|
pc
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hard drive setup
I have recently purchased a new 160Gb 7200rpm 8mb cache HDD, and have a question concerning performance when used in conjunction with another 40Gb 7200 2mb cache drive. I intended to use the smaller drive as the system drive and the larger drive as storage, but I wont get the performance of the bigger cache setting things up this way. Am I correct? Regards, Ian On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:46:36 -0500, Ian D. Weatherall <pa***@csolve.net>
wrote: > Hello, depends much on the controller on the motherboard, slower less capable > I have recently purchased a new 160Gb 7200rpm 8mb cache HDD, and have a > question concerning performance when used in conjunction with another > 40Gb > 7200 2mb cache drive. > I intended to use the smaller drive as the system drive and the larger > drive > as storage, but I wont get the performance of the bigger cache setting > things up this way. > Am I correct? > Regards, > Ian drives sometimes slow down the faster ones, but not on a properly designed controller. most of the major part makers have chipsets that properly control the drives, it's the odd ducks you must watch for. On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:46:36 -0500, "Ian D. Weatherall"
<pa***@csolve.net> wrote: >Hello, Yes you're correct. The (larger) cache being localized to>I have recently purchased a new 160Gb 7200rpm 8mb cache HDD, and have a >question concerning performance when used in conjunction with another 40Gb >7200 2mb cache drive. >I intended to use the smaller drive as the system drive and the larger drive >as storage, but I wont get the performance of the bigger cache setting >things up this way. >Am I correct? >Regards, >Ian the new drive, will only be used for I/O to it. "Ian D. Weatherall" <pa***@csolve.net> wrote in message news:4244da44$1@devmonkey....> Hello, I have exactly this setup myself. A 40gb boot drive on IDE1, and a 160gb on> I have recently purchased a new 160Gb 7200rpm 8mb cache HDD, and have a > question concerning performance when used in conjunction with another 40Gb > 7200 2mb cache drive. > I intended to use the smaller drive as the system drive and the larger drive > as storage, but I wont get the performance of the bigger cache setting > things up this way. > Am I correct? > Regards, > Ian IDE2 divided into four partitions. To make the most of the faster drive, I have installed all programs, games etc onto it, and I do notice how much quicker games load from the faster drive than the older one. I use the C: drive just for windows and storage of files. This setup works fine for me, maybe Windows does'nt boot quite as fast as it could do but not too worried about that. It also means I can quickly / regularly create a ghost backup image of C: onto the bigger drive, just in case. Graham GTS wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > Graham,> "Ian D. Weatherall" <pa***@csolve.net> wrote in message > news:4244da44$1@devmonkey.... > > Hello, > > I have recently purchased a new 160Gb 7200rpm 8mb cache HDD, and have a > > question concerning performance when used in conjunction with another 40Gb > > 7200 2mb cache drive. > > I intended to use the smaller drive as the system drive and the larger > drive > > as storage, but I wont get the performance of the bigger cache setting > > things up this way. > > Am I correct? > > Regards, > > Ian > I have exactly this setup myself. A 40gb boot drive on IDE1, and a 160gb on > IDE2 divided into four partitions. To make the most of the faster drive, I > have installed all programs, games etc onto it, and I do notice how much > quicker games load from the faster drive than the older one. I use the C: > drive just for windows and storage of files. This setup works fine for me, > maybe Windows does'nt boot quite as fast as it could do but not too worried > about that. It also means I can quickly / regularly create a ghost backup > image of C: onto the bigger drive, just in case. > Graham Since the 2nd/larger drive is faster and has a larger cache, if you have room or a spare partition on it, you might want to configure windows to put the swap disk on the 2nd drive. That should help also, plus it'll free up space in your C: partition/1st drive. Just a thought... Jim
Show quote
Hide quote
