Getting the most speed from two hard drives?

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/printth...135 &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 -

In article , Richard says...


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/printth...135 &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 -

The programs and OS are installed on the fastest drive.

--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Conor wrote:

In article , Richard says...


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/printth...135 &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 -

The programs and OS are installed on the fastest drive.

And if the two drives are the exact same model?

In article , Richard says...

Thanks for taking the time to read this message -

The programs and OS are installed on the fastest drive.

And if the two drives are the exact same model?

Doesn't matter.

--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

"Conor" wrote...

The programs and OS are installed on the fastest drive.

And if the two drives are the exact same model?

Doesn't matter.

Some people will tell you to put the pagefile in a separate partition at the
"head" of the second HD, so it can be accessed simultaneously with the OS or
Application.

I think a lot of partitioning/HD allocation is voodoo/black magic anyhow, highly
dependent on individual configuration and use; and most of it will not give you
a PERCEIVABLE change in performance.

For a while I had my OS on one partition and Apps and data on another. I have
switched to put OS and Apps on the boot partition/HD and data only on the
second. Separating data from the boot partition makes sense in backup and
disaster recovery schemes, but I'm not so sure about Applications any more.
Since they are all so dependent on Registry entries, putting them at the "head"
of the HD with the OS makes sense.

If you are dual-booting, though, and you make equal use of both OSes, I would
tend to put 1 OS on each physical HD, so each has the advantage of being in the
high-speed cylinders. Put the pagefile for each as close to the OS as possible,
and make it statically sized (same initial and max size) so it stays
unfragmented. I would still partition one or both of the HDs so data is in a
separate partition.

Turn on RAID0 in your BIOS and use them that way. Worried about
failure? You should have a 500 GB external drive anyway, running
periodic backups of important stuff (registry, config files, data,
docs).

I have four WD 160GB drives, RAID0, which have run 24/7 for 18
months...no problemo whatsoever. Quick (low latency) and fast
(throughput).
--
I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.
Douglas Adams

"Bob Fry" wrote...
Turn on RAID0 in your BIOS and use them that way. Worried about
failure? You should have a 500 GB external drive anyway, running
periodic backups of important stuff (registry, config files, data,
docs).

With RAID 0, make that VERY frequent!

Win XP barfed on an update at one point, breaking the RAID 0 array on my
machine. While I had recent data backups, rebuilding the system was a PITA!

If you do RAID 0, make sure you have full HD images (Acronis, Ghost, or similar)
to restore, and test them periodically to ensure they WILL restore!

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:58:56 -0700, "JR Weiss"
wrote:

"Bob Fry" wrote...
Turn on RAID0 in your BIOS and use them that way. Worried about
failure? You should have a 500 GB external drive anyway, running
periodic backups of important stuff (registry, config files, data,
docs).

With RAID 0, make that VERY frequent!

Win XP barfed on an update at one point, breaking the RAID 0 array on my
machine. While I had recent data backups, rebuilding the system was a PITA!

If you do RAID 0, make sure you have full HD images (Acronis, Ghost, or similar)
to restore, and test them periodically to ensure they WILL restore!

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.


--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

"Mark" wrote...

Win XP barfed on an update at one point, breaking the RAID 0 array on my
machine. While I had recent data backups, rebuilding the system was a
PITA!

If you do RAID 0, make sure you have full HD images (Acronis, Ghost, or
similar)
to restore, and test them periodically to ensure they WILL restore!

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.

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...