If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Hard drive configuration - Opinions, please
I've got an i7 2600k machine with 8GB RAM, and am looking for the best hard
drive configuration. Which configuration should give the best performance for everyday computing, ie. no heavy gaming/video editing/photoshopping/etc.: A. Two 7200rpm drives in RAID 0 config. B. one 10,000rpm raptor drive. C/D: option A or B with an Intel SSD as a front-end cache, using Intel's Rapid Storage technology. I've tried option A, with and without the SSD cache, and I can say I didn't see much difference (but it is fast) Thanks, Jack R |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Hard drive configuration - Opinions, please
Jack R wrote:
I've got an i7 2600k machine with 8GB RAM, and am looking for the best hard drive configuration. Which configuration should give the best performance for everyday computing, ie. no heavy gaming/video editing/photoshopping/etc.: A. Two 7200rpm drives in RAID 0 config. B. one 10,000rpm raptor drive. C/D: option A or B with an Intel SSD as a front-end cache, using Intel's Rapid Storage technology. I've tried option A, with and without the SSD cache, and I can say I didn't see much difference (but it is fast) Thanks, Jack R When the cache is involved, it isn't as big as the hard drives. There is a limit to the cache size. On a cache miss, you'll still be "seeing" the performance of the drives. It's only a winner, when things are in the cache. Do an extended operation, larger than the cache, and go back to hard drive speed again. ******* Just use the SSD as a drive, not as a cache, to enjoy fast performance at all times (although, with less total capacity of course). I don't own one, but if I did, the OS would go on the SSD, and my collection of large virtual machine images would go on a hard drive of some sort. Or similarly, if you have a movie collection, that can sit on an ordinary hard drive. Using an SSD for the OS, will speed up Windows Update, AV scanning, Indexing and so on. Paul |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Hard drive configuration - Opinions, please
Paul writes:
Just use the SSD as a drive, not as a cache, to enjoy fast performance at all times (although, with less total capacity of course). I don't own one, but if I did, the OS would go on the SSD, and my collection of large virtual machine images would go on a hard drive of some sort. I second this. In fact I did this last year on my 2-core desktop PC: SSD for drive C: which stores only Win7x64 and added programs; and a 3-disk RAID0 for drive D: for all the data (photos, music, docs...). Works a treat. Though at work we have 4-core machines, newer than my home PC, with only a 2-disk RAID0 for everything, which is also very speedy. I think the two HDs in the office machines are faster (rpms and other metrics) than my 3 HDs at home. -- Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here! Groucho Marx |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Hard drive configuration - Opinions, please
"Jack R" wrote in message ... I've got an i7 2600k machine with 8GB RAM, and am looking for the best hard drive configuration. Which configuration should give the best performance for everyday computing, ie. no heavy gaming/video editing/photoshopping/etc.: A. Two 7200rpm drives in RAID 0 config. B. one 10,000rpm raptor drive. C/D: option A or B with an Intel SSD as a front-end cache, using Intel's Rapid Storage technology. I've tried option A, with and without the SSD cache, and I can say I didn't see much difference (but it is fast) Thanks, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the comments. However, my SSD is only 40GB; large enough for a cache, but not big enough for my C: drive. Jack R |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Hard drive configuration - Opinions, please
Jack R wrote:
"Jack R" wrote in message ... I've got an i7 2600k machine with 8GB RAM, and am looking for the best hard drive configuration. Which configuration should give the best performance for everyday computing, ie. no heavy gaming/video editing/photoshopping/etc.: A. Two 7200rpm drives in RAID 0 config. B. one 10,000rpm raptor drive. C/D: option A or B with an Intel SSD as a front-end cache, using Intel's Rapid Storage technology. I've tried option A, with and without the SSD cache, and I can say I didn't see much difference (but it is fast) Thanks, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the comments. However, my SSD is only 40GB; large enough for a cache, but not big enough for my C: drive. Jack R I have Windows 7 in a 40GB C: partition, with 10GB currently free. System Restore is turned off. At least things like Indexing, the output files of indexing can be stored on another drive. And doing a system image (creates .vhd files which perfectly copy C: etc), that can be stored on a separate hard drive as well. I tried to move VSSCache to a separate disk, but Windows 7 lacks VSSCache transport, to make it possible to move more of the crap off to a second drive. If that had worked, perhaps even the restore points could have been moved to another disk, and I could have turned System Restore back on again. 10GB free space is really too small to leave a decent sized space for it. Paul |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Hard drive configuration - Opinions, please
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:02:19 -0400, "Jack R" wrote:
