Harddrive question 18 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Metall_pingwin

Call me Pingwin

50 XP

26th May 2005

0 Uploads

7,238 Posts

0 Threads

#11 10 years ago

1 Terabyte = 1,000 Gigabytes




EpicLoad

OMFG!!! Where am I?!?

50 XP

4th June 2007

0 Uploads

1,648 Posts

0 Threads

#12 10 years ago
WickedVestige;4228365Used to speed up access time to files and whatnot, and provide fault tolerance. In other words spreads your data to more than one disk to reduce the chance of losing all of your data.

You cannot really sum it up that short. Some speed up access while some provide fault tolerance, while some provide both. Each depends on the amount of disks available. The smallest number of drives needed being 2.




Maeko

Insipid

50 XP

13th October 2005

0 Uploads

493 Posts

0 Threads

#13 10 years ago
EpicLoad;4228409You cannot really sum it up that short. Some speed up access while some provide fault tolerance, while some provide both. Each depends on the amount of disks available. The smallest number of drives needed being 2.

I guess I meant or I would fix it if I could, oh well. :)




EpicLoad

OMFG!!! Where am I?!?

50 XP

4th June 2007

0 Uploads

1,648 Posts

0 Threads

#14 10 years ago

Ahhh... Sometimes, there are too many too many choices.




Freyr VIP Member

A2Files Staff

46,875 XP

6th February 2005

11 Uploads

4,275 Posts

0 Threads

#15 10 years ago

The_Daedalus;4226952Assuming both these harddrives are exactly the same, excluding size, is there any great performance increase if I were to have the following: 1TB drive: -OS -Games, Programs, music, etc. Or this: 500GB drive: -OS 500GB drive: -Games, Programs, music, etc. I'm not concerned with anything other than application and/or OS performance here by the way. (Oh, and I know I don't need 500GB for an OS, but you get the idea, lol.) Thanks in advance.[/quote]

You wouldn't gain any noticeable performance gain from two drives.

That having been said, partition your drive so windows has 30 GB to itself and put everything on another partition. When windows dies it tends to take the partition its installed on with it. If you don't have data on the same partition as windows it is safer.

The stig;4227606Well with the two 500GB HDD's you could go raid, but you will only get the storage space of 500GB. You will have better hard drive access speed.

In real world situations in RAID 0 your not going to notice any performance increase. RAID 1 through 6 are likely to actually be *slightly* slower than running independently because your computer has to store everything twice and the RAID controller can get overloaded and slow down.

[quote=EpicLoad;4227659]That's if he uses any redundant RAID. If he uses RAID 0 then he will get the full 1TB, at the risk of losing data forever.

RAID 1-6 do not replace the need to do proper backups. You should backup your data anyway as hard drives expiring of natural causes are not what I would call one of the more significant risks to your data. RAID dosen't protect against power surges or viruses deleting data.

It is either: Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks or Redundant Array of Independent Disks. I've always called it the by the second.

It is meant to be inexpensive rather than independent.




Maeko

Insipid

50 XP

13th October 2005

0 Uploads

493 Posts

0 Threads

#16 10 years ago

I said to put your games on the same harddrive. Important files, do not, I repeat, do not, even put them on the same hard drive as windows. Partitioning windows to only 30gb is not going to do jack, it is still on the same physical hard drive, so if your hard drive fails, you are screwed.




Freyr VIP Member

A2Files Staff

46,875 XP

6th February 2005

11 Uploads

4,275 Posts

0 Threads

#17 10 years ago

Yes, but thats not the point. If windows dies and its on its own partition then the worst it will do is kill the data on that partition, if the data is on another partition then it won't do any harm to it.




Maeko

Insipid

50 XP

13th October 2005

0 Uploads

493 Posts

0 Threads

#18 10 years ago

My point is that Windows will not just die, there is user interaction that causing it.

If the hard drive crashes then you are screwed, the Windows drive will be constantly written to and such, increasing chances for failure. On top of the fact that some viruses do not differentiate partitions on the same hard drive and will only see the drive as a whole.

Just my $.02, since he will already have two drives.




EpicLoad

OMFG!!! Where am I?!?

50 XP

4th June 2007

0 Uploads

1,648 Posts

0 Threads

#19 10 years ago
Freyr;4228634In real world situations in RAID 0 your not going to notice any performance increase. RAID 1 through 6 are likely to actually be *slightly* slower than running independently because your computer has to store everything twice and the RAID controller can get overloaded and slow down.

When you run games, you will notice a difference, as RAID 0 will increase the average bandwidth of especially SATA drives. I've used it before along with a lot of other people I know. If you don't transfer a lot of data in the first place then you won't notice any difference.

RAID 1-6 do not replace the need to do proper backups. You should backup your data anyway as hard drives expiring of natural causes are not what I would call one of the more significant risks to your data. RAID dosen't protect against power surges or viruses deleting data.

And how does actually backing up the data onto another HDD save you from HDD failure, neither will backing up your data save you from virus, etc.; nothing will save you from anything... everything is possible; the only benefit to RAIDing is that the owner does not have to initiate a backup themselves; and besides, there is no difference in backing up your files yourself and letting the RAID controller do it, except that in RAID everything gets backed up.




  • 1
  • 2