Guys, here is a challenge for you...regarding hard disks [Archive]

Anusha

10-06-2008, 07:34 PM

OK. This is the problem. You guys have to come up with a very good hard drive setup + data management solution, just like how they have the CPU caching system. Not very expensive, but yet again, very good performance very close to having the best performance from a PC hard disk setup.

Say for example, you go with 2 500GB RAID-0 setup (i.e. the drive setup), partition it to three; one for system, one for programs and one for all your data (i.e. data management solution).

I guess you guys got the point. Show us what you think. :)

Intel_Nehalem

10-06-2008, 07:54 PM

buddhika19

10-06-2008, 08:03 PM

no idea machan

Pentagram

10-06-2008, 08:05 PM

hmm...dunno machan!

fallenzeraphine

10-06-2008, 08:09 PM

no idea machan Im sure anusha needs no Ideas here!! DoNT SPAM

Anyway This is what i think would be the best setup

One High speed Drive for the OS and the Applications (Ex WD Raptor)
One 250GB drive for Audio files (MP3, WMA etc)
Two 500GB drives on Raid 0 for large Multimedia files (Movies Music VIdeos)

PS:

I think this is a good one because...the OS and most of the Software Applications contains a lot of very small files and the low access times of a say WD raptor will make them run faster

Audio files are small but not by a large margin a 250GB will do just fine for them

Youll need a lot of bandwidth for HD movies and Music videos (or SD ones) so two 500Gbs on raid 0 will do the trick if u have more money go Raid 5 so u can save ur valuable collection of movies if the HDDS get screwd lol

Anusha

10-06-2008, 08:13 PM

Drive Setup-
1x500GB
2x320GB Hard drives (RAID-0)

Data management solution-
4 Partitions-
System and Program files
Movies and Songs
Games
storge for Downloaded files (Internet)

Just wanted to give my idea........ ;)
maxxa thread eka! :yes:
But you didn't say which data should be stored in which hard disk. And also tell us why you think that setup is a good one.

Note: You don't have to use only the drives found in SL. You can get Raptors involved as well :D

Anusha

10-06-2008, 08:15 PM

Im sure anusha needs no Ideas here!! DoNT SPAM

Anyway This is what i think would be the best setup

One High speed Drive for the OS and the Applications (Ex WD Raptor)
One 250GB drive for Audio files (MP3, WMA etc)
Two 500GB drives on Raid 0 for large Multimedia files (Movies Music VIdeos)
Don't you think the user profiles should be separated from the system drive for
1. If you use an imaging software, then when you restore, the use profiles with the data will still be most current, and the images will be smaller too
2. When launching certain apps which need reading a lot of file in the user profile, for example, Firefox, it would be beneficial to separate the app and the corresponding data files.

fallenzeraphine

10-06-2008, 08:21 PM

Don't you think the user profiles should be separated from the system drive for
1. If you use an imaging software, then when you restore, the use profiles with the data will still be most current, and the images will be smaller too
2. When launching certain apps which need reading a lot of file in the user profile, for example, Firefox, it would be beneficial to separate the app and the corresponding data files.

thats a nice idea damn didnt came to my mind..definitely if u put the user settings on another drive things will be even faster, but then u have a hassle when making system backups cuz u have to make two separate backups for the OS and the software also..needa?

Anusha

10-06-2008, 08:28 PM

My current setup is like this:

Hard drives:

1. 250GBx2 in RAID-0
2. 500GB

The data is arranged in this manner. I follow the Vista's user profiles arrangement to the point :D

1. RAID volume (500GB)

1.1 C: drive (50GB)
Windows and Program Files

1.2 D: drive (200GB)
Games

1.3 E: drive (250GB)
User Profiles (everything except Public)

2. Data drive (500GB single drive)

2.1 F: 500GB
Public profile, Backup images of C:

All my music files are in F:\Users\Public\Music
All my video files are in F:\Users\Public\Videos
All my picture files are in F:\Users\Public\Pictures
All my files that are currently being downloaded are in F:\Users\Public\Download
Almost all my documents are in F:\Users\Public\Documents

Show me areas where I should improve on.

P.S.
The only issue I see is where the individual user profiles saved in the RAID volume, which makes the hard disks have to do more seeks to load data from the user profiles. But anyway it is the case with the default installation of any OS, right? But the problem is, I can't take out the user profiles from E: as there is a lot of free space there which will not be used then. Sucks to have 250GB drives as the minimum + best for the system drive. A 74GB raptor would have done the trick, but... :D

Anusha

10-06-2008, 08:30 PM

thats a nice idea damn didnt came to my mind..definitely if u put the user settings on another drive things will be even faster, but then u have a hassle when making system backups cuz u have to make two separate backups for the OS and the software also..needa?
Well, look at it this way. Why do Windows screw up? Almost all the times it is not because of Program Files folder or User Profiles folder. It is because of some system setting na? So you only have to maintain backups of system partition. Remember also that, when you restore an old image, you have to reinstall the apps you installed after the image, regardless of whether you have them installed in a separate drive/partition, as you will be missing the registry entries and system files. You don't have to "image" program files and user profiles imo.

