-drives instead of one 

"Sam" <retired.TakeThisOut@home.net> wrote in message
news:6jkt035vv3oseea2j29r7shllc67sphe78@4ax.com...
> I'm planning on building a new computer for my wife. A friend of hers
> told her that buying 2 - 250gig hard-drives would be much faster than
> just getting one 500gig drive. No RAID configurations are anticipated.
>
> I'm doubtful, though. I'd think that unless you just happen to access
> data that exists on both drives at the same time, that there really
> wouldn't be much difference. It also seems to me that 2 - 250gig drives
> would use more power and generate more heat than a single 500gig drive.
>
> So, is there a correct answer? Or, does it really make no difference at
> all.
>


The number of non-RAID drives will not make any difference in speed..
but I'd probably use two drives anyway...
A 2nd drive could be used to backup data ...though of course you'd still
need to back up to CD or DVD



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 >> Stay informed about: Multiple hard-drives instead of one 

Unless you are using RAID, the speed of one 500 GB vs. two 250 GB hard
drives is the same. And there is never "the same data on both drives "
without RAID.
There is one exception to what I said above. If you buy a smaller
harddrive, say 60 GB, and mount JUST the OS on that, and then install all
the other software on a large harddrive, say 320 GB, then that WOULD speed
up the computer

--

DaveW

___________
"Sam" <retired RemoveThis @home.net> wrote in message
news:6jkt035vv3oseea2j29r7shllc67sphe78@4ax.com...
> I'm planning on building a new computer for my wife. A friend of hers
> told her that buying 2 - 250gig hard-drives would be much faster than
> just getting one 500gig drive. No RAID configurations are anticipated.
>
> I'm doubtful, though. I'd think that unless you just happen to access
> data that exists on both drives at the same time, that there really
> wouldn't be much difference. It also seems to me that 2 - 250gig drives
> would use more power and generate more heat than a single 500gig drive.
>
> So, is there a correct answer? Or, does it really make no difference at
> all.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Sam
> --
> "We have met the enemy, and he is us" -- Pogo (1970)
 >> Stay informed about: Multiple hard-drives instead of one 

> >
> >The number of non-RAID drives will not make any difference in speed..
> >but I'd probably use two drives anyway...
> >A 2nd drive could be used to backup data ...though of course you'd still
> >need to back up to CD or DVD
>
> Currently she backs up nightly to an external hard-drive. So, the second
> drive would only be used for data, etc. She does web-pages and wanted to
> have her projects separate. I know we could partition a large hard-drive
> to create the same effect. However, her friend insists that having two
> separate drives is the fastest way to go.
>
> So, does this scenario change the equation at all?
>
>

Well two drives will not make the system faster...
so as long as the user is backing up every day...might as well just get one
drive...

it's the same amount of storage but less money



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 >> Stay informed about: Multiple hard-drives instead of one 

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 13:37:10 -0800, Sam <retired DeleteThis @home.net>
wrote:

>I'm planning on building a new computer for my wife. A friend of hers
>told her that buying 2 - 250gig hard-drives would be much faster than
>just getting one 500gig drive. No RAID configurations are anticipated.
>
>I'm doubtful, though. I'd think that unless you just happen to access
>data that exists on both drives at the same time, that there really
>wouldn't be much difference.

True, but it's not hard to do that. Pagefile on 2nd drive,
apps on 2nd drive, data on a drive opposite the apps, etc.



>It also seems to me that 2 - 250gig drives
>would use more power and generate more heat than a single 500gig drive.

Negligably so.


>
>So, is there a correct answer? Or, does it really make no difference at
>all.

