1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

7200rpm 20gb drive?

Discussion in 'Desktop & Laptop Computers Forum' started by Frazal666, Jul 18, 2005.

  1. Frazal666

    Frazal666
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    hey everyone,

    As in my previous thread, I am going to use one low capacity drive for the OS (and some small data and samll applications) and a large capacity drive for the larger applications, large data, games, etc. So does anyone know anywhere that sells 7200rpm 20gb s-ata drive?

    Thanks
     
  2. Paul Shirley

    Paul Shirley
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,354
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +174
    Smallest SATA drive I've seen is 36gb WD Raptor £72@ebuyer, very fast (10K) but expensive. Don't think anyone makes them smaller.

    For maintaining speed the important thing is having multiple drives not necessarily how big they are, bouncing data between drives is massively faster than the fastest single drive. There's not really a problem in formatting a 36gb drive as 10-20gb Windoze and 16-26gb data, just try to make sure your swap file is on a different physical drive to the data you use most often.

    Having a very small Windoze partition is useful because it makes backups and emergency recovery much easier - my 10gb of Windoze+applications usually images onto a single DVD-RW with Trueimage.

    Unless you're throwing large AV files around an extra gig or 2 of RAM will probably give more speedup than anything else you can do.
     
  3. Big Adam

    Big Adam
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    509
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Peterborough
    Ratings:
    +4
    No such thing exists and to be honest, why limit yourself to 20Gb? With the cost of storage now stupidly cheap, just pick yourself up a nice 120Gb+ drive.

    If you do want to keep size to a minimum, you'll find the smallest modern drives (apart from noisy Raptors) will be 80Gb.
     
  4. Frazal666

    Frazal666
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I have a 20gb in my current computer:rolleyes:

    Anyway, I want to limit it so that I spend as little as possible on a drive that I will not use data on much. I guess ill just find the chapest 7200rpm drive i can find

    BTW, I was told that the 10,000rpm is very noisy, and im going to listen to music, videos, etc. so...

    Pual, what do you mean by 'bouncing data between drives'? Are you talking about Raid 0?
     
  5. Frazal666

    Frazal666
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    what is better? two 160gb 7200rpm 8mb cache raid 0, or one 40gb (same spec) and 200gb (same spec)?

    I dont care about the difference in the total amount of space.

    Thanks
     
  6. Paul Shirley

    Paul Shirley
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,354
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +174
    'Bouncing' means arranging your reads & writes to minimise head seeking.

    A good example is cutting video: read from one drive and write to the other, neither drive does much seeking, does half as much work and overall runs faster. Its the same principle behind keeping your programs/swap file/temp area and actual data on different drives.

    I run a 2x160gb RAID0, unless you want the data redundancy I can't recommend it, depending on your controllers it can be slightly faster to much slower than a single drive, its not something to do for speed. The RAID support built into motherboards is pretty dubious all round, RAID 1 is reputedly also not much use on them. Spend the cash on a decent backup strategy and a fast disk instead.

    The other thing to remember is all modern drives will easily keep up with most things you'll want to do. I choose mine for sound level and heat before speed.

    And you can never have too much space ;)
     
  7. Frazal666

    Frazal666
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    guess ill just go for the 2x160gb raid0.

    thanks
     
  8. Paul Shirley

    Paul Shirley
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,354
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +174
    Just a quick check: you do realise a 2x160gb RAID0 is just 160gb of storage...?
     
  9. Frazal666

    Frazal666
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    sorry, ive been busy

    I meant raid1:oops:
     
  10. Paul Shirley

    Paul Shirley
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,354
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +174
    Thought so ;)

    Couple of points about RAID1:
    I strongly suggest you do some research on your specific hardware before setting up RAID1, mboard implementations are frequently disappointing.

    Some striped (RAID1/5) setups are incompatible with some drive imaging software, another thing to check.
     
  11. Maff et1

    Maff et1
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Running a raid stripe on your boot drive also has the problem that if your chipset drivers corrupt your system may not boot.

    I always prefer to keep the boot drive simple. A single sata drive minimises the problems that can stop you getting into windows. If your raid is just data then you can recover it from windows, if it's the boot partition then you may find you can't get into windows to recover it.

    The exception is if you are using true hardware raid that presents as a single drive with no special drivers (and also some chipset raids will mirror in that way).
     