Sudantha_s

10-06-2008, 08:49 PM

roshant

10-06-2008, 09:01 PM

30gb windows
250gb movies
100gb games
100gb vala
20gb songs

Anusha

10-06-2008, 09:05 PM

I dont have a much Bigger HDD , But I'll put my Idea :)

MAXTOR STM3160215AS ATA Device
IDE\DiskMAXTOR_STM3160215AS
160GB

I Have 5 Partitions

Drive C: --> 19.5 GB
*Use Only For Windows

Drive D: --> 39.0 GB
*Install all the Softwares in this Drive

Drive E:--> 25.6GB
*Keep Software Downloads,Software DVD Images,and Personal Files

Drive F: --> 25.6 GB
*Keep My Personal Files ;)

Drive G: --> 25.6 GB
*Only for Active Torrents and Films :)

This is the Basic Plan But,Some Times this Messy up ;),Not Stricted to this :)
The problem with this setup is that more partitions make your hard disks head move a lot, slowing down performance. Ideally you need many hard disks. not necessarily big ones. two 250GB drives way more possibilities than a single 500GB drive, even though the latter is a tad cheaper.

Do no install programs in a separate partition than system partition, IF you are using the same drive. It slows down app loading. Because the hard disk have to access C: as well as D: which are always separated by a long distance, and if they were in the same partition, they might end up closer and having less seeks to do. Seeks kill performance!!!

Sudantha_s

10-06-2008, 09:06 PM

All my music files are in F:\Users\Public\Music
All my video files are in F:\Users\Public\Videos
All my picture files are in F:\Users\Public\Pictures
All my files that are currently being downloaded are in F:\Users\Public\Download
Almost all my documents are in F:\Users\Public\Documents

So ur OS and Files in Same Partition :)

If u face a Fetal Windows Error,You may face data lost :yes: ,If Files in a Another Partition you can just Format this Drive and Install Windows back

You may face much Difficulty To backup ur Stuff wehn windows in down ;)

Anusha

10-06-2008, 09:06 PM

30gb windows
250gb movies
100gb games
100gb vala
20gb songs
Come on! Be a little bit more elaborate, or don't post at all. I don't want to see useless posts!!!

Anusha

10-06-2008, 09:07 PM

So ur OS and Files in Same Partition :)

If u face a Fetal Windows Error,You may face data lost :yes: ,If Files in a Another Partition you can just Format this Drive and Install Windows back

You may face much Difficulty To backup ur Stuff wehn windows in down ;)
No no! My OS is in C: as in C:\Windows
F:\ is my data drive where I only have "data". No games, no programs. I have moved C:\Users\Public to F:\Users\Public using a reg hack, maintaining the exact interoperability.

Ah btw, I don't have to reinstall Windows. I have backups of perfectly working levels. One being a bare Windows installation, one being all the "main" software installed, which usually don't get updated versions often. One being the most recent one with all the updated software + no errors.

Sudantha_s

10-06-2008, 09:08 PM

Do no install programs in a separate partition than system partition, IF you are using the same drive. It slows down app loading. Because the hard disk have to access C: as well as D: which are always separated by a long distance, and if they were in the same partition, they might end up closer and having less seeks to do. Seeks kill performance!!!

Thanks For the Advice :D,

roshant

10-06-2008, 09:10 PM

Come on! Be a little bit more elaborate, or don't post at all. I don't want to see useless posts!!!

Oh lol!
In that case 500gb vala

Anusha

10-06-2008, 09:11 PM

Oh lol!
In that case 500gb vala
GTRZ, bring that feature I requested SOON!!!

Sudantha_s

10-06-2008, 09:12 PM

Oh lol!
In that case 500gb vala

Dont Spam the Tread .Pls Stick to Point :dull: , actually 500GB :eek: lol

Sudantha_s

10-06-2008, 09:17 PM

Anusha

10-06-2008, 09:19 PM

Actually as You Expalin This will kill performance :D

How About The Hard Disk Life time :eek: , Will it ...... -- > :(
Yes, having more partitions => more potential seeks => faster degradation

Why not intelligently plan the partition setup, as i moving all the less frequently used files such as software setups to the end of the disk (towards the slower portion)

But moving the active downloaded UP on the drive will lower the degradation, as active downloads need file writes the entire time and keeping them close to the system partition will lower needing very long seeks. Also, do no move the pagefile to some other partition other than system partition, UNLESS you have 2nd drive, and that's where it should go if not system partition :)

Anusha

10-07-2008, 07:13 PM

Crap! Such a waste of time :/

fallenzeraphine

10-07-2008, 07:16 PM

actually ur thread is doin really well lmao altho most of it is full of spam :/

Anusha

10-07-2008, 08:47 PM

actually ur thread is doin really well lmao altho most of it is full of spam :/
Frakking XS guys don't seem to have a clue either :/

GNS

10-08-2008, 05:43 AM

GNS

10-08-2008, 06:08 AM

All my music files are in F:\Users\Public\Music
All my video files are in F:\Users\Public\Videos
All my picture files are in F:\Users\Public\Pictures
All my files that are currently being downloaded are in F:\Users\Public\Download
Almost all my documents are in F:\Users\Public\Documents

My USER folder is D:\Gayantha ,
btw, I don't use \Music , \Videos , \Pictures generally
cos I've placed'em in Root of D:\ (D:\Audios, \Videos)

all others are in D:\Gayantha\ in their own folders :)

** Movies & Software Setups also in D:\Movies & D:\Soft :lol:

Anusha

10-08-2008, 07:48 AM

2 Partitions :)

Seagate ST316081

C: OS+Programs [50GB]
D: for all other Stuff [100GB]

-----------------------

willing to buy 250GB (from a long timr :rofl: )
after that,
E: (not yet specified) [250GB]

----------
No RAIDs :(
My USER folder is D:\Gayantha ,
btw, I don't use \Music , \Videos , \Pictures generally
cos I've placed'em in Root of D:\ (D:\Audios, \Videos)

all others are in D:\Gayantha\ in their own folders :)

