How many hard drives (and size) do you place in your build these days?

[Yes]

I'm curious. My builds usually have two hard drives (out of habit I
suppose) and one external HD for backup. Each HD is 500Gb; the
external HD (USB 2) is smaller. I prefer to keep data on a separate HD
from the O/S.

Personally, I don't intend to use cloud based storage for my files, but
are you all going that route?

For those who run their build as a virtual pc (I'm thinking about
making the switch), any thoughts about how many HDs to use and why?

Thanks,
John

 

[98 Guy]

I'm curious. My builds usually have two hard drives (out of habit
I suppose) and one external HD for backup. Each HD is 500Gb; the
external HD (USB 2) is smaller. I prefer to keep data on a
separate HD from the O/S.

I usually have a single hard drive in my win-98 machines, size is 500 gb
or larger. One of my systems has a 750 gb and 1.5 tb drive.

I download a lot of music and movies from torrents and file-lockers, and
I will be adding a second drive to some of my systems.

I don't use external drives. Far easier to just temporarily attach a
drive to the internal SATA interface when necessary.

I have boxes of old hard drives 40 to 250 gb in size to use as spare or
temp storage.

Personally, I don't intend to use cloud based storage for my files,
but are you all going that route?

No - not even interested.

 

[philo]

I'm curious. My builds usually have two hard drives (out of habit I
suppose) and one external HD for backup. Each HD is 500Gb; the
external HD (USB 2) is smaller. I prefer to keep data on a separate HD
from the O/S.

Personally, I don't intend to use cloud based storage for my files, but
are you all going that route?

For those who run their build as a virtual pc (I'm thinking about
making the switch), any thoughts about how many HDs to use and why?

Thanks,
John

I usually go with a 550g internal, then one external...
however the last machine I built used a 1 gig internal

 

[Darklight]

I usually have a single hard drive in my win-98 machines, size is 500 gb
or larger. One of my systems has a 750 gb and 1.5 tb drive.

I download a lot of music and movies from torrents and file-lockers, and
I will be adding a second drive to some of my systems.

I don't use external drives. Far easier to just temporarily attach a
drive to the internal SATA interface when necessary.

I have boxes of old hard drives 40 to 250 gb in size to use as spare or
temp storage.


No - not even interested.

Cloud base storage is just an external hard drive that some one else
maintains!!!

What a difference it makes when you change a name of some thing.

 

[Brian Cryer]

I'm curious. My builds usually have two hard drives (out of habit I
suppose) and one external HD for backup. Each HD is 500Gb; the
external HD (USB 2) is smaller. I prefer to keep data on a separate HD
from the O/S.

Like you my preferred is two hard drives. One for the OS, applications and
personal data and another for the paging file (and possibly database files).
Since for any new machine I'd spec it with sufficient RAM not to need a
paging file, then unless I'm doing heavy database work then a single drive
ought to be sufficient.

I prefer three external drives for backup. Three might seem a little
excessing but the rational is:
1 connected to my pc for backup.
2 stored off site.
my worst case scenario is a fire (destroying everything) when I've brought
my off-site backup disk in to swap it, hence the reason for having 2
off-site.

Personally, I don't intend to use cloud based storage for my files, but
are you all going that route?

No. I like to know where my files are and I want speedy access to them. But
I suppose for small backups that cloud based storage would be fine. I say
small, because if I were to backup my pc and try to copy that to a clound
storage provider then it wouldn't be practical considering the volume of
data.

For those who run their build as a virtual pc (I'm thinking about
making the switch), any thoughts about how many HDs to use and why?

I now have two servers in the office on which I run other virtual servers.
Typically I've gone for four drives - mirrored system disk and two data
disks which I use for various virtual pc/server images. None of the servers
I've virtualised are hitting the disk much, but I have gone for as much RAM
in the hosting server as possible. None of my virtual servers are
particularly disk intensive, I've given the virtual servers only the RAM I
think they need (upping this if necessary) and in this environment (YMMV)
for what I'm doing ensuring that the hosting server has ample RAM was more
important than worrying about numbers of drives. In my case 32GB or RAM,
more than that would require changing the motherboard.

