Harddisk - 8/16 MB cache

[Alan T]

At the moment I got a 320 GB Seagate 16 MB cache storing data.
Then I bought a 250 GB Maxtor 8 MB cache considering as primary partition of
Vista.

I will think I should use the 16 MB cache Seagate to install Vista for
better performance. Do you think there are great difference between using 16
MB and 8 MB cache harddisk for primary partition to install Vista?

My PC spec:
AMD Athlon 64 3200+
Hyundai (Hynix) 2 GB RAM (PC400)

 

[Qu0ll]

At the moment I got a 320 GB Seagate 16 MB cache storing data.
Then I bought a 250 GB Maxtor 8 MB cache considering as primary partition
of
Vista.

I will think I should use the 16 MB cache Seagate to install Vista for
better performance. Do you think there are great difference between using
16
MB and 8 MB cache harddisk for primary partition to install Vista?

Go with the 16MB cache - it will be faster. The cache size is far more
significant in determining overall performance than SATA vs. SATA II or
7200RPM vs. 10000RPM given that throughput never actually approaches the
1.5Gb/s reported on SATA drives let alone the 3Gb/s of SATA II.

--
And loving it,

-Q
_________________________________________________
(e-mail address removed)
(Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me)

 

[Alan T]

If I go for the 320 GB 16 MB cache one, what do you suggest on the
partitions?
2 partitions, one partition of 100Gb for Vista OS and 220 GB for the
programs (MS Office,..etc)?

 

[Qu0ll]

If I go for the 320 GB 16 MB cache one, what do you suggest on the
partitions?
2 partitions, one partition of 100Gb for Vista OS and 220 GB for the
programs (MS Office,..etc)?

I disagree with Benjamin - I think it is easier for the defragger to do its
job with plenty of disk space to spare but 100GB is a bit of an overkill.
I'd go for something like 60-75GB for the system partition and the rest for
your "data" partition where you can store your files and your Program Files
if you so choose. Frankly though I still can't see a major benefit in
keeping your Program Files on a separate partition from your system files
because you will need to reinstall all your programs (or most) if you need
to reinstall Windows. The only exception is if you are using a disk imaging
tool like Acronis True Image.

--
And loving it,

-Q
_________________________________________________
(e-mail address removed)
(Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me)

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

If I go for the 320 GB 16 MB cache one, what do you suggest on the
partitions?
2 partitions, one partition of 100Gb for Vista OS and 220 GB for the
programs (MS Office,..etc)?

You need to decide for yourself how to partition your drive, based on
how much of each type of file *you* expect to have, based on your
personal preferences, and also based on your personal backup scheme.
Nobody else is exactly the same situation as you, and that's why
nobody else's recommendations on partitioning should be of any
interest to you.

 

[Alan T]

Any performance benefits of putting OS and program files
1) same partition
2) separate partitions ?

 

[Adam Albright]

Any performance benefits of putting OS and program files
1) same partition
2) separate partitions ?

There would be little if any tangible performance gains in making
separate partitions, however it is usually smarter to keep the OS in
it's own partition, especially now that Vista is such a NAG and throws
a hissy fit if you try to write to the root drive outside of folders
it likes to claim the rest of the partition as it's own.

I've down it both way through the years and see no real difference. It
generally is easier to backup, then again there is little need to
backup program files assuming you have all the source CDs and programs
you've downloaded off the web you saved that to some other partition.
A good backup routine protects what you can't easily replace... your
data files which I ALWAYS keep off the root drive, again making backup
easier.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Any performance benefits of putting OS and program files
1) same partition
2) separate partitions ?

No, neither. In general, how you partition has no effect on
performance. You choose a partitioning scheme for convenience and
organization, not performance.