** Movies & Software Setups also in D:\Movies & D:\Soft :lol:

I'm not asking to post YOUR hard disk setup. I'm asking to "PROPOSE" a good setup :/

Anusha

10-08-2008, 07:51 AM

Here's what a guy at xtremesystems showed me:
Link (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3340048&postcount=3)

zCexVe

10-08-2008, 11:50 AM

4 x 500GB Samsung F1 RAID 0+1

It will have 465 GB

25GB system
40GB for software setup+downloads
50 GB for multimedia stuff-pics+resources for editing+my documents
100 GB audio
250GB for video+TV+movies
this is how I do except for RAID 0+1

GNS

10-08-2008, 01:17 PM

I'm not asking to post YOUR hard disk setup. I'm asking to "PROPOSE" a good setup :/

oops!

what I'm using is the currently best for me :P

Anusha

10-08-2008, 03:48 PM

zCexVe

10-08-2008, 10:45 PM

but how is it any good???? just raid :/U got anything better than RAID 0+1?

geethq

10-08-2008, 11:29 PM

Here's what a guy at xtremesystems showed me:
Link (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3340048&postcount=3)thanks
godak dewal danagaththa:D
post eke nathuwa full thread eke link eka danna:D
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=3340048#post3340048

Anusha

10-09-2008, 05:55 AM

U got anything better than RAID 0+1?
RAID doesn't lower seek times. High seek times is the biggest issue with hard disks. Show me a way to lower the seek times!!! (practical seek times)

RAID is only good for things where high sequential read speed is important, such as file copying and video editing. It hardly does anything for launching applications, unless the exe itself is large.

** I don't want RAID for the sake of data security.

shanX

10-09-2008, 11:44 AM

chamindra

10-09-2008, 11:49 AM

agreed with shans mine is smilar!!!!!!!!

Anusha

10-09-2008, 12:46 PM

LOL, big deal :D

HDD1 - 160GB SATA
C:\ Primary OS, Profiles bla bla
D:\ Software
E:\ Music
F:\ Games + Downloads

HDD2 - 40GB IDE (on SATA port)
H:\ Secondary OS, for debug or restore purposes
I:\ + J:\ Backup+Junk
k:\ Old Games

HDD3 - 40GB IDE
L:\ + M:\ + N:\ Junk

HDD4 - 120GB USB
O:\ Movies
That's like the worst setup a person could come up with! Duh!!!!

NOTE: I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO POST YOUR CRAPPY SETUP! COME UP WITH A SETUP FOR ME!!!!

kosandpol

10-09-2008, 01:04 PM

That's like the worst setup a person could come up with! Duh!!!!

NOTE: I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO POST YOUR CRAPPY SETUP! COME UP WITH A SETUP FOR ME!!!!

Ever thought of having a NAS on a fiber optic LAN ? Its pretty fucking fast and has data backups as well. Throw in a some hotswap disks in to that NAS for minimum downtime should the HHDs fail.

Anusha

10-09-2008, 01:58 PM

Ever thought of having a NAS on a fiber optic LAN ? Its pretty fucking fast and has data backups as well. Throw in a some hotswap disks in to that NAS for minimum downtime should the HHDs fail.
Come on man! Just answer my question. NAS is not for performance; but sharing.

kosandpol

10-09-2008, 02:23 PM

Come on man! Just answer my question. NAS is not for performance; but sharing.

NAS with a good cache gives good performance. If you want pure performance then add about 1 TB of memory and create a ram disk. Get the apps to work off the ram disk.

OneUnited

10-09-2008, 02:32 PM

Volume (500GB)

C: drive (100GB)
Windows and Program Files

D: drive (200GB)
Games

E: drive (200GB)
Movies and Music....which are downloaded through the internet.

nismok

10-09-2008, 05:59 PM

Here is My Data Management System in 250GB HDD

20GB - System
30GB - Software & Games
100GB - Music & Videos
100GB - Data Store

Anusha

10-09-2008, 07:21 PM

NAS with a good cache gives good performance. If you want pure performance then add about 1 TB of memory and create a ram disk. Get the apps to work off the ram disk.
ROFLMAO. Something practical, please!

Anusha

10-09-2008, 07:22 PM

Here is My Data Management System in 250GB HDD

20GB - System
30GB - Software & Games
100GB - Music & Videos
100GB - Data Store
How is it any good???? Only thing I can see with your setup is that you can format and reinstall Windows without losing your data :P

kosandpol

10-09-2008, 07:51 PM

ROFLMAO. Something practical, please!
while 1TB of memory may be impractical at this time, running apps off a ram disk is not.
a system with 16GB of RAM can use a 8 GB ram disk to run the OS and most used applications.
Couple of high speed sata drives with integrated flash ram caches can be used to store the user data and system data on the individual disks and a 3rd disk to store the ram disk image.

nismok

10-09-2008, 07:59 PM

How is it any good???? Only thing I can see with your setup is that you can format and reinstall Windows without losing your data :P

Ya... You got it.. When I feel PC is slow and Want to have fresh start I do format C: and D:

Anusha

10-09-2008, 08:21 PM

while 1TB of memory may be impractical at this time, running apps off a ram disk is not.
a system with 16GB of RAM can use a 8 GB ram disk to run the OS and most used applications.
Couple of high speed sata drives with integrated flash ram caches can be used to store the user data and system data on the individual disks and a 3rd disk to store the ram disk image.
RAM drives are not practical in a country like SL, where power failures are frequent.

