Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Tommer · 2012-09-20, 17:33

Hiya,

I've had to buy a new HDD since I accidenatally gave my 6 year old dell hard drive a hard knock when I was swapping parts between machines and now it's making rather loud rumbly noises and sounds pretty much on it's way out Rolleyes

luckily not too much on there that needs backing up.

Anyway, a thought occured to me, in regards to performance, would it make sense when the new one arrives, this time to install programs to my secondary hard drive, rather than the primary one with the OS? So as to evenly distribute the work load of each hard drive arm.. or would this difference be negligible?

(wow i'm in this section too much xD)

Cola · 2012-09-20, 19:50

Have you considered an SSD?

FR4NOx · 2012-09-21, 01:33

OS - SSD
Everything else - 7200rpm HDD.

My filled 640GB 5400rpm is extremely slow, like I've benchmarked it at 1.75mb/s read on the OS partition (I have two partitions for W7 on the same drive, Samshit's stupid idea.). That's why I leave my programs open.

Cola · 2012-09-21, 05:06

Yeah, Agree with Ken on this one. If you can't afford an SSD, get a SSHD (Solid state hybrid drive), and if you can't afford that, get a 7200rpm HDD. Whatever you do. DON'T go for a 5400rpm HDD. Ain't worth it.

Tommer · 2012-09-21, 09:01

It's too late for that I've already brought a 7200 rpm hdd.

My question is would it be faster to keep programs seperate to the OS drive?

Cola · 2012-09-21, 13:28

You've got to elaborate(correct word choice?) on what you mean.

Have you only got one drive, or have you got multiple drives for different stuff?

Tommer · (This post was last modified: 2012-09-21 13:58 by Tommer.)

Why do I need to elaborate this?

(2012-09-21 09:01)Tommer Wrote: keep programs seperate to the OS drive?

You can't physically keep a program seperate to the OS drive without a second hard drive, so why would I ask that question if I don't have two hard drives?

Forget it, i'll ask elsewhere

Cola · 2012-09-21, 14:19

Because maybe you had partitions on it. Wink

Anyway, it doesn't mean anything. Put the files whereever you like.

FR4NOx · 2012-09-21, 16:31

Tommer, I have two partitions on my laptop, because Samsung wanted it their way. It's honestly a waste of time and now I have uneven hard drive speeds. After benchmarking my hard drive I seem to only get a 1.75mb/s read time on the OS partition and 10mb/s on the other partition. The OS partition has like 230GB and the other has like 340. I don't know what Samsung was thinking with the sizes, because each drive disk in my hard drive is 320GB. They should've done something a little more equal, like 270ish each. It's a Samsung 5400rpm hard drive.

I suggest keeping it all together, partitions are a waste of time with one operating system. Programs are slower than my old Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 running (filled 670GB-all available) at 5400rpm with my old Pentium Wolfdale.

And Tommer, Cola asked you to elaborate because honestly your question was confusing.

**[TC] Brad** · 2012-09-21, 16:45

(2012-09-21 16:31)Kenwood Wrote: Tommer, I have two partitions on my laptop, because Samsung wanted it their way. It's honestly a waste of time and now I have uneven hard drive speeds. After benchmarking my hard drive I seem to only get a 1.75mb/s read time on the OS partition and 10mb/s on the other partition. The OS partition has like 230GB and the other has like 340. I don't know what Samsung was thinking with the sizes, because each drive disk in my hard drive is 320GB. They should've done something a little more equal, like 270ish each. It's a Samsung 5400rpm hard drive.

I suggest keeping it all together, partitions are a waste of time with one operating system. Programs are slower than my old Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 running (filled 670GB-all available) at 5400rpm with my old Pentium Wolfdale.

And Tommer, Cola asked you to elaborate because honestly your question was confusing.

Did you read Tommer's post at all? He does not have a partition, he has 2 HDD's...

Tommer · (This post was last modified: 2012-09-21 16:48 by Tommer.)

(2012-09-21 16:31)Kenwood Wrote: I suggest keeping it all together, partitions are a waste of time with one operating system.

...

Guys, this isn't that confusing.

There's no partitions involved. I said very clearly "secondary hard drive" just to clarify something; a hard drive is not a partition.

I didn't say "secondary partition" even if you didn't understand that somehow surely "So as to evenly distribute the work load of each hard drive arm." would have given away that i'm talking about two hard drives because a hard drive only has one arm..?

Seriously just forget it.

FR4NOx · (This post was last modified: 2012-09-21 16:53 by FR4NOx.)

Hard drive arm. Should have said each hard drive.

[Image: hard-drive-parts.jpg]

After skimming the thread when I replied earlier, I was reading Cola's post about a partition. That's when I got onto the anit-partition bandwagon.

To answer your question, I don't know how fast your OS drive is but it would be a good idea to keep the two separated.

Edit: Yes Brad, I did read his post. A few times actually.

**KaraK [T]** · (This post was last modified: 2012-09-21 22:13 by KaraK.)

It's not that hard to understand lol.
He said 'separate to the OS drive', and 'evenly distribute (...) to each hard drive arm' clearly give away that he's talking about 2 hdd's. Also, as Kenwood kindly showed us, an HDD only has 1 arm. Why would someone talk about each hard drive arm when he would only have one HDD, with one arm?

Even I understand, so it's not hard.

FR4NOx · 2012-09-21, 22:14

(2012-09-21 22:12)KaraK Wrote: ]
Even I understand, so it's not hard.

I blame being stuck at home with the flu for my poor understanding.

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread:		Author	Replies:	Views:	Last Post
	Low performance usage, Low fps?	Sky	7	4,971	2020-04-19 05:18 Last Post: Chuck