P
Paul Maskell
I know this is a silly question, but apart from the obvious (more memory), Is there an
advantage to having 2 HDD's?
advantage to having 2 HDD's?
T
Tim Auton
Paul Maskell said:
Hmm, not really more memory. More storage, yes.
And yes, there are several. You can read from or write to each of them
at the same time, which brings different advatages depending on how
you set up your system (for performance and/or reliability, or
neither).
Tim
J
Jan Alter
1. Extra disk can be used as the "scratch" disk for virtual memory speeding
up system processes, especially when there is not appropriate amount of RAM
available.
2. OS can be installed on one drive while using the second to store data
files. Should system become corrupt there is much higher probability of
being able to retrieve data.
3. using backup software (ie Retrospect, or similar software)a duplicate
copy of first hdd can be made on 2nd hdd
4. If the drive is installed in a rack mount even more versatility is gained
from being able to back up and actually remove data to an offsite location
for greater data safety.
up system processes, especially when there is not appropriate amount of RAM
available.
2. OS can be installed on one drive while using the second to store data
files. Should system become corrupt there is much higher probability of
being able to retrieve data.
3. using backup software (ie Retrospect, or similar software)a duplicate
copy of first hdd can be made on 2nd hdd
4. If the drive is installed in a rack mount even more versatility is gained
from being able to back up and actually remove data to an offsite location
for greater data safety.
J
jeffc
Paul Maskell said:
Well, it doesn't *automatically* buy you more storage (unless you add a
second one to an existing one). You can buy 2 40G drives or 1 80G drive.
Obviously there will be a limit to how high 1 drive can go. But it can also
help performance with 2 drives. For example, if you put your swap drive on
one and the system drive on the other, they can work at the same time.
D
DJ
more memory ???????? No
otherwise yes, very useful to backup data on the primary drive
dj
otherwise yes, very useful to backup data on the primary drive
dj
C
Chris 159
DJ said:
physical - no. virtual - yes
G
GSV Three Minds in a Can
from the said:
Redundancy - the ability to keep going if one falls over (even if you
have to re-install some stuff). Ability to keep critical files on both
disks.
Speed - you can have programs on one disk and data (or swap file) on the
other disk both being accessed at once (especially if the disks are on
different EIDE cables).
RAID (0, 1, 0+1, 5, etc.) can be used (with 2 or more identical disks)
to achieve either or both of these benefits .. however you can also get
some of the same benefit just by cunning use of two disks.
Downside - it uses more power, generates more heat, and makes more
noise, than just having one disk (even one twice the size).
S
Sal Monella
Paul said:
I like to keep different OS's on their own drives. That's the main
reason I have 2 or more HDs in most of my boxes. It keeps things nicely
separated so I can reinstall windoze without it futzing with Linux and
what not.
E
El Phantazmo
If you have the money, it most cases its desirable to have two. Regardless
of how they are arranged, wether or not they are set up as a redundant
array, two is better than one...
One of my favorite responses when someone asks why I have so many
harddrives:
"Well, what happens if my backup's backup fails to backup my backup's
backup? Well, I have another backup."
The more, the merrier.
Elp.
of how they are arranged, wether or not they are set up as a redundant
array, two is better than one...
One of my favorite responses when someone asks why I have so many
harddrives:
"Well, what happens if my backup's backup fails to backup my backup's
backup? Well, I have another backup."
The more, the merrier.
Elp.
W
William W. Plummer
The last time I looked into it, the W2K kernel would issue a disk operation
and then WAIT (by polling) for it to complete. It simply does not have the
smarts or the hardware supports to keep a transfer going on more than one
physical drive.
There is value to "mirroring" where the OS continuously makes a copy of your
main disk to an auxilliar disk. Should disaster strike, you can revert to
the second drive. Of course, this RAID configuration slows your computer
because it must wait for two transfers to complete. On disk read
operations, it verifies that the two copies are identical.
and then WAIT (by polling) for it to complete. It simply does not have the
smarts or the hardware supports to keep a transfer going on more than one
physical drive.
There is value to "mirroring" where the OS continuously makes a copy of your
main disk to an auxilliar disk. Should disaster strike, you can revert to
the second drive. Of course, this RAID configuration slows your computer
because it must wait for two transfers to complete. On disk read
operations, it verifies that the two copies are identical.
S
Si
I would have thought 2 would be the minimum required these days. Personally
I have 4 and I'm running out of space!!
Si
I have 4 and I'm running out of space!!
Si
T
Trevor Best
But you don't want to buy a disk to gain extra virtual RAM, just buyChris said:
more RAM
T
Trevor Best
Si said:
That would depend on the size of each disk. e.g. 4 x 40GB vs 1 x 200GB
J
John R Weiss
Trevor Best said:
Also, put some thought into partitioning, especially if your BIOS doesn't
recognize volumes over 130 or 160 GB (or whatever the recent limit was). I
still remember when my 30 MB HD (yes, that's MB, not GB) was brand new, and it
was too large for the 20 MB limit in some early 286 chipsets...
L
Loz
Just what did you use all the space for!?
I had 106mb in my 386 though!
I
Isaac Kuo
Sal Monella said:
I used to be like that, but I've since decided that I
prefer having just one drive with multiple partitions.
A second, small drive is more reliable when it's in
storage not attached to anything. If I need to reinstall
Windows, I just copy over the Windows OS partition from a
backup copy (either from the LAN or from that second,
small drive).
Mainly, I like having just one drive per computer for
noise/power issues, but there's also the matter of
mean-time-between-failures. Hard drives have an annoying
habit of failing when it's inconvenient and I don't
feel like dealing with it. Okay, so there is NO convenient
time when I feel like dealing with a damaged hard drive.
Right?
If I had two drives in each computer, I'd be dealing with
damaged drives twice as often. A RAID can reduce the
risk of data loss, but it doesn't reduce the annoyance
factor of pulling/replacing a dead drive. No thanks!
I'd rather leave all those little drives I used to put
OS's on in storage where they can't fail and ruin my day.
I can live with the small performance hit and modest
storage loss of putting OS partitions on my big drives.
Of course, with just one drive per computer, I can't RAID.
However, any data which I really care about I frequently
copy over the LAN and semi-frequently backup onto CD/DVD.
Isaac Kuo
S
Sal Monella
Which is how often? You must have bad luck with hard drives. Or maybe I
just have good luck with them.
T
TC
John said:
I have read and been told that too many partitions slows down disk
access? Any truth to this?
J
John R Weiss
TC said:
Not if you are reasonable about it...
If you restrict the OS to a small partition, the head only has to seek that
space when processing OS calls. Same with apps. Similar with data.
The problem may arise if you have drives C through P on a single physical disk,
and force the heads to move from C to P often. That would be as bad as a badly
fragmented HD with a single partition.
Keep 'em close!
T
Trevor Best
Sal said:
Just the law of probability, if you have say a 1 in 1000 chance of a
failure with one disk then you have a 2 in 1000 (or 1 in 500) chance
with 2 disks.