Why can't you propose a normal hard disk setup?

bhai4uanu

10-09-2008, 08:33 PM

to be honest,you are doing more than enough :dull:
i just don't think anyone here will be able to help you with this :D

Anusha

10-09-2008, 08:54 PM

to be honest,you are doing more than enough :dull:
i just don't think anyone here will be able to help you with this :D
doing more than enough? what is that supposed to mean????

bhai4uanu

10-09-2008, 09:10 PM

doing more than enough? what is that supposed to mean???? hard drive setup + data management solution

GNS

10-09-2008, 09:12 PM

RAM drives are not practical in a country like SL, where power failures are frequent.

Why can't you propose a normal hard disk setup?

may be because you don't need configurations of Normal HDD setups :lol:

zCexVe

10-09-2008, 09:17 PM

WTF?
Get a SCSI with 15000 RPM for the OS.Velociraptors or raptors RAIDed 1 for data.Security + speed + lower seek times. :P

prasad_tk3

10-09-2008, 09:19 PM

widows xp run's perfect /faster on larger partitions

GNS

10-09-2008, 09:32 PM

GNS

10-09-2008, 09:33 PM

That's like the worst setup a person could come up with! Duh!!!!

NOTE: I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO POST YOUR CRAPPY SETUP! COME UP WITH A SETUP FOR ME!!!!

Duh!

what's wrong with your current setup?

I believe it's a cool setup :yes:

GNS

10-09-2008, 09:38 PM

Volume (500GB)

C: drive (100GB)
Windows and Program Files

D: drive (200GB)
Games

E: drive (200GB)
Movies and Music....which are downloaded through the internet.

:dull:

Anusha

10-09-2008, 09:41 PM

:nerd:

won't it be 1TB after mirrored? :confused:
yes it will be

kosandpol

10-09-2008, 10:17 PM

RAM drives are not practical in a country like SL, where power failures are frequent.

Why can't you propose a normal hard disk setup?
Quite simply because you are not satisfied with mere hard disk setups.
Besides using ram drives or hard drives has no significance with power failures.
On a power failure, if the modified data has not been written back to the hard disk, ram drive or not, the data is lost.
A ram drive speeds up execution so that is the ideal for performance.

sherlock

10-09-2008, 11:22 PM

no idea

shanX

10-09-2008, 11:37 PM

That's like the worst setup a person could come up with! Duh!!!!

NOTE: I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO POST YOUR CRAPPY SETUP! COME UP WITH A SETUP FOR ME!!!!
who cares, its just a pc, we dnt want every tiny bit of performance out of it, I just love the practicality or wtever v call it, dnt hav tym to SETUP HDDs lol. Sorry for spaming ur thread :rolleyes: LOL. Intresting concept anywy :D

Anusha

10-10-2008, 06:09 AM

WTF?
Get a SCSI with 15000 RPM for the OS.Velociraptors or raptors RAIDed 1 for data.Security + speed + lower seek times. :P
Again, you are forgetting one important requirement. Keeping it cheap!!!

Anusha

10-10-2008, 06:09 AM

Duh!

what's wrong with your current setup?

I believe it's a cool setup :yes:
What's wrong is that there are more areas to improve.

Anusha

10-10-2008, 06:11 AM

Quite simply because you are not satisfied with mere hard disk setups.
Besides using ram drives or hard drives has no significance with power failures.
On a power failure, if the modified data has not been written back to the hard disk, ram drive or not, the data is lost.
A ram drive speeds up execution so that is the ideal for performance.
But the hassle is too much. Copying to RAM, then saving back to HDD (doesn't matter if it is still automatically handled). Can't shutdown the PC quickly. All these crap!

henderson

10-10-2008, 10:25 AM

kosandpol

10-10-2008, 10:26 AM

But the hassle is too much. Copying to RAM, then saving back to HDD (doesn't matter if it is still automatically handled). Can't shutdown the PC quickly. All these crap!

You cant have the cake and eat it too. If you want pure performance, you have to sacrifice on some other areas.

Anusha

10-10-2008, 11:05 AM

My suggestion is
use
WD VelociRaptor (WD3000HLFS/WD3000GLFS) 300GB drive with 3 partitons
40G for OS
100G for programs
rest for games

use
WD1002FBYS 1T drive
for multimedia applications (partitioning is at users discretion)

I see a flow in this. Having Windows and Programmes in the same drive in two partitions sucks!!! I mean, the programs most of the times need access to Windows folder (system files etc.) so when launching an app required the hard disk seeking two partitions. That is no good!!!

If a single disk is used, Windows and Programs should be in the same partition.

Makes sense? Better to get two 150GB Velos than a single 300GB Velo. (not to RAID)

henderson

10-10-2008, 11:19 AM

I see a flow in this. Having Windows and Programmes in the same drive in two partitions sucks!!! I mean, the programs most of the times need access to Windows folder (system files etc.) so when launching an app required the hard disk seeking two partitions. That is no good!!!

If a single disk is used, Windows and Programs should be in the same partition.

Makes sense? Better to get two 150GB Velos than a single 300GB Velo. (not to RAID)

sure, I think you are correct. But I considered power bill also here by reducing no of drives. Anyway there is a point in what you are saying. Then programs should move to another disc.

Anusha

10-10-2008, 11:23 AM

sure, I think you are correct. But I considered power bill also here by reducing no of drives. Anyway there is a point in what you are saying. Then programs should move to another disc.
But do you know that the power is mostly consumed when seeking. Two drives *might* give better power consumption results because of reduced seeks.

henderson

10-10-2008, 03:42 PM

But do you know that the power is mostly consumed when seeking. Two drives *might* give better power consumption results because of reduced seeks.

well I never knew that. I thought most of power is used to keep discs spinning. Thanks for the information.