I've got an i7 2600k machine with 8GB RAM, and am looking for the best hard drive configuration. Which configuration should give the best performance for everyday computing, ie. no heavy gaming/video editing/photoshopping/etc.: A. Two 7200rpm drives in RAID 0 config. B. one 10,000rpm raptor drive. C/D: option A or B with an Intel SSD as a front-end cache, using Intel's Rapid Storage technology. I've tried option A, with and without the SSD cache, and I can say I didn't see much difference (but it is fast) Thanks, Jack R Jack, Best performance for everyday computing must of course include a reliable backup system. Here's my setup: 120 GB SSD for drive C (includes OS and "most" installed programs. 2 1 TB 7200 RPM drives in RAID 0 set up as 2 volumes, 1 @ 1.4 TB and several data partitions, and 1 @ .6 TB in one partition. One additional 1.5 TB 7200 drive as a "backup", Batch files set up to do autobackups of "critical" data 2x daily to the .6 TB drive, and all data 1 x daily to the 1.5 TB backup drive. Backups are for data only. C drive backups are done "externally" to a 500 GB 7200 drive by "cloning" drive C about once a month, rotating backups between 2 separate 500 GB drives. Additional "safety" backups are made to external eSATA drives every 10 days (when I remember to do them). I have not tried using a SSD as cache.... I really didn't know it could be done. But my tests show that the SSD is quite a bit faster than 2 7200 drives in RAID 0, primarily due to the incredibly fast access time. Transfer rates are really about the same, with the SSD a bit faster. I can post some performance graphs somewhere if you're interested. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Hard drive configuration - Opinions, please
On Sep 30, 11:49 am, Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:
I have not tried using a SSD as cache.... I really didn't know it could be done. But my tests show that the SSD is quite a bit faster than 2 7200 drives in RAID 0, primarily due to the incredibly fast access time. Transfer rates are really about the same, with the SSD a bit faster. I can post some performance graphs somewhere if you're interested. Might mention to do the research before RAID-ing. Besides an abstract layer for direct [un]recovery without precautions, all drives may not be physically suited imposing half their data synchronized into shared configs;- even mirrored, the same reason holds a disparity factor from intent. Unless the drive is "beefed," tested, designed, and presented by the manuf. for RAID placement, then its going to be more or less skewed off from intended usage for an engineered standpoint. More or less, as have at least some drives been promoted for their adaptability to a RAID environ, however that factors as integral to wow-campaigns and marketing horse****. Me, my experience with RAID is limited, aside from hosing data, to mixing very close but dissimilar model numbers from same-manuf model HDs, which may have contributed to early, unacceptable failure rates. Hard to really say, as I was buying from a spate of discounted 1-yr warrantee, CompUSA and BestBuy were lowballing. Only drives I've owned that left a distasteful impression, as if chipped or time-stamped for failure. Likely Western Digital or Maxtor. As for SSDs, I'd like to sit down for an idea or representation overall of comparative failures to traditional platters;- what would seem a non sequitur is to say given QC construction solid state memory ought last forever, apart from they post when their SSD breaks -- why, being a subject of interest. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Hard drive configuration - Opinions, please
"Charlie Hoffpauir" wrote in message ... On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:02:19 -0400, "Jack R" wrote: I've got an i7 2600k machine with 8GB RAM, and am looking for the best hard drive configuration. Which configuration should give the best performance for everyday computing, ie. no heavy gaming/video editing/photoshopping/etc.: A. Two 7200rpm drives in RAID 0 config. B. one 10,000rpm raptor drive. C/D: option A or B with an Intel SSD as a front-end cache, using Intel's Rapid Storage technology. I've tried option A, with and without the SSD cache, and I can say I didn't see much difference (but it is fast) Thanks, Jack R Jack, Best performance for everyday computing must of course include a reliable backup system. Here's my setup: 120 GB SSD for drive C (includes OS and "most" installed programs. 2 1 TB 7200 RPM drives in RAID 0 set up as 2 volumes, 1 @ 1.4 TB and several data partitions, and 1 @ .6 TB in one partition. One additional 1.5 TB 7200 drive as a "backup", Batch files set up to do autobackups of "critical" data 2x daily to the .6 TB drive, and all data 1 x daily to the 1.5 TB backup drive. Backups are for data only. C drive backups are done "externally" to a 500 GB 7200 drive by "cloning" drive C about once a month, rotating backups between 2 separate 500 GB drives. Additional "safety" backups are made to external eSATA drives every 10 days (when I remember to do them). I have not tried using a SSD as cache.... I really didn't know it could be done. But my tests show that the SSD is quite a bit faster than 2 7200 drives in RAID 0, primarily due to the incredibly fast access time. Transfer rates are really about the same, with the SSD a bit faster. I can post some performance graphs somewhere if you're interested. ------------------------------ Thanks for the detailed reply. That's a very nice backup strategy you have. I would like to see your performance graphs, as I'm sure others would as well. Check out the Intel site for their tools for using a small SSD as a HD cache. Jack R |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Need Recommendations on Hard Drive Configuration | Sam | Storage (alternative) | 3 | November 26th 07 02:52 AM |
Need Recommendations on Hard Drive Configuration | Sam | Homebuilt PC's | 3 | November 26th 07 02:52 AM |
P5AD2-E Hard Drive Configuration | Marty Leaf | Asus Motherboards | 0 | February 10th 05 02:37 PM |
Multiple Hard Drive Configuration | Alan | General Hardware | 0 | January 28th 04 03:14 PM |
hard drive configuration | Paul H | Homebuilt PC's | 2 | November 27th 03 03:45 PM |