Getting the most speed from two hard drives?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Richard
  • Start date Start date
R

Richard

Have plans to purchase two Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD6400AAKS 640GB
and would like to know where to place the Operating System and
Program Files to obtain the most speed.

Someone in this thread suggested that XP and Server 2008 should
be installed in partitions on the first 150GB of a disk and the
Program Files on a second Hard Drive to maximize speed.
Does this make any sense?
http://forums.slickdeals.net/printthread.php?s=d98da737b3797af622acd23f9a860135&t=759070
http://tinyurl.com/3q96og

Am currently running two copies of XP on my first disk and Server
2008 Workstation on the second. XP is installed on 5.5GB and Server
2008 has 10GB.

Program Files are on the same disk in the next partition.

If a person is dual booting, would it be better if the Program Files for
XP are installed on the second HDD and the ones for Server 2008 installed
on the first hard drive?

Thanks for taking the time to read this message -
 
Have plans to purchase two Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD6400AAKS 640GB
and would like to know where to place the Operating System and
Program Files to obtain the most speed.

Someone in this thread suggested that XP and Server 2008 should
be installed in partitions on the first 150GB of a disk and the
Program Files on a second Hard Drive to maximize speed.
Does this make any sense?
http://forums.slickdeals.net/printthread.php?s=d98da737b3797af622acd23f9a860135&t=759070
http://tinyurl.com/3q96og

Am currently running two copies of XP on my first disk and Server
2008 Workstation on the second. XP is installed on 5.5GB and Server
2008 has 10GB.

Program Files are on the same disk in the next partition.

If a person is dual booting, would it be better if the Program Files for
XP are installed on the second HDD and the ones for Server 2008 installed
on the first hard drive?

Thanks for taking the time to read this message -
Click to expand...
The programs and OS are installed on the fastest drive.
 
Mark said:
I wouldn't bother with RAID 0. In practise it has made negligable
improvement to my system and the reasons above outweigh any benefit
IMHO.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. However, the performance increase with RAID 0 was
perceivable to me. I decided after that affair that it was not worth the
risks, though...
 
Back
Top