  12. Frazal666

    Frazal666
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    if i use raid 1, wont the boot data be split into both drives, so both will be the boot drive?
     
  13. The Dude

    The Dude
    Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2004
    Messages:
    4,926
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Beverley, East Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +1,243
    Another option is go for 1 x 160Gb internal etc, and spend the rest on an external FW drive?

    You've got a solution capable of backing up your full disk, and the backup copy is also transportable.. ;)

    I personally wouldn't bother with either RAID 0 or 1.... they are hardly worth the effort in my opinion, ( arguments on a postcard please :) ) once you add in 'hidden costs' such as the research required, potential running probs, and the fact that if your PC really gets nuked, you still lose everything more times than not.

    As long as you have 2 working copies of your data, I'd say go for the cheapest and easiest solution possible.
    The SW that comes with the Maxtor OneTouch drives is about perfect, once you have it setup it takes care of itself.

    RAID5 is well worth doing if you have the cash, 0&1 I would never touch.
     
  14. Maff et1

    Maff et1
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes. If you plan anything other than a plain drive or a mirror (raid 0) for the boot drive then chipset or cheap add on board raid can get you in a world of hurt if the windows drivers corrupt.

    Better to buy a small single drive for boot/apps and then two drives to stripe for data.
     
  15. Frazal666

    Frazal666
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    oh, i understand now. ill post tomrow what i decide to do
     
  16. chrislad

    chrislad
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    5,642
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Rep. of Ireland
    Ratings:
    +141
    I actually went to buy a 20gig for my Xbox, but I was told that they are no longer sold. Smallest I could get was a 40gig. I tried Maplin and PC World
     
  17. Frazal666

    Frazal666
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    ok, well, now im just plain confused. Ok, Paul said that raid bulit into motherboards arnt good, what about the ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe?



    PS, isnt 2x160gb = 320gb raid 0? And Raid 1 is 2x160gb = 160gb? One of the reasons im confused.
     
  18. Frazal666

    Frazal666
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Im just going to forget about raid for now. Instead, ill have one 40gb for OS and some other stuff, and 80/120/160gb (depends what i decide upon) for games, applications, etc.

    BTW, How much space does XP Pro take up?
     
  19. The Dude

    The Dude
    Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2004
    Messages:
    4,926
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Beverley, East Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +1,243
    I'm confused too... :confused:

    Is there a specific reason you need/want a RAID array such as this?

    There aren't any real benefits, it can get tricky to setup, and can go horribly horribly wrong at any time it feels like it.
    ( made worse by the fact that you naturally drop your guard )

    If you don't *fully* understand RAID, I'd say stay well away from it.

    Me personally, I wouldn't waste my time installing anything less than a £1000+ RAID5 controller card in anything of mine...
    And then 5X £450 SCSI Drives.... :eek:

    A Bad RAID controller/Array is more susceptible to catastrophic failure than no RAID at all.

    RAID 0&1 are NEVER USED PROFESSIONALLY, unless the enhanced disk read access of RAID1 is required.

    You don't require read access beyond SATA 150 for normal home use, Nobody does really?

    I use external FW drives instead, the included SW does a perfect job of incremental backups, and you can take a copy of your data with you anywhere you go.
     
  20. The Dude

    The Dude
    Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2004
    Messages:
    4,926
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Beverley, East Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +1,243
    too slow.. :)


    You can fit XP pro into 1.5Gig (no installed apps) if you're cagey about it.

    I'd say always allocate at least 10Gig to C:, 20Gig is better if you have the drive space..

    :smashin:
     
  21. Paul Shirley

    Paul Shirley
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,354
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +174
    After 10 years accumulating crud on my boot drive I've still only got 8gb of Windoze+applications+system data. 3gb of that is WinXP (someday I'll clear out at least a Gb of it), another gig is system restore. You'll have to be pretty careless to reach that size after a clean install, I've got hundreds of apps installed and some real .5gb monsters most people won't need.

    Just remember to install games to your data drive and 10gb should be more than enough space. Always leave at least 15% free so defrag stands a chance of working...

    My 8Gb is about as big as makes sense, it just manages to compress onto a single DVD backup. Being able to easily image your WinXP install is a lifesaver, its diabolicaly hard to properly backup WinXP any other way.
     

Share This Page

Loading...