Anusha

10-10-2008, 07:15 PM

well I never knew that. I thought most of power is used to keep discs spinning. Thanks for the information.
Well, it is not that significant. And the power consumption of hard drives is not intolerable (at least for me)

GNS

10-10-2008, 09:24 PM

What's wrong is that there are more areas to improve.

what kind of improvement your are looking for? :nerd:

hope you won't find considerable change for your current Setup :P

Anusha

10-10-2008, 11:59 PM

what kind of improvement your are looking for? :nerd:

hope you won't find considerable change for your current Setup :P
You are hopeless!!!

GNS

10-12-2008, 10:29 AM

You are hopeless!!!

kinda :yes:

zCexVe

10-14-2008, 04:00 PM

I see you have posted your great question in techpowerup.The only answer you got is even from a girl :p :rofl:

Anusha

10-14-2008, 04:52 PM

I see you have posted your great question in techpowerup.The only answer you got is even from a girl :p :rofl:
I guess you forgot your glasses when you read the thread :rofl:. That's not the same thing as I asked in this thread. It's a RAID related question :P :P

HIVOLTAG3

10-14-2008, 04:57 PM

30gb windows
250gb movies
100gb games
100gb vala
20gb songs
:D :D :D

HIVOLTAG3

10-14-2008, 05:21 PM

Anusha

10-14-2008, 05:43 PM

this aint a big problm :P

cofig 1
use raid-0 to system drive[os] [ie use 2hdd WD raptor]
use raid-5,6 with personal data [no limit]

cofig2
use raid-1+0 to system drive[os] [ie use 4hdd WD raptor]
use raid-53 with personal data [no limit,4+,even]

data arrangment is up to u...

if u want more reliability , use Drobo series..
Data management is the biggest problem, not choosing the hard disks. Ever heard of short stroking? If you do that to the Raptor RAID-0 volume, you will be left with a substantial amount of free space and I don't know what to put there.

I guess the only option is to go for small 32GB SSD drives maybe with RAID-0 for Windows/Apps/Games and use a 1TB or two 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black drives (not RAID-0) :/

The thing is I'm not worried about the hard drives failing, but I'm worried about the RAID volume getting corrupted.

HIVOLTAG3

10-14-2008, 06:09 PM

Data management is the biggest problem, not choosing the hard disks. Ever heard of short stroking? If you do that to the Raptor RAID-0 volume, you will be left with a substantial amount of free space and I don't know what to put there.

I guess the only option is to go for small 32GB SSD drives maybe with RAID-0 for Windows/Apps/Games and use a 1TB or two 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black drives (not RAID-0) :/

The thing is I'm not worried about the hard drives failing, but I'm worried about the RAID volume getting corrupted.

WHATZ da prob wit sripped array.. use dat array to os/games/appz[b cos even da os is loading throug same array, if u hv reasonable ammount of ram+swap file is on ram disk,then there is no significant prof loss.]

yep: using wd raptor with raid is waste of space,using SSD drives is a good optn.

but how is dat RAID vol get currupted?? if u use dp or ddp??

i mean if u hv sensitive data,u hv to use dp,ddp anyway isnt it?.

Anusha

10-14-2008, 06:17 PM

WHATZ da prob wit sripped array.. use dat array to os/games/appz[b cos even da os is loading throug same array, if u hv reasonable ammount of ram+swap file is on ram disk,then there is no significant prof loss.]

yep: using wd raptor with raid is waste of space,using SSD drives is a good optn.

but how is dat RAID vol get currupted?? if u use dp or ddp??

i mean if u hv sensitive data,u hv to use dp,ddp anyway isnt it?.
I don't use a swap/pagefile. I guess this makes a huge difference it hard drive performance due to lessened I/O conflicts between system and user I/O requests.

What do you mean by DP? :/

P.S.
I guess corruption is mostly due to RAID controller failure. Then I will have bigger things to worry about such as replacing the motherboard. Best thing to do is backup everything :D

farshad

10-14-2008, 06:26 PM

no idea

HIVOLTAG3

10-14-2008, 06:33 PM

I don't use a swap/pagefile. I guess this makes a huge difference it hard drive performance due to lessened I/O conflicts between system and user I/O requests.

What do you mean by DP? :/

P.S.
I guess corruption is mostly due to RAID controller failure. Then I will have bigger things to worry about such as replacing the motherboard. Best thing to do is backup everything :D

ohh ...
but many servers still using raid systems. i think

dp (distributed parity) ddp(dual distributed parity).[sorry abt bad english :rolleyes: ].

yehh backup is better..:lol:

Anusha

10-14-2008, 07:02 PM

ohh ...
but many servers still using raid systems. i think

dp (distributed parity) ddp(dual distributed parity).[sorry abt bad english :rolleyes: ].

yehh backup is better..:lol:
I don't know if those are options in Intel ICHR controller. I can't remember really.