2 x 250 is better than one 500
People working with larger files and heavy multitasking may
even benefit from 3 or more drives.
 >> Stay informed about: Multiple hard-drives instead of one 

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:52:39 -0500, "philo"
<philo.DeleteThis@privacy.net> wrote:

>
>"Sam" <retired.DeleteThis@home.net> wrote in message
>news:6jkt035vv3oseea2j29r7shllc67sphe78@4ax.com...
>> I'm planning on building a new computer for my wife. A friend of hers
>> told her that buying 2 - 250gig hard-drives would be much faster than
>> just getting one 500gig drive. No RAID configurations are anticipated.
>>
>> I'm doubtful, though. I'd think that unless you just happen to access
>> data that exists on both drives at the same time, that there really
>> wouldn't be much difference. It also seems to me that 2 - 250gig drives
>> would use more power and generate more heat than a single 500gig drive.
>>
>> So, is there a correct answer? Or, does it really make no difference at
>> all.
>>
>
>
>The number of non-RAID drives will not make any difference in speed..

For many uses, two non-raided drives are faster than two
raided.
 >> Stay informed about: Multiple hard-drives instead of one 

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:22:55 -0500, "philo"
<philo DeleteThis @privacy.net> wrote:

>
>
>> >
>> >The number of non-RAID drives will not make any difference in speed..
>> >but I'd probably use two drives anyway...
>> >A 2nd drive could be used to backup data ...though of course you'd still
>> >need to back up to CD or DVD
>>
>> Currently she backs up nightly to an external hard-drive. So, the second
>> drive would only be used for data, etc. She does web-pages and wanted to
>> have her projects separate. I know we could partition a large hard-drive
>> to create the same effect. However, her friend insists that having two
>> separate drives is the fastest way to go.
>>
>> So, does this scenario change the equation at all?
>>
>>
>
>Well two drives will not make the system faster...

Yes it will, because it is never a case that only one file
is being read. Load any application, you get windows files
and the app files loading. You also get pagefile access
even if only to allocate memory that goes unused. Two
drives are unquestionably faster than one.
 >> Stay informed about: Multiple hard-drives instead of one 

<snip>
> >
> >Well two drives will not make the system faster...
>
> Yes it will, because it is never a case that only one file
> is being read. Load any application, you get windows files
> and the app files loading. You also get pagefile access
> even if only to allocate memory that goes unused. Two
> drives are unquestionably faster than one.


Most of my machines are set up with mutiple removable drives
and I can easily have up to three drives in the machines.
whether I have one drive in the machine or three drives...I've never noticed
any change in overall performance.

Even if there was a minor performance boost while accessing two files on two
seperate drives...
I'm not sure why you made the assumption that the files being accessed would
be on two seperate drives...
the OP already made that reference in his first post



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 >> Stay informed about: Multiple hard-drives instead of one 

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:55:22 -0600, "philo"
<philo.TakeThisOut@privacy.net> wrote:

>
><snip>
>> >
>> >Well two drives will not make the system faster...
>>
>> Yes it will, because it is never a case that only one file
>> is being read. Load any application, you get windows files
>> and the app files loading. You also get pagefile access
>> even if only to allocate memory that goes unused. Two
>> drives are unquestionably faster than one.
>
>
>Most of my machines are set up with mutiple removable drives
>and I can easily have up to three drives in the machines.
>whether I have one drive in the machine or three drives...I've never noticed
>any change in overall performance.


I do, but I'm wondering if you have the I/O divided between
them? It would seem not if you can so easily remove a drive
without breaking applications/links/etc.


>
>Even if there was a minor performance boost while accessing two files on two
>seperate drives...

I would say closer to large performance boost, not minor,
but it does depend on what you're doing with the system, how
long it's been on, how large the jobs are not only to the
extent of how much data I/O is ongoing, but also how much
the filecache is flushed to make room for those jobs-
meaning rereads of data again.


>I'm not sure why you made the assumption that the files being accessed would
>be on two seperate drives...

I made the assumption that it "can" be, it is a choice...
and since the post was addressing potential performance
differences, we would have to consider both alternatives in
a reasonably, optimal configuration.