Hope this helps.

 

[Yes]

-- snipped--


No. I like to know where my files ...

Me too - and who can potentially access them if not on my pc.

I now have two servers in the office on which I run other virtual
servers. Typically I've gone for four drives - mirrored system disk
and two data disks which I use for various virtual pc/server images.
None of the servers I've virtualised are hitting the disk much, but I
have gone for as much RAM in the hosting server as possible. None of
my virtual servers are particularly disk intensive, I've given the
virtual servers only the RAM I think they need (upping this if
necessary) and in this environment (YMMV) for what I'm doing ensuring
that the hosting server has ample RAM was more important than
worrying about numbers of drives. In my case 32GB or RAM, more than
that would require changing the motherboard.

Hope this helps.

Thanks. A virtual pc has started piqueing my interest but never had
seen any user feedback about how much RAM or how many HDs were useful
for it. It looks like I might only need to up my RAM in order to have
at least the basics for a virtual machine. Still not sure I'll do that
because of how I'd want to configure the s/w side, but that's a
different issue

 

[Paul]

Thanks. A virtual pc has started piqueing my interest but never had
seen any user feedback about how much RAM or how many HDs were useful
for it. It looks like I might only need to up my RAM in order to have
at least the basics for a virtual machine. Still not sure I'll do that
because of how I'd want to configure the s/w side, but that's a
different issue

I have a machine with 4GB of RAM installed.

Linux virtual machines get 1GB.
Windows machines get 512MB or 256MB. But that
can be adjusted before starting a guest OS, so it's
adjustable.

I run either two or three virtual machines on my 4GB
computer. Two large ones and a small one is about
all that fits. The small one functions as a bridge
between VM addons being available in one environment, and
not another.

VMs are limited in terms of their connectivity. So
somethings it hard to get things "in" and "out" of
the VM.

VMs allow evaluating operating systems, without
shutting down and rebooting. If I'm worried something
will infect the host OS, I can switch to a VM and
test it there.

The number of hard drives, might be a reflection
of the amount of sustained I/O to be expected.
Say one VM is writing 100GB of data, while I'm trying
to read USENET in Thunderbird on my host OS. If all the
I/O of the VM, was supported by my second hard drive,
there would be fewer hesitations while I'm reading
USENET articles on the host (using the first disk).
So rather than it being a "storage space issue",
sometimes it just the amount of hard drive activity,
and spreading it out so there is less head movement
on the hard drive.

Paul

 

[Yes]

I have a machine with 4GB of RAM installed.

Linux virtual machines get 1GB.
Windows machines get 512MB or 256MB. But that
can be adjusted before starting a guest OS, so it's
adjustable.

I run either two or three virtual machines on my 4GB
computer. Two large ones and a small one is about
all that fits. The small one functions as a bridge
between VM addons being available in one environment, and
not another.

VMs are limited in terms of their connectivity. So
somethings it hard to get things "in" and "out" of
the VM.

VMs allow evaluating operating systems, without
shutting down and rebooting. If I'm worried something
will infect the host OS, I can switch to a VM and
test it there.

The number of hard drives, might be a reflection
of the amount of sustained I/O to be expected.
Say one VM is writing 100GB of data, while I'm trying
to read USENET in Thunderbird on my host OS. If all the
I/O of the VM, was supported by my second hard drive,
there would be fewer hesitations while I'm reading
USENET articles on the host (using the first disk).
So rather than it being a "storage space issue",
sometimes it just the amount of hard drive activity,
and spreading it out so there is less head movement
on the hard drive.

Paul

I've thought about a virtual pc for the reasons you cite - O/S and
malware. The questions I saw for me are:
1. to what extent would I need to change my hardware
2. what s/w would I need in order to switch
3. cost to do so

As far as the hardware goes, Brian Cryer's response and yours (thank
you both) suggest that my existing build could handle a vm with little
to no additional h/w, though maybe adding more RAM may make sense for
me. My pc has 4Gb RAM at present - that's OK for my existing O/S (Win
XP Pro, SP3), but eventually I would like to go to a 64 bit O/S.