Ans servers never use JUST RAID-0. Mirroring is always used, and MAYBE striping with it. And also they never use the *poor* integrated RAID solutions. I guess they are very reliable. :)

Sudantha_s

10-14-2008, 07:10 PM

I see you have posted your great question in techpowerup.The only answer you got is even from a girl :p :rofl:

ur da Real CopyPaste Girl :lol: a guy called zCexVe comes at Night at Just Copy Paste tom's hardware and xbitlabs :P :P

some examples :

http://www.elakiri.com/forum/showthread.php?t=111846
http://www.elakiri.com/forum/showthread.php?t=112133
http://www.elakiri.com/forum/showthread.php?t=112135
http://www.elakiri.com/forum/showthread.php?t=112132
http://www.elakiri.com/forum/showthread.php?t=112136

Anusha

10-14-2008, 07:15 PM

Now now. Don't make this a flaming thread :no:

madurax86

10-14-2008, 07:21 PM

Changing the OS will work for sure :P
And smaller the better with or without RAID...thats what i think tho

kosandpol

10-14-2008, 07:27 PM

Changing the OS will work for sure :P
is that the Godwin's law for OS debates ? :P

madurax86

10-14-2008, 07:32 PM

is that the Godwin's law for OS debates ? :P

no; i havent seen a defragmenter for linux thats y

Anusha

10-14-2008, 07:32 PM

Changing the OS will work for sure :P
And smaller the better with or without RAID...thats what i think tho
Nope. It will (i.e. switching to Linux - any linux!!!) degrade performance much much more. Unless of course you are talking about a "stripped down version of Vista" :P

Anusha

10-14-2008, 07:37 PM

no; i havent seen a defragmenter for linux thats y
That's because Linux users are very less sensitive to slow downs. I mean when I was using Ubuntu, it was VERY slow, but I didn't get annoyed for that slowness. Windows XP on the same system is super fast, but I get annoyed even then!! I don't know why. I guess Linux makes people numb :P

madurax86

10-14-2008, 07:44 PM

Nope. It will (i.e. switching to Linux - any linux!!!) degrade performance much much more. Unless of course you are talking about a "stripped down version of Vista" :P

About performance[non hard drive related]
I dont think so...i did 2 super pi 1M calculations in winXP and in ubuntu 8.04 with wine both up real close :P that was wine+linux if it was native ubuntu would do better[if you want proof I'll provide]

Hard drive related
Hmm may be there will be a slow down because of swap but you can still run it with swap turned off

madurax86

10-14-2008, 07:46 PM

I ran super PI on the same system ....just incase :P

kosandpol

10-14-2008, 07:46 PM

That's because Linux users are very less sensitive to slow downs. I mean when I was using Ubuntu, it was VERY slow, but I didn't get annoyed for that slowness. Windows XP on the same system is super fast, but I get annoyed even then!! I don't know why. I guess Linux makes people numb :P
Probably because with *nix the speed stays the same through out its entire lifetime as opposed to windows which is fast at the beginning but slows down over time.

Anusha

10-14-2008, 07:48 PM

About performance[non hard drive related]
I dont think so...i did 2 super pi 1M calculations in winXP and in ubuntu 8.04 with wine both up real close :P that was wine+linux if it was native ubuntu would do better[if you want proof I'll provide]

Hard drive related
Hmm may be there will be a slow down because of swap but you can still run it with swap turned off
OH btw, VMWare gives almost same performance as Windows in these things! There is nothing so special about WINE.

Anusha

10-14-2008, 07:49 PM

Probably because with *nix the speed stays the same through out its entire lifetime as opposed to windows which is fast at the beginning but slows down over time.
Weird, how it never happened to me in Vista... If anything happened that was due to me doing unwanted stuff in Admin mode, and that is same as *sabotaging* as Linux systems in root. :D

P.S. If any potion of Vista that was made slower was reboot time just after install a new update, and after a couple of reboots, it's back to normal.

madurax86

10-14-2008, 07:55 PM

OH btw, VMWare gives almost same performance as Windows in these things! There is nothing so special about WINE.
Its not wine[wine actually slows it down] its all mighty ubuntu that does the speeding up still windows wont run a native linux program that gud :rolleyes:

Anusha

10-14-2008, 08:12 PM

Its not wine[wine actually slows it down] its all mighty ubuntu that does the speeding up still windows wont run a native linux program that gud :rolleyes:
Native Ubuntu programs are really slow what can I say. WINE programs are always a pain to setup, even with a guide.

Anyway, changing OSes are not an option here. Stick to the original requirement. (Because the things I have mentioned are not OS level performance improvements; they are all common to ANY OS.)

HIVOLTAG3

10-14-2008, 08:18 PM

I don't know if those are options in Intel ICHR controller. I can't remember really.

Ans servers never use JUST RAID-0. Mirroring is always used, and MAYBE striping with it. And also they never use the *poor* integrated RAID solutions. I guess they are very reliable. :)

1. oopz those r not int3l ICHR optionz...

2. well im not talking abt ICHR8/9, there r many raid solution[intergrated] like promise,.. those r also much reliable, otherwise what is the use of them? :lol:

but what is the final sulution that u willing to hv?.. preformance level???

isuruwj

10-14-2008, 08:20 PM

i have no idea about this stuff.........

madurax86

10-14-2008, 08:26 PM

Native Ubuntu programs are really slow what can I say. WINE programs are always a pain to setup, even with a guide.

Anyway, changing OSes are not an option here. Stick to the original requirement. (Because the things I have mentioned are not OS level performance improvements; they are all common to ANY OS.)

hmm ok
then smaller is better to me

zCexVe

10-14-2008, 10:59 PM

I guess you forgot your glasses when you read the thread :rofl:. That's not the same thing as I asked in this thread. It's a RAID related question :P :P
Wasn't your main question redirected into RAID when we all commented on RAID drives? BTW I would really like to know what is your current config and partitioning coz it went through many minds.:D

zCexVe

10-14-2008, 11:03 PM

Now now. Don't make this a flaming thread :no:
Oh,dont worry.I have once done that thing.Poor chanster paid off for it.Besides its news.One have to share it by the means of copy paste to put it here.I can stop it but many will hurt from that.
Besides everyone in EK knows who Sudantha_s is and who zCexVe is :D And I have accepted that I copy paste news n all and even gave the sites out if someone wants to post news.