"ohaya" <oh***@cox.net> wrote in message news:4245D7DB.78AA9075@cox.net... Good point. In fact I have set up the swap disk on the faster drive, just> > > GTS wrote: > > > > "Ian D. Weatherall" <pa***@csolve.net> wrote in message > > news:4244da44$1@devmonkey.... > > > Hello, > > > I have recently purchased a new 160Gb 7200rpm 8mb cache HDD, and have a > > > question concerning performance when used in conjunction with another 40Gb > > > 7200 2mb cache drive. > > > I intended to use the smaller drive as the system drive and the larger > > drive > > > as storage, but I wont get the performance of the bigger cache setting > > > things up this way. > > > Am I correct? > > > Regards, > > > Ian > > I have exactly this setup myself. A 40gb boot drive on IDE1, and a 160gb on > > IDE2 divided into four partitions. To make the most of the faster drive, I > > have installed all programs, games etc onto it, and I do notice how much > > quicker games load from the faster drive than the older one. I use the C: > > drive just for windows and storage of files. This setup works fine for me, > > maybe Windows does'nt boot quite as fast as it could do but not too worried > > about that. It also means I can quickly / regularly create a ghost backup > > image of C: onto the bigger drive, just in case. > > Graham > > > Graham, > > Since the 2nd/larger drive is faster and has a larger cache, if you have > room or a spare partition on it, you might want to configure windows to > put the swap disk on the 2nd drive. That should help also, plus it'll > free up space in your C: partition/1st drive. > > Just a thought... > > Jim forgot to mention it! Graham
Show quote
Hide quote
> > Graham, Graham,> > > > Since the 2nd/larger drive is faster and has a larger cache, if you have > > room or a spare partition on it, you might want to configure windows to > > put the swap disk on the 2nd drive. That should help also, plus it'll > > free up space in your C: partition/1st drive. > > > > Just a thought... > > > > Jim > Good point. In fact I have set up the swap disk on the faster drive, just > forgot to mention it! > Graham I do it habitually on my systems, even when I have multiple partitions on a single drive, but since you have two drives, you'll get the added benefit of spreading the accesses across the two drives in addition to it (the swap disk) being on a faster device. Jim Thank you for the sugggestions guys,
Sounds like I should seet things up like this: 40Gb 2Mb cache: P1:Windows P2:Documents 160Gb 8Mb Cache: P1:Swap File P2:Programs Regards, Ian Show quoteHide quote "ohaya" <oh***@cox.net> wrote in message news:4246153D.2E4713E4@cox.net... >> > Graham, >> > >> > Since the 2nd/larger drive is faster and has a larger cache, if you >> > have >> > room or a spare partition on it, you might want to configure windows to >> > put the swap disk on the 2nd drive. That should help also, plus it'll >> > free up space in your C: partition/1st drive. >> > >> > Just a thought... >> > >> > Jim >> Good point. In fact I have set up the swap disk on the faster drive, just >> forgot to mention it! >> Graham > > > Graham, > > I do it habitually on my systems, even when I have multiple partitions > on a single drive, but since you have two drives, you'll get the added > benefit of spreading the accesses across the two drives in addition to > it (the swap disk) being on a faster device. > > Jim *** top-posting fixed ***
Show quoteHide quote "Ian D. Weatherall" wrote: That will do IF windows is smart enough to reload code segments> "ohaya" <oh***@cox.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> Since the 2nd/larger drive is faster and has a larger cache, >>>> if you have room or a spare partition on it, you might want >>>> to configure windows to put the swap disk on the 2nd drive. >>>> That should help also, plus it'll free up space in your C: >>>> partition/1st drive. >>> >>> Good point. In fact I have set up the swap disk on the faster >>> drive, just forgot to mention it! >> >> I do it habitually on my systems, even when I have multiple >> partitions on a single drive, but since you have two drives, >> you'll get the added benefit of spreading the accesses across >> the two drives in addition to it (the swap disk) being on a >> faster device. > > Thank you for the sugggestions guys, > Sounds like I should seet things up like this: > > 40Gb 2Mb cache: > P1:Windows > P2:Documents > > 160Gb 8Mb Cache: > P1:Swap File > P2:Programs directly from the executable file, rather than doing a relocate and swapping things back and forth to the swap file. If it does the latter both halves of that path will be on the same drive, leading to thrashing. I have no idea what situation applies and when, I just know I mistrust all Microsoft software. BTW, please don't toppost. -- "If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson 
Other interesting topics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