With regard to the s/w, that's beyond the usual focus of
alt.comp.hardware, though I'd be happy to hear comments. My pocketbook
is the biggest constraint

Ideally, I'd like to move to a 64-bit O/S and run everything in a VM
environment I want to keep the commercial software I have. The
programs were developed to work in Windows XP (and earlier). They
satisfy my needs and replacing them is too costly. So, I'm thinking at
least one VM centered around WinXP. From there, there are other O/S's
I've thought about playing around with, which is why VM is so appealing.

John

 

[Paul]

I've thought about a virtual pc for the reasons you cite - O/S and
malware. The questions I saw for me are:
1. to what extent would I need to change my hardware
2. what s/w would I need in order to switch
3. cost to do so

As far as the hardware goes, Brian Cryer's response and yours (thank
you both) suggest that my existing build could handle a vm with little
to no additional h/w, though maybe adding more RAM may make sense for
me. My pc has 4Gb RAM at present - that's OK for my existing O/S (Win
XP Pro, SP3), but eventually I would like to go to a 64 bit O/S.

With regard to the s/w, that's beyond the usual focus of
alt.comp.hardware, though I'd be happy to hear comments. My pocketbook
is the biggest constraint

Ideally, I'd like to move to a 64-bit O/S and run everything in a VM
environment I want to keep the commercial software I have. The
programs were developed to work in Windows XP (and earlier). They
satisfy my needs and replacing them is too costly. So, I'm thinking at
least one VM centered around WinXP. From there, there are other O/S's
I've thought about playing around with, which is why VM is so appealing.

John

VirtualBox is free.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtualbox

VMWare is another popular one. And Microsoft has VPC2007 for slightly older
OSes, and Windows Virtual PC for WIndows 7. In Windows 8, Microsoft
won't allow those to run. I presume they want you to move to Hyper-V
or the like instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_platform_virtual_machines

VirtualBox should be sufficient to evaluate the concept of
virtual machines. I find the GUI a bit annoying (it's a bit
too rigid at enforcing its own set of arbitrary rules). At least
with the VPC2007 I regularly use, you can move stuff around
from one machine to another, and the only rules enforced are
ones that affect data integrity.

Paul

 

[Yes]

-- snipped --
Cloud base storage is just an external hard drive that some one else
maintains!!!

What a difference it makes when you change a name of some thing.

A rose by any other name is still a rose

That doesn't change that using cloud based storage involves a matter of
trust about 24/7 accessibility (e.g., internet interruption), viability
of company (will the company providing service remain in business),
what happens to your data if the business shuts down, what procedures
does company have in place to maintain your data in case its equipment
breaks down, what happens if government sticks its nose in wanting to
look over your data - data stored by a third party may not have the
same legal protections, how well protected is one's data on a cloud
based storage compared to maintaining it in a private network and last
to what degree you want to shift responsibility and care of your data
to someone else.

 

[John McGaw]

I'm curious. My builds usually have two hard drives (out of habit I
suppose) and one external HD for backup. Each HD is 500Gb; the
external HD (USB 2) is smaller. I prefer to keep data on a separate HD
from the O/S.

Personally, I don't intend to use cloud based storage for my files, but
are you all going that route?

For those who run their build as a virtual pc (I'm thinking about
making the switch), any thoughts about how many HDs to use and why?

Thanks,
John

I use a single spinning drive of either 2 or 3tB and a single SSD of at
least 120gB. If the OS and chipset supports it (Intel Z68 for example) I
use the SSD as cache for the HD, otherwise I use the SSD as the system
drive and reserve the spinning drive for data storage.

To my mind, external drives don't really enter into the 'build' equation. I
have (probably) 6 external drives right now ranging from 400gB up to 2tB.
Since I don't trust any backup which isn't in a protected location such as
my bank's vault I use multiple layers of backup and rotate things in and
out as required as often as I can remember to do it. Otherwise all of the
machines in the house are backed up nightly to a local 12tB server -- I am
my own cloud.