And check hardwaresecrets articles.I remeber they had some article for your question.Im sorry I am not even 100% sure that it was in HWsecrets.

Anusha

10-14-2008, 11:05 PM

Wasn't your main question redirected into RAID when we all commented on RAID drives? BTW I would really like to know what is your current config and partitioning coz it went through many minds.:D
Nope. I already have RAID-0. And there is not much of a performance difference in day to day task with RAID0 vs no RAID0, I guess due to superfetch.

My setup is this: http://www.elakiri.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3109447&postcount=9

But I moved the whole user profiles folder to the 500GB drive with no partitioning (or 1 partition) and moved less frequently used files to the end of the RAID volume, such as the software setups (about 35GB), game ISOs (about 100GB) and virtual machine drives (about 30GB)

Anusha

10-14-2008, 11:06 PM

hmm ok
then smaller is better to me
Anything to back that idea up?

Anusha

10-14-2008, 11:07 PM

Oh,dont worry.I have once done that thing.Poor chanster paid off for it.Besides its news.One have to share it by the means of copy paste to put it here.I can stop it but many will hurt from that.
Besides everyone in EK knows who Sudantha_s is and who zCexVe is :D And I have accepted that I copy paste news n all and even gave the sites out if someone wants to post news.

And check hardwaresecrets articles.I remeber they had some article for your question.Im sorry I am not even 100% sure that it was in HWsecrets.
No worries I gave up the re-RAIDing idea. I'll have one big 500GB volume and have it logically partitioned.

madurax86

10-14-2008, 11:16 PM

Anything to back that idea up?
umm small harddrives are easy to seek ...if u put a 60GB SATA[if there is] harddrive to a core 2 duo 1gb ram system wont it run better than a 160gb harddrive on the same system?

zCexVe

10-14-2008, 11:27 PM

]But I moved the whole user profiles folder to the 500GB drive with no partitioning (or 1 partition)[/U] and moved less frequently used files to the end of the RAID volume, such as the software setups (about 35GB), game ISOs (about 100GB) and virtual machine drives (about 30GB)
! partition of 500GB is not good in my opinion.I mean if the partition table gets corrupted and testdisk cant restore the patition table you are risking more than your life.(Thats in my opinion too) :D. And usually NTFS searches the index and if not found search earlier if passed the number go backwards like type,isnt it? So a bigger partition means more seek time,Doesn't it?

zCexVe

10-14-2008, 11:28 PM

No worries I gave up the re-RAIDing idea. I'll have one big 500GB volume and have it logically partitioned.
Me and Mahen have a common friend.If he installs quicktime his RAID array fails.LOL Wonder how these intergrated RAID controllers work :P

Anusha

10-14-2008, 11:30 PM

umm small harddrives are easy to seek ...if u put a 60GB SATA[if there is] harddrive to a core 2 duo 1gb ram system wont it run better than a 160gb harddrive on the same system?
Nope it won't.

Because you see, if you consider both the drives to use a single platter, and same technology, you can draw a graph like that.

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w224/anushand/60gb_vs_160gb.png (http://s177.photobucket.com/albums/w224/anushand/?action=view&current=60gb_vs_160gb.png)

See, the average seek times for the 60GB one and 160GB are same, but if you consider first 60GB of the 160GB (where the OS and programs reside most of the times), the seeks are lower, and hence better responsiveness.

Also the raw transfer rate wise, the first 60GB of the 160GB drive has a higher average.

Also, higher the density, higher the sectors that pass under one rotational sweep of the header, and more bits can be read per rotation, hence again faster.

Anusha

10-14-2008, 11:37 PM

! partition of 500GB is not good in my opinion.I mean if the partition table gets corrupted and testdisk cant restore the patition table you are risking more than your life.(Thats in my opinion too) :D. And usually NTFS searches the index and if not found search earlier if passed the number go backwards like type,isnt it? So a bigger partition means more seek time,Doesn't it?
Bigger partition means more "average" seek times because it is not short stroking. But it's a data drive. I don't need performance. This is where Diskeeper comes in. It can organize the data on access patterns moving the frequently accessed files to the faster end of the partition.

I don't know how, but non-indexed searching in Vista is as fast as indexed searching in XP. There is no problem as to indexing, as I have indexed the files I search. :D

Anyway the decision to have one partition in the 500GB one is else it would result in a data plan that I don't like.

zCexVe

10-15-2008, 12:06 AM

Bigger partition means more "average" seek times because it is not short stroking. But it's a data drive. I don't need performance. This is where Diskeeper comes in. It can organize the data on access patterns moving the frequently accessed files to the faster end of the partition.

I don't know how, but non-indexed searching in Vista is as fast as indexed searching in XP. There is no problem as to indexing, as I have indexed the files I search. :D

Anyway the decision to have one partition in the 500GB one is else it would result in a data plan that I don't like.
Hmm.What version of diskeeper do you use? I still use 2007.It has optimized my drive[250GB] really well.I should plug the 500GB and leave the PC on for a day to optimize it and should change to work on 500GB.

