Hi guys,

I have just bought a 4th HD for my P4 3.0 Mhz, 2GB Ram. Abit IC7-G.

The new one is a 500 GB SATA capable of delivering 3 Mb/s but since my
mobos SATA ports can only handle 1.5 M/s I will have to limit the
drive through software.

All four drives are SATA II and all spin at 7200 rpms.
2 of them are 160 GB each and the third one 250 GB.
Those 3 all have 8 MB cache, while the new 500 GB disk has 16 MB
cache.

The easiest would obviously be to add the new one last in the chain
(logically), and just move over some large folders onto it to ease on
the space of the other three. But, maybe I should take the plunge and
put it first in the chain, move Windows onto it, either clone or even
do a fresh install.

What do you think, is it worth it? Will I really gain much speed?

Reinstalling Windows from scratch is a big job. I have quite a lot of
software on it and I am really fussy with how it looks.
It is a quite ordinary desktop machine.
Windows has its own separate partition.

Lars
Stockholm

"Lars" wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I have just bought a 4th HD for my P4 3.0 Mhz, 2GB Ram.
> Abit IC7-G.
>
> The new one is a 500 GB SATA capable of delivering
> 3 Mb/s but since my mobos SATA ports can only handle
> 1.5 M/s I will have to limit the drive through software.
>
> All four drives are SATA II and all spin at 7200 rpms.
> 2 of them are 160 GB each and the third one 250 GB.
> Those 3 all have 8 MB cache, while the new 500 GB
> disk has 16 MB cache.
>
> The easiest would obviously be to add the new one last
> in the chain (logically), and just move over some large
> folders onto it to ease on the space of the other three.
> But, maybe I should take the plunge and put it first in the
> chain, move Windows onto it, either clone or even do
> a fresh install.
>
> What do you think, is it worth it? Will I really gain much
> speed?
>
> Reinstalling Windows from scratch is a big job. I have
> quite a lot of software on it and I am really fussy with
> how it looks.
> It is a quite ordinary desktop machine.
> Windows has its own separate partition.
>
> Lars
> Stockholm

Hej Lasse - I doubt any HD configuration will result
in any discernable difference in speed unless you're doing
a *lot* of big file I/O, and if that is the case, you might
want to throw in another stick or two or RAM. (2GB is
big for XP, but just the "sweetspot" for Vista). Putting
the swap file in the outside partition of the HD that
doesn't get much use theoretically increases swap file
performance, but again, if you need swap file performance,
you don't have enough RAM. What *I'd* do with that
500GB is use a partition of it for a backup of the OS -
either a clone (which could be immediately booted) or
an image file (which would need "restoration" before it
could be booted, but which would be smaller than a
clone). But that would be only if you had to be up and
running in the shortest time on the same PC. Otherwise,
I'd imagine 500GBs are great for movie editing. :-)

*TimDaniels*

Lars <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote

> I have just bought a 4th HD for my P4 3.0 Mhz, 2GB Ram. Abit IC7-G.

> The new one is a 500 GB SATA capable of delivering 3 Mb/s but since my mobos
> SATA ports can only handle 1.5 M/s I will have to limit the drive through software.

Its unlikely to even be a noticeable effect. Real thruput is limited
by the drive physical characteristics, particularly sectors per track.

> All four drives are SATA II and all spin at 7200 rpms.
> 2 of them are 160 GB each and the third one 250 GB.

> Those 3 all have 8 MB cache, while the new 500 GB disk has 16 MB cache.

That wont have any real effect.

> The easiest would obviously be to add the new one last in the chain (logically), and
> just move over some large folders onto it to ease on the space of the other three.
> But, maybe I should take the plunge and put it first in the chain, move Windows onto it,

Yes, its generally best to make the new drive the boot
drive, just because it generally is the best performer.

> either clone or even do a fresh install.

Clone is all you need to do.

> What do you think, is it worth it? Will I really gain much speed?

Yes, the difference should be noticeable.

> Reinstalling Windows from scratch is a big job.

Yeah, and there is nothing to be achieved by doing that, cloning is fine.

> I have quite a lot of software on it and I am really fussy with how it looks.

The files and settings transfer wizard does make a clean install much
easier than it used to be, but there's nothing to be gained over a clone.

> It is a quite ordinary desktop machine.

> Windows has its own separate partition.

There's no real point in that. Unfortunately you will need to do a clean install to change that.