 

[Paul]

You have plenty of ram to try things out and see if you want to proceed.
Download/install virtual box (slight learning curve) and download/install
the release preview of Windows 8 (the horror, the horror, to quote Marlon
Brando). For the VM's memory, 512 megs or 1 gig should give you adequate
performance. You can also try out ubuntu or pc linux -- or anything, for
that matter: one nice feature is that you can run anything in the VM for
free, at least till the activation fail kicks in. As to hard drive space,
each VM tends to take up 4-8 gigabytes. (That's tends. Not will or must
for any contentious speed readers zooming by). VMs grow with time, because
deleting stuff does not remove the space it took up in the file, but you can
zero out the space then compact them.

As far as security goes, a fairly brief review gave me the impression that
you can isolate Virtual Box more completely from the host than Virtual PC.
And again, my impression is that V. Box will run more different OSs as
guests than V. PC. And with each it is fairly simple to give them access to
your network card, so you can get to the internet.

Either one of them is fairly straightforward, and you could start running a
VM tonight.

I'm curious. Have you tried Win2K on VirtualBox ? What did you think ?

On my machine, VirtualBox running a Win2K guest, used all the CPU
on the cores enabled, with Win2K sitting idle in the desktop.

VPC2007 has never done that. VPC2007 stinks for other reasons, but
pegging the CPU isn't one of them. For example, to install Ubuntu in
VPC2007, takes plenty of little workarounds, and the multimedia
support that results, isn't very good (anything with PulseAudio
won't work right). But right now, the pegging of the CPU on VirtualBox,
leaves me a little bit less enthusiastic about VirtualBox. Especially
as the boneheads at VirtualBox have known about that bug for years
(tried to fix it, and didn't).

Paul

 

[Paul]

No, I haven't. I use it on XP to run an XP guest, and occasionally to test
installed versions of live rescue linux CDs. And on Windows 7 to run a Win
8 and Server 08 guests. I was using VPC 2007 and switched because, on a
laptop with 1.5 gigs RAM and a 1.6 GHz dual core processor, it ran an XP
guest faster than VPC. I use it to look at stuff and to test things I have
worries about.

It seems weird that they would fail to fix such a serious and known bug for
so long. I guess they work on the standard PC industry theory of attrition:
if we ignore the bug long enough, no one will use the troublesome software
any more and then the complaints will stop. ;(

Could your problem be specific to that particular system? A quick search
yeielded this (from a guy with a James Bond villain name):

"Bakon Jarser
September 10th, 2008, 01:41 AM
<snip>
Never heard that before. I run win2k just fine in virtualbox."

The only other thing that comes to mind is that something went awry with the
installation of the guest additions. But you have probably uninstalled and
reinstalled everything.

Actually, Guest Additions is part of the fun. It works slightly better
without Guest Additions. If you install Guest Additions, it's more
likely to peg the CPU and stay pegged. It has something to do with
task scheduling on the host, but knowing that doesn't help matters.

If I were to do anything at this point, I'd probably want to install
the host OS again. But I've done that twice already, and that's
wearing a little thin as well. The sun is shining outside, and
somehow, that looks more inviting right now.

Paul

 

[Anssi Saari]

I'm curious. Have you tried Win2K on VirtualBox ? What did you think ?

I've never used Win2K in VirtualBox, but I remember there was a problem
way back that any one virtual machine would peg the CPU(s) even when
idle. The workaround was to start another, even empty one with no
actual OS to boot.

Anyways, that was years ago. I guess the issue here is idle detection
not working for Win2K for some reason. Worth looking for solutions on
VirtualBox forums though. Fiddling with different HALs may help.

 

[Joel]

I'm curious. My builds usually have two hard drives (out of habit I
suppose) and one external HD for backup. Each HD is 500Gb; the
external HD (USB 2) is smaller. I prefer to keep data on a separate HD
from the O/S.

Personally, I don't intend to use cloud based storage for my files, but
are you all going that route?

For those who run their build as a virtual pc (I'm thinking about
making the switch), any thoughts about how many HDs to use and why?

