Two drives: OS on Drive 1, Progs on Drive 2, My Docs on which?

[Ian R]

Hi

I'm considering my partition options to give the best performance.

I already have a single Western Digital Raptor WD1500 ADFD.

I have my OS (XP Pro), applications and documents in separate partitions so
obviously
the drive head is having to spend a lot of time moving between them.

I wondered what improvement might be gained if I bought a second WD1500 and
changed where I store things.

So would it be better to have the OS and apps in separate partitions on
Drive 1 and My Docs on Drive 2? Or OS on 1, apps on 2, My Docs on which?

Is there another arrangement you would recommend?

Maybe we're talking milliseconds of time saving but if my perceived
performance is of a more responsive system I'd be happy.

From what I've read there's little to be gained from a striped RAID with
these drives. Is that still the case?

FYI I'm using an AMD 4200x2 on Asus A8N-SLI Premium with 1GB RAM.

Thanks for your time.

Ian

 

[Arno Wagner]

Hi

I'm considering my partition options to give the best performance.

I already have a single Western Digital Raptor WD1500 ADFD.

I have my OS (XP Pro), applications and documents in separate partitions so
obviously
the drive head is having to spend a lot of time moving between them.

I wondered what improvement might be gained if I bought a second WD1500 and
changed where I store things.

So would it be better to have the OS and apps in separate partitions on
Drive 1 and My Docs on Drive 2? Or OS on 1, apps on 2, My Docs on which?

Is there another arrangement you would recommend?

Maybe we're talking milliseconds of time saving but if my perceived
performance is of a more responsive system I'd be happy.

From what I've read there's little to be gained from a striped RAID with
these drives. Is that still the case?

FYI I'm using an AMD 4200x2 on Asus A8N-SLI Premium with 1GB RAM.

Thanks for your time.

The answer depends very much on what you do with your system If
you have usually enough RAM and are not doing vidoe cutting or
the like (i.e. work with large files), don't expect anything
more than a few percent more speed. For reference, most people
do not notice anything at all if the system becomes less than
15% faster or slower.

One reason to separate OS and applications is that you can
more easily do backups for both. An other is indeed reducing
seek load. However the OS and normal file acess are usually not
in competition, unless the system starts swapping (i.e. is low
on memory). In my experience a faster disk make much more
difference.

Arno

 

[Rod Speed]

I'm considering my partition options to give the best performance.

Its a waste of time.

I already have a single Western Digital Raptor WD1500 ADFD.

I have my OS (XP Pro), applications and documents in separate partitions

Presumably you mean 3 partitions.

so obviously the drive head is having to spend a lot of time moving between them.

Probably not unless you are web browsing and having something
massage the data at the same time, and even then, its unlikely that
you would even be able to pick the difference in a double blind trial.

I wondered what improvement might be gained if I bought a second WD1500 and changed where I store
things.

Bet you wouldnt be able to pick it in a double blind trial except
in the most unusual situations of very aggressive data massaging.

So would it be better to have the OS and apps in separate partitions on Drive 1 and My Docs on
Drive 2? Or OS on 1, apps on 2, My Docs on which?

There isnt normally any point in separating the OS
and apps, and even with the documents, it would only
make any difference in the most unusual situations
just because the documents arent used aggressively
unless you have some really stupid apps like a
database which doesnt use proper indexes etc.

Is there another arrangement you would recommend?

All in the one partition unless you want to do safety
incremental images of the OS and apps partition before
doing any updates or installs etc and the data does see
a high change rate or the system is used as a PVR etc.

Maybe we're talking milliseconds of time saving but if my perceived
performance is of a more responsive system I'd be happy.

I bet you wouldnt even be able to pick it in a double blind trial.

From what I've read there's little to be gained from a striped RAID with these drives. Is that
still the case?

Nope, there isnt anything special about those drives in that regard and there
is little to be gained with a striped raid with most personal desktop systems.

FYI I'm using an AMD 4200x2 on Asus A8N-SLI Premium with 1GB RAM.

You may see some benefit with more ram depending on how you use that system.

 

[chrisv]

All in the one partition unless you want to do safety
incremental images of the OS and apps partition before
doing any updates or installs etc and the data does see
a high change rate or the system is used as a PVR etc.

I find it's very nice to have a seperate partition for all your data,
for when it's time to re-install or upgrade your OS. Wipe C: clean,
and have all your data sitting pretty in D:

I suppose those who, say, backup to DVD, may not see the above as much
of an advantage, but it works for me. I use the "two PC" backup
system, occasionally blasting files across the home network to the
kids PC.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

I find it's very nice to have a seperate partition for all your
data, for when it's time to re-install or upgrade your OS.
Wipe C: clean, and have all your data sitting pretty in D:

The trouble with that arrangement is that you need to reinstall
almost all the apps too with modern apps and reconfigure etc
with a reinstall so you are better off doing a repair install with XP.