Timothy Daniels <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "Lars" wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> I have just bought a 4th HD for my P4 3.0 Mhz, 2GB Ram.
>> Abit IC7-G.
>>
>> The new one is a 500 GB SATA capable of delivering
>> 3 Mb/s but since my mobos SATA ports can only handle
>> 1.5 M/s I will have to limit the drive through software.
>>
>> All four drives are SATA II and all spin at 7200 rpms.
>> 2 of them are 160 GB each and the third one 250 GB.
>> Those 3 all have 8 MB cache, while the new 500 GB
>> disk has 16 MB cache.
>>
>> The easiest would obviously be to add the new one last
>> in the chain (logically), and just move over some large
>> folders onto it to ease on the space of the other three.
>> But, maybe I should take the plunge and put it first in the
>> chain, move Windows onto it, either clone or even do
>> a fresh install.
>>
>> What do you think, is it worth it? Will I really gain much
>> speed?
>>
>> Reinstalling Windows from scratch is a big job. I have
>> quite a lot of software on it and I am really fussy with
>> how it looks.
>> It is a quite ordinary desktop machine.
>> Windows has its own separate partition.

> I doubt any HD configuration will result in any discernable difference in speed unless you're doing a *lot* of big
> file I/O,

Even just the boot should be noticeably faster if the new drive is.

> and if that is the case, you might want to throw in another stick or two or RAM.

Wont have any effect on big file IO.

> (2GB is big for XP, but just the "sweetspot" for Vista).

> Putting the swap file in the outside partition of the HD that doesn't get much use theoretically increases swap file
> performance, but again, if you need swap file performance, you don't have enough RAM.

> What *I'd* do with that 500GB is use a partition of it for a backup of the OS

More fool you. It makes a lot more sense to use the new drive
as the boot drive and use one of the other drives as the backup.
They are all plenty big enough to be the backup for the OS.

> either a clone (which could be immediately booted)

Few need anything like that, because it happens so rarely, in practice never.

> or an image file (which would need "restoration" before it could be booted, but which would be smaller than a clone).
> But that would be only if you had to be up and
> running in the shortest time on the same PC.

> Otherwise, I'd imagine 500GBs are great for movie editing. :-)

Your porn is your problem, child.

"Rod Speed" wrote:
> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>> What *I'd* do with that 500GB is use a partition of it for a
>> backup of the OS
>
> More fool you. It makes a lot more sense to use the new drive
> as the boot drive and use one of the other drives as the backup.
> They are all plenty big enough to be the backup for the OS.


It depends on how big the OP's OS partition is and how large
his data files are, isn't it sock puppet?

*TimDaniels*

"Rod Speed" flailed:
> Yes, its generally best to make the new drive the boot
> drive, just because it generally is the best performer.

Alzheimers sets into Roddel's brain - the OP already said:

"The new one is a 500 GB SATA capable of delivering 3 Mb/s
but since my mobos SATA ports can only handle 1.5 M/s I
will have to limit the drive through software."

Hey, RodBot - take your pills! <LOL>

*TimDaniels*

Timothy Daniels <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Timothy Daniels wrote

>>> What *I'd* do with that 500GB is use a partition of it for a backup of the OS

>> More fool you. It makes a lot more sense to use the new drive
>> as the boot drive and use one of the other drives as the backup.
>> They are all plenty big enough to be the backup for the OS.

> It depends on how big the OP's OS partition is

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist ****wit children ?

No OS partition is bigger than his smallest drive, even if you backup by cloning.

> and how large his data files are

The size of the OS partition has absolutely NOTHING do with how large the data files are.

If there is enough free space on the new 500GB drive for the backup of the OS partition,
by definition there will also be if the new 500GB drive is used for the boot partition and
one of the smaller drives is used for the backup of the OS partition, stupid.

Timothy Daniels <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> Yes, its generally best to make the new drive the boot
>> drive, just because it generally is the best performer.

> Alzheimers sets into Roddel's brain

We'll see, ****wit child.

> - the OP already said:

> "The new one is a 500 GB SATA capable of delivering 3 Mb/s but since my mobos SATA ports can only handle 1.5 M/s I
> will have to limit the drive through software."

Irrelevant to whether the new 500GB drive physical characteristics, particularly
the sectors per track mean that its faster than the older drives, ****wit child.

"Rod Speed" wrote:
> No OS partition is bigger than his smallest drive,
> even if you backup by cloning.

Don't be a pathetic old babblebot, Roddels. If you
will review my posting, you will see that I suggested that
*one partition* be used for an OS clone. The rest of the
HD can be used for whatever the OP wants.

*TimDaniels*

"Rod Speed" gurgled and choked:
> Timothy Daniels wrote
>> - the OP already said:
>
>> "The new one is a 500 GB SATA capable of delivering
>> 3 Mb/s but since my mobos SATA ports can only handle
>> 1.5 M/s I will have to limit the drive through software."
>
> Irrelevant to whether the new 500GB drive physical
> characteristics, particularly the sectors per track mean
> that its faster than the older drives, ****wit child.


Babble that in properly composed English grammar,
and we'll see if your brain isn't farting through your ears,
babblebot.

*TimDaniels*