Thanks,
John

Well, for decades I have been working on video and photography those use
lot of disk space, so I have upgraded my couple years old system to (3) 1TB
SATA, and (1) 500GB EIDE as drive C: for Windows only.

I have around 4-5 500GB external hard drives, (2) 1TB external hard drive
and (1) 1.5TB external.

WHY? because I have been using computer for almost 4 decades, the price is
dirt cheap these days comparing to what I paid for much smaller hard drive
(can you image 2MB hard drive onsale cost around 2 grands. YES 2-MEGA). I
use lot of space and too lazy to burn to DVD too often (I sometime transfer
40-80+GB to DVDs a day).

 

[Joel]

I now have two servers in the office on which I run other virtual servers.
Typically I've gone for four drives - mirrored system disk and two data
disks which I use for various virtual pc/server images. None of the servers
I've virtualised are hitting the disk much, but I have gone for as much RAM
in the hosting server as possible. None of my virtual servers are
particularly disk intensive, I've given the virtual servers only the RAM I
think they need (upping this if necessary) and in this environment (YMMV)
for what I'm doing ensuring that the hosting server has ample RAM was more
important than worrying about numbers of drives. In my case 32GB or RAM,
more than that would require changing the motherboard.

Hope this helps.

I do DVD authoring and graphic retouching (I am Photoshop user) so I have
my couple years old system upto 16GB of RAM.

Man, I remember I had to save $$$$$ by ordering 1MB of DRAM for $2,000
($US) from Hong Kong which was couple hundred bucks cheaper than buying in
US (that time). And 1MB of DRAM for the External Memory Card *not* internal
(now I don't rember if it was Expanded or Extended Memory Card, and it was
way back to 70's).

 

[Yes]

I do DVD authoring and graphic retouching (I am Photoshop user) so I
have my couple years old system upto 16GB of RAM.

Man, I remember I had to save $$$$$ by ordering 1MB of DRAM for
$2,000 ($US) from Hong Kong which was couple hundred bucks cheaper
than buying in US (that time). And 1MB of DRAM for the External
Memory Card not internal (now I don't rember if it was Expanded or
Extended Memory Card, and it was way back to 70's).

grin - I remember the early 80s. Something like $250 for a 10Mb HD,
IIRC.

 

[Yes]

Well, for decades I have been working on video and photography those
use lot of disk space, so I have upgraded my couple years old system
to (3) 1TB SATA, and (1) 500GB EIDE as drive C: for Windows only.

I have around 4-5 500GB external hard drives, (2) 1TB external hard
drive and (1) 1.5TB external.

WHY? because I have been using computer for almost 4 decades, the
price is dirt cheap these days comparing to what I paid for much
smaller hard drive (can you image 2MB hard drive onsale cost around 2
grands. YES 2-MEGA). I use lot of space and too lazy to burn to DVD
too often (I sometime transfer 40-80+GB to DVDs a day).

My mind boggles at the amount of data you've accumulated over the
years. I've been using computers since the late 70s, but my activities
don't even come close to generating the volume of data you describe.
The external HD was more to provide backup of what I considered
essential files I needed to save if catastrophe struck my pc; I could
carry it to safety with me in a worst case scenario

The biggest problem for me is simply those old games that ran on cough,
cough floppy drives under an O/S that are now obscure or obsolete -
e.g., Amiga and O/S 2 I've kept the media and sure would like to
re-play one or two of them, but that's probably just wishful thinking
these days until some place like gog.com (Good Old Games) gets the
rights to
convert them to run on current equipment :-(

John

 

[terryc]

My mind boggles at the amount of data you've accumulated over the
years. I've been using computers since the late 70s, but my activities
don't even come close to generating the volume of data you describe.

Yep, old software was compact. A few floppies. Now a basic game comes on
a DVD, or two.

 

[Joel]

grin - I remember the early 80s. Something like $250 for a 10Mb HD,
IIRC.

It's about right, and just go back 1/2 a decade (around late 70's) ypou
may find 1MB HD was around $1000-1500. The 300baud modem was around
$800-1000+ a pop.