Hi folks. I've been building my own PCs for a few years now and right
now I've got my OS, Apps, and Files in a 600GB Raid 0. I'm starting
to wonder if it would be better to split the 2 drives into OS on one
and Files and Apps on another or maybe buy another drive and separate
my OS, Apps, and files on separate drives? I'm not sure what the best
would be and wanted some opinions. Input appreciated. Thanks!

I hear you. I am a fan of the RAID for performance reasons. I"m
really looking for performance here. I do nightly backups so I'm not
worried about that. I have 2 identical 300GB drives, 1 80GB, and 1
50GB. My current plan is to put Vista in a RAID0 on the 2 300GB
drives, install applications to the 80GB and put my files on the 500GB
drive. The other idea I had was to put both Vista and install
applications to the RAID0 array and put the files on the 500gb. I
can't figure out whether it would be faster to have the applications
alone on a single drive or have them installed on the RAID0 array with
the OS. I had everything on the RAID0 before and I wasn't thrilled
with the performance. Thoughts? Thanks.

My last post says 50GB at the beginnging, supposed to be 500GB which I
talk about later in the post. Just wanted to clarify.

"ridergroov" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote...
>I hear you. I am a fan of the RAID for performance reasons. I"m
> really looking for performance here. I do nightly backups so I'm not
> worried about that. I have 2 identical 300GB drives, 1 80GB, and 1
> 50GB. My current plan is to put Vista in a RAID0 on the 2 300GB
> drives, install applications to the 80GB and put my files on the 500GB
> drive. The other idea I had was to put both Vista and install
> applications to the RAID0 array and put the files on the 500gb. I
> can't figure out whether it would be faster to have the applications
> alone on a single drive or have them installed on the RAID0 array with
> the OS. I had everything on the RAID0 before and I wasn't thrilled
> with the performance.

Chances are that the 80 GB HD is slower than the 300 GB HDs. If there is a
significant performance gap, it will override any advantage of simultaneous
seeks for the OS and applications.

I would put the OS and Apps on the RAID 0 array, data on the 500, and use the 80
for pagefile and scratch disk. Maybe even put your TEMP directory there (point
to it via the Environment Variables).

Thanks for the feedback guys. Always curious as to what the best
would be in this situation and this time I'm trying to find out. The
80gb drive is a SATA II spec with 8mb cache while the 300s are SATA II
with 16mb cache. I don't know of any way to really test this scenario
from a benchmarking standpoint but I think you are probably right.
Having the applications on a completely seperate drive is probably a
waste. I wish probably give it a shot with using the 80 for swap and
temp like you suggested. That being said, even if the 80gb drive was
a little slower than the 300s, wouldn't having the applications on a
completely different hard drive have to have an advantage over it
being on a raid0 with the OS constantly hitting the drives? This is
Vista we are talking about, generally a disk hog. Any other opinions
welcome. Thanks.

"ridergroov" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote...
> Thanks for the feedback guys. Always curious as to what the best
> would be in this situation and this time I'm trying to find out. The
> 80gb drive is a SATA II spec with 8mb cache while the 300s are SATA II
> with 16mb cache. I don't know of any way to really test this scenario
> from a benchmarking standpoint but I think you are probably right.
> Having the applications on a completely seperate drive is probably a
> waste. I wish probably give it a shot with using the 80 for swap and
> temp like you suggested. That being said, even if the 80gb drive was
> a little slower than the 300s, wouldn't having the applications on a
> completely different hard drive have to have an advantage over it
> being on a raid0 with the OS constantly hitting the drives? This is
> Vista we are talking about, generally a disk hog. Any other opinions
> welcome. Thanks.

I'm not familiar with Vista.

However, I think that with adequate RAM, a good portion of the OS will be in
RAM, and what isn't there will be in the pagefile. Accessing the OS will then
be a practical matter of accessing the pagefile.

Remember that a SATA HD is not necessarily any better than its IDE analog, other
than the interface. The physical limitations of spindle speed and data density
will still prevail. So, a SATA HD in non-RAID configuration has no advantage
over its IDE analog.

Thanks for the reply JR. I hadn't really planned on using any IDE
drives. THe question to me is really whether or not to install
applications to a different SINGLE hard drive or have them installed
on the same RAID0 as the OS. Thanks.

"ridergroov" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote...
> Thanks for the reply JR. I hadn't really planned on using any IDE
> drives. THe question to me is really whether or not to install
> applications to a different SINGLE hard drive or have them installed
> on the same RAID0 as the OS.

I'd install apps with the OS on the RAID array. Use the small single HD for
pagefile, Temp files, and scratch disk.