HIVOLTAG3

10-15-2008, 01:03 AM

HIVOLTAG3

10-15-2008, 01:07 AM

hey actually i cant figure it out,what is ur goal here??...
preformance, utilization, or life time?? :confused:

zCexVe

10-15-2008, 02:37 AM

hey actually i cant figure it out,what is ur goal here??...
preformance, utilization, or life time?? :confused:
Good luck with the answer :P :rofl:

Anusha

10-15-2008, 06:11 AM

Hmm.What version of diskeeper do you use? I still use 2007.It has optimized my drive[250GB] really well.I should plug the 500GB and leave the PC on for a day to optimize it and should change to work on 500GB.
2008

Anusha

10-15-2008, 06:15 AM

hey actually i cant figure it out,what is ur goal here??...
preformance, utilization, or life time?? :confused:
Performance, but not raw throughput. Mostly highest responsiveness. Say, when you are copying a large file or extracting a large archive, you should not be held back from general tasks such as launching an application, browsing, listening to music etc. If the program you are trying to load is in the same drive as where you are copying the files to/from, it will take forever to launch the application ne? I want to minimize that effect.

HIVOLTAG3

10-15-2008, 09:18 AM

Performance, but not raw throughput. Mostly highest responsiveness. Say, when you are copying a large file or extracting a large archive, you should not be held back from general tasks such as launching an application, browsing, listening to music etc. If the program you are trying to load is in the same drive as where you are copying the files to/from, it will take forever to launch the application ne? I want to minimize that effect.

ok

here is a little clue.. for extracting archive, tht process usually use more cpu than other procs, eventually other oparation get delayed[with same priority level].:nerd:

i think that we cannot overcome that final prob by using a single hdd. if we launh app from same drive which copy something[larg file] from/to, thats is a matter of seek time and data rate of hdd. solution is using stripped raid [raid-0].
[im sugstn that u should use pci-e RAID controller], as raid-0 dosnt hv fault tolerance, u should use this raid only for os/appz like stuff.

anyway u hv already given up the raid idea ne?..:confused:

Anusha

10-15-2008, 09:34 AM

ok

here is a little clue.. for extracting archive, tht process usually use more cpu than other procs, eventually other oparation get delayed[with same priority level].:nerd:

i think that we cannot overcome that final prob by using a single hdd. if we launh app from same drive which copy something[larg file] from/to, thats is a matter of seek time and data rate of hdd. solution is using stripped raid [raid-0].
[im sugstn that u should use pci-e RAID controller], as raid-0 dosnt hv fault tolerance, u should use this raid only for os/appz like stuff.

anyway u hv already given up the raid idea ne?..:confused:
Well, the archives i extract are those huge torrent files and they are IO intensive, not CPU intensive.

I have not given up RAID-0. But RAID doesn't overcome the slowness due to access time. For example, I did a image backup of C: drive (RAID-0 first partition) to the final partition of the RAID volume as well as the single 500GB drive. (Note that, even a single drive in the RAID-0 volume is faster than the 500GB drive) Saving the image in the RAID volume took over 4 minutes, while saving it to the 500GB drive took only 2 minutes.

And yes, I use the RAID volume for Windows, Programs and Games. Final partition is used for less frequently used data (those data is backed up anyway)

lasith_hasantha

10-15-2008, 09:35 AM

No idea machan

HIVOLTAG3

10-15-2008, 10:24 AM

Well, the archives i extract are those huge torrent files and they are IO intensive, not CPU intensive.

I have not given up RAID-0. But RAID doesn't overcome the slowness due to access time. For example, I did a image backup of C: drive (RAID-0 first partition) to the final partition of the RAID volume as well as the single 500GB drive. (Note that, even a single drive in the RAID-0 volume is faster than the 500GB drive) Saving the image in the RAID volume took over 4 minutes, while saving it to the 500GB drive took only 2 minutes.

And yes, I use the RAID volume for Windows, Programs and Games. Final partition is used for less frequently used data (those data is backed up anyway)

ok..

thats fact seems true.. itz ok to take 4min to copy file through RAID-0 array.and 2min to copy that on to 500gb hdd.

what u hv done is,copy/backup file

1. RAID-0[1st partition] >> RAID-0[same array] [note that ur os is also on RAID-0]
2. RAID-0 >> 500GB [this is same as HDD to HDD copy]

now u can see that in the 1 step ur RAID-0 array getting busy while coping.
second step is more like HDD to HDD copying. this must b faster than step 1 anyway.

Anusha

10-15-2008, 10:40 AM

ok..

thats fact seems true.. itz ok to take 4min to copy file through RAID-0 array.and 2min to copy that on to 500gb hdd.

what u hv done is,copy/backup file

1. RAID-0[1st partition] >> RAID-0[same array] [note that ur os is also on RAID-0]
2. RAID-0 >> 500GB [this is same as HDD to HDD copy]

now u can see that in the 1 step ur RAID-0 array getting busy while coping.
second step is more like HDD to HDD copying. this must b faster than step 1 anyway.
yes yes i know! i didn't need an explanation. i'm saying that the access times are more important than transfer speeds.

HIVOLTAG3

10-15-2008, 10:58 AM

yes yes i know! i didn't need an explanation. i'm saying that the access times are more important than transfer speeds.

:confused: :lol:

1.well actually itz not access time, itz due to seek time.:cool:

2. i try to point out dat u cant copmare above steps 1 wit 2

hmm

mekai machan itin kiyanna thiyenne, ubata oke pref gana occharama case 1k thiyenam high end data solution 1k set kara ganin.

im outta here,

wish u gud luck..

Anusha

10-15-2008, 11:19 AM

:confused: :lol:

1.well actually itz not access time, itz due to seek time.:cool:

2. i try to point out dat u cant copmare above steps 1 wit 2

hmm

mekai machan itin kiyanna thiyenne, ubata oke pref gana occharama case 1k thiyenam high end data solution 1k set kara ganin.

im outta here,

wish u gud luck..
isn't seek time + rotational delay = access time? :D

high performance data solution ekak kiwwe? i wouldn't spend USD3000 and get a super fast 80GB SSD drive from Iomega :/