>the OP already made that reference in his first post

Yes but it was stated as if such an access would be
unexpected, when it is instead quite constant by merely
considering the usage when placing files.
 >> Stay informed about: Multiple hard-drives instead of one 

"kony" <spam.DeleteThis@spam.com> wrote in message
news:5q0u03t4vsm1hvn4kci9gmfudnmq5io8gc@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:55:22 -0600, "philo"
> <philo.DeleteThis@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >
> ><snip>
> >> >
> >> >Well two drives will not make the system faster...
> >>
> >> Yes it will, because it is never a case that only one file
> >> is being read. Load any application, you get windows files
> >> and the app files loading. You also get pagefile access
> >> even if only to allocate memory that goes unused. Two
> >> drives are unquestionably faster than one.
> >
> >
> >Most of my machines are set up with mutiple removable drives
> >and I can easily have up to three drives in the machines.
> >whether I have one drive in the machine or three drives...I've never
noticed
> >any change in overall performance.
>
>
> I do, but I'm wondering if you have the I/O divided between
> them? It would seem not if you can so easily remove a drive
> without breaking applications/links/etc.
>
>
>

My removable drives are all IDE...
They are *not* hot swapable...the machine needs to be off when I switch
them.

If there is any difference in machine performance with or without the extra
drives...
it's sure not anything I've ever noticed !



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 >> Stay informed about: Multiple hard-drives instead of one 

Multiple drives are faster than a single drive. Ideally you would have the OS, applications, data and paging file each on a separate physical drive. This is not always practical. Some things to consider are the fact that large drives tend to be faster than small drives (due mainly to higher density), and it is a lot easier to manage disk space on a single large drive. If you decide to use two drives put the OS on one drive, applications and data on the other drive, and the paging file split on both drives. The OS drive can also be used to backup data from the other drive. If you have a small fast drive you can use it for a paging file. I have an old 10,000 RPM SCSI drive that has slower sequential read than my much bigger IDE drives, but its faster access makes it ideal for a paging file.

Sam wrote:
>
> I'm planning on building a new computer for my wife. A friend of hers
> told her that buying 2 - 250gig hard-drives would be much faster than
> just getting one 500gig drive. No RAID configurations are anticipated.
>
> I'm doubtful, though. I'd think that unless you just happen to access
> data that exists on both drives at the same time, that there really
> wouldn't be much difference. It also seems to me that 2 - 250gig drives
> would use more power and generate more heat than a single 500gig drive.
>
> So, is there a correct answer? Or, does it really make no difference at
> all.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Sam
> --
> "We have met the enemy, and he is us" -- Pogo (1970)

--
Mike Walsh
West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S.A.
 >> Stay informed about: Multiple hard-drives instead of one 

philo wrote:
> "kony" <spam DeleteThis @spam.com> wrote in message
> news:5q0u03t4vsm1hvn4kci9gmfudnmq5io8gc@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:55:22 -0600, "philo"
> > <philo DeleteThis @privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > Well two drives will not make the system faster...
> > > >
> > > > Yes it will, because it is never a case that only one file
> > > > is being read. Load any application, you get windows files
> > > > and the app files loading. You also get pagefile access
> > > > even if only to allocate memory that goes unused. Two
> > > > drives are unquestionably faster than one.
> > >
> > >
> > > Most of my machines are set up with mutiple removable drives
> > > and I can easily have up to three drives in the machines.
> > > whether I have one drive in the machine or three drives...I've
> > > never noticed any change in overall performance.
> >
> >
> > I do, but I'm wondering if you have the I/O divided between
> > them? It would seem not if you can so easily remove a drive
> > without breaking applications/links/etc.
> >
> >
> >
>
> My removable drives are all IDE...
> They are *not* hot swapable...the machine needs to be off when I
> switch them.
>
> If there is any difference in machine performance with or without the
> extra drives...
> it's sure not anything I've ever noticed !

That's because your operating system, programme files and swapfile are all
on the one drive that stays there.

In my system I have two *fixed* drives, a 200GB and a 250GB. The OS has a
partition on one drive and the pagefile and programme files have their own
partitions on another drive, (FAT32 for the pagefile as it's faster than
NTFS) on another channel. This system is unquestionably faster than it was
when I was running everything off one HDD. If I had three HDDs I'd have the
OS, Programmes and Pagefile all on different drives.
--
Shaun.
 >> Stay informed about: Multiple hard-drives instead of one