And it isnt trivial to get the size right either, its difficult to predict
what size it should be and dangerous to change the size without a
full image of the entire physical drive if you need to change it later.

I suppose those who, say, backup to DVD, may not see
the above as much of an advantage, but it works for me.

There's plenty that backup to another drive now, so
they should have a full backup of the data in most cases.

I use the "two PC" backup system, occasionally
blasting files across the home network to the kids PC.

So you dont really need to format just the OS and
apps partition much at all with a decent modern OS.

 

[chrisv]

The trouble with that arrangement is that you need to reinstall
almost all the apps too with modern apps and reconfigure etc
with a reinstall so you are better off doing a repair install with XP.

Never tried the "repair install" thing. Does it fix "everything",
including the unfindable trojans and shit that can affect XP boxes?
Apps are easily replaced from CD or Internet (or saved data), although
time-consuming. The only thing that "really matters" to me is the
survival of my data.

And it isnt trivial to get the size right either, its difficult to predict
what size it should be and dangerous to change the size without a
full image of the entire physical drive if you need to change it later.

Ahh... drives are so big now that I don't think it's too difficult to
size both partitions to be "plenty large".

There's plenty that backup to another drive now, so
they should have a full backup of the data in most cases.


So you dont really need to format just the OS and
apps partition much at all with a decent modern OS.

See above question regarding this potential solution.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

Never tried the "repair install" thing.

That's obvious.

Does it fix "everything", including the unfindable
trojans and shit that can affect XP boxes?

Your approach doesnt do that either, you have
to wipe the entire physical drive to eliminate any
possibility of that stuff, not just the OS partition.

Apps are easily replaced from CD or Internet (or saved data),

Not the config settings they arent.

although time-consuming. The only thing that
"really matters" to me is the survival of my data.

Then you need to wipe all the entire physical drives
and not just the OS partition to ensure that the data is
completely safe, and restore everything from backup.

And if you are going to do that, its best to image the entire physical
drive and restore it that way rather than doing a clean reinstall.

Ahh... drives are so big now that I don't think it's
too difficult to size both partitions to be "plenty large".

Its harder than you might think given that so
many apps keep so much in the app partition.

See above question regarding this potential solution.

See above with the problem with that.

 

[chrisv]

That's obvious.


Your approach doesnt do that either, you have
to wipe the entire physical drive to eliminate any
possibility of that stuff, not just the OS partition.

Eh? Realistically, a fresh registry should do the trick...

Certainly, if you run "install_virus.exe" again you'll be infected
again, but no reinstall scheme can save you from that...

Not the config settings they arent.

Which makes it time consuming...

Then you need to wipe all the entire physical drives
and not just the OS partition to ensure that the data is
completely safe, and restore everything from backup.

I don't follow. If I have my photo collection, I have it. It doesn't
matter "where".

And if you are going to do that, its best to image the entire physical
drive and restore it that way rather than doing a clean reinstall.

Well, that's great for recovery from crashes, but not effective for
when you want to reinstall to get the clean, trojan- and virus-free
registry.

Well, I suppose you could make a backup when your PC is very fresh and
put that on the shelf...

Its harder than you might think given that so
many apps keep so much in the app partition.

Well, I've done it, and it wasn't harder than what I thought. Only a
small percentage of PC users really need to be concerned about
overflowing, say, a 200GB Windows partition or a 50GB data partition.
For the few who have unusually-large storage needs, 400 and 500GB
drives are quite affordable.

Indeed, the modern drives are so large that it's quite easy to have a
couple Windows partitions and still have space for a Linux install to
play around with.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

Eh? Realistically, a fresh registry should do the trick...

Wrong. There are plenty of viruses which wont be affected by that.

Certainly, if you run "install_virus.exe" again you'll be infected
again, but no reinstall scheme can save you from that...

Wrong again. Wiping the drive completely and restoring
from the backup that was created before it showed up will.

Which makes it time consuming...

And quite a bit more than that if you didnt document the changes you made.

I don't follow. If I have my photo collection, I have it. It doesn't matter "where".

It may well be still virus infected your way.

Well, that's great for recovery from crashes, but not effective for when
you want to reinstall to get the clean, trojan- and virus-free registry.

Wrong, you restore from the backup done before the virus/trojan showed up.

Well, I suppose you could make a backup when
your PC is very fresh and put that on the shelf...

And do an incremental, periodically, automatically after that too.
Then all you need to do is restore to before virus/trojan showed up.

Well, I've done it, and it wasn't harder than what I thought.

Says nothing useful about how well that would work with other systems.

Only a small percentage of PC users really need to be
concerned about overflowing, say, a 200GB Windows partition

Yes, but thats a stupid waste of space on a 250G drive.

or a 50GB data partition.

