What HDD will fit a Core2 machine; Raptors?

[tuskenraider]

Ok, I understand what you've said. Just that I didn't know you could partition your drives so that you can install your OS on the first part of the disk/outter platter and then stripe individual partitions. I've not RAIDed anything in my life, I'm just reading up on some good info. I thought partitions make your hard disk seek slower?

To be clear, you would make the RAID0 array and then partition like any normal drive, the striping is already done. With Matrix RAID you could create an array and install your OS, then make another array afterwards with the left over space. And yes, partitioning can make seeks slower if you're consistantly accessing data on both partitions since the actuator arm would have to cover the distance of the blank space at the end of the first partition to get to the data on the second. The smaller the first partition, the less empty space to waste time. But also, the more you fill up the second partition with data, the further inward the arm has to move to get to it as well. This same scenario would happen with 2 Matrix RAID arrays created on the same drive as well. So ideally if you could plan out your OS partition/Matrix array to only have a GB or two of left over space and then have your data partition immediately after it, the perfomance hit would be almost negligable. And realistically, partitioned or not, if your drive has a lot of data on it(OS, apps and data files) that fill in a good portion of the drive, your actuator arm is still gonna be doing some long seeks between OS and data files anyway. My point is no partitions is optimal, but two certainly isn't giving your system some big performance hit.

 

[jivetrky]

But something you couldn't do otherwise is have RAID0 for the first partition and RAID1 for the second, unless you have matrix RAID.

 

[Rickster]

To be clear, you would make the RAID0 array and then partition like any normal drive, the striping is already done. With Matrix RAID you could create an array and install your OS, then make another array afterwards with the left over space. And yes, partitioning can make seeks slower if you're consistantly accessing data on both partitions since the actuator arm would have to cover the distance of the blank space at the end of the first partition to get to the data on the second. The smaller the first partition, the less empty space to waste time. But also, the more you fill up the second partition with data, the further inward the arm has to move to get to it as well. This same scenario would happen with 2 Matrix RAID arrays created on the same drive as well. So ideally if you could plan out your OS partition/Matrix array to only have a GB or two of left over space and then have your data partition immediately after it, the perfomance hit would be almost negligable. And realistically, partitioned or not, if your drive has a lot of data on it(OS, apps and data files) that fill in a good portion of the drive, your actuator arm is still gonna be doing some long seeks between OS and data files anyway. My point is no partitions is optimal, but two certainly isn't giving your system some big performance hit.

First of all, I'm sorry that we are taking this thread away from the original thread starter.

But even without Matrix RAID and just the normal RAID, you still can create a partition between say, 2 hard disks like what you said before?

About the partitioning bit. So meaning to say the first thing you install on your hard disk will always be on the outter circumference of the hard disk a.k.a the fastest seek times?

Let me get this right about what you were saying. Say partition 1 is for OS and partition 2 is for games. If the OS takes up say 1GB of space, and you partition exactly 1GB for partition 1 and the rest to partition 2. This would be equal to not having a partition and installing everything on just an unpartitioned drive?
And basically saying if you do not use any data on partition 2 and only data on partition 1 then it would be fair to say having no partitions would be par on performance right?


But what I was trying to ask previously was striping individual partitions on a RAID array. Is this possible. Like say you stripe partition 1 16k and partition 2 32k.

Also, how would the cache on the hard disk work on a RAID array? And would there be differences if you were to use a setup of 2 hard disk 8mb cache in RAID and a setup of 2 hard disk 16mb cache? And what if you were to use a 8mb cache and a 16mb cache in a RAID setup? Will the RAID array work on the lesser of the 2, therefore only 8mb cache will work?

 

[elec999]

Basically Intel Matrix raid allows you to create a raid0 and raid1 on the same drive. You have the raid0 first partition for the fast speed, os. And the raid1 second partition raid1 for protecting your files. You can create partitions on a single drive, or even on a raid 0 or 1 drive. Intel matrix is just a nice way of having the best of both worlds on two drives. In your case I would recommend a 74gig raptor 16meg cache or a 150gig raptor if you need more space. And later on you can upgrade to raid0 if you feel the need for it. For now you can even get regular ide drives for raid1 for protecting your files.
Thanks

 

[tuskenraider]

But even without Matrix RAID and just the normal RAID, you still can create a partition between say, 2 hard disks like what you said before?

Yes.

About the partitioning bit. So meaning to say the first thing you install on your hard disk will always be on the outter circumference of the hard disk a.k.a the fastest seek times?

No, Windows, or any OS for that matter isn't that good/smart. By creating a small partition or a Matrix RAID0 array(which both do start from the outside of the disk platter), you are keeping the data confined to this "faster" area. The data will still be scattered by Windows, but within a much smaller area, even after using it's defragmenter. The best thing to have is a third party defragmenter like PerfectDisk or Diskeeper, which will not only place