Hordes would exceed that.

For the few who have unusually-large storage needs,

It aint a few anymore. In spades with PVRs. I can use 50G an evening.

400 and 500GB drives are quite affordable.

They are indeed, but its silly wasting that big a percentage
of a 250G drive on the OS and apps partition.

Indeed, the modern drives are so large that it's quite easy to have a couple
Windows partitions and still have space for a Linux install to play around with.

Sure, but irrelevant to what was being discussed.

 

[chrisv]

Wrong. There are plenty of viruses which wont be affected by that.

How would they get running, if they're not started in the registry?

Related note, touched-on above: Would not a "repair install" be the
*worst* thing to do, if one's goal was to eradicate trojans and
viruses?

My preferred method, a clean format of C: followed by a re-install of
Windows and applications, seems to be as good a way as any to ensure a
clean system, although obviously not as convenient as having all your
ducks in a row with incremental DVD backups. I do not see the point
in wiping the D: drive, as all it has are a bunch of files that, if
not there, are going to be restored from backup anyways...

 

[chrisv]

Says nothing useful about how well that would work with other systems.


Yes, but thats a stupid waste of space on a 250G drive.

With HD space so cheap, most PC users have the luxury of not caring if
they waste some.

Hordes would exceed that.

I don't think so, for "important" data. Use the big C: partition for
massively storage-hungry applications like PVRs.

It aint a few anymore. In spades with PVRs. I can use 50G an evening.

I'm talking about "important" data, though. PVR data is generally
disposable. As you would say, you don't slit your wrists if you lose
it.

For most people, 50G is a LOT of data, and it costs only about $10 of
HD space.

They are indeed, but its silly wasting that big a percentage
of a 250G drive on the OS and apps partition.

That's a big "whatever", though. If one wants 50G for a D: drive, and
needs 250G for C:, one just spends $10 more and gets a 300G drive.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

How would they get running, if they're not started in the registry?

There are ways they can do that.

Related note, touched-on above: Would not a "repair install" be the
*worst* thing to do, if one's goal was to eradicate trojans and viruses?

Certainly a restore from backup is better.
Trojans and viruses are just one reason for an install.
Anyone with a clue ensures that their system cant get infected.

My preferred method, a clean format of C: followed
by a re-install of Windows and applications, seems to
be as good a way as any to ensure a clean system,

Nope, FAR too slow and cumbersome. In spades
with systems that get configured extensively.

although obviously not as convenient as having all
your ducks in a row with incremental DVD backups.

DVDs are the last thing you should be using for system backups.
They are best for just the stuff you will slash your wrists if you
lose them, with one copy offsite. You are much better off doing
system backups to hard drives, on another machine on the lan
or an external drive.

I do not see the point in wiping the D: drive, as all it has are a bunch of
files that, if not there, are going to be restored from backup anyways...

Some viruses and trojans are more than JUST files and it depends on how
the backup is done whether it overwrites everything on a drive on restore.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

With HD space so cheap, most PC users have
the luxury of not caring if they waste some.

That would be wasting a hell of a lot of the drive space.

I don't think so, for "important" data.

Depends entirely on how you define important. Many consider that
what they havent yet watched with a PVR is desirable not to lose.

Use the big C: partition for massively
storage-hungry applications like PVRs.

Makes a lot more sense to have just one partition
instead apart from when running multiple OSs.

I'm talking about "important" data, though. PVR data is generally disposable.
Wrong.

As you would say, you don't slit your wrists if you lose it.

A decent backup scheme backs up more than just that data.

For most people, 50G is a LOT of data,

Wrong with PVRs most obviously.

and it costs only about $10 of HD space.
Bullshit.

That's a big "whatever", though. If one wants 50G for a D: drive, and
needs 250G for C:, one just spends $10 more and gets a 300G drive.

Makes a hell of a lot more sense not having a 250G OS and apps partition.

 

[chrisv]

There are ways they can do that.

Like what, realistically?

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

Like what, realistically?

One obvious example is a boot sector virus. That isnt the only way.

 

[Arno Wagner]

[...]

I'm talking about "important" data, though. PVR data is generally
disposable. As you would say, you don't slit your wrists if you lose
it.

For most people, 50G is a LOT of data, and it costs only about $10 of
HD space.

Yes, these disk sizes are a bit frightening sometimes. My complete
Linux installation (including data) is still <1 0GB (20GB if you count
the RAID1).

Hiwever the $10 figure is a bit problematic. It only applies to
unimportant data. If the data is important, you may need a second
drive for RAID1 and some more for backup (usually 3 rotating
independent media are considerd enough). So using HDDs, reliable
space will be more expensive and require some recurring maintenance
(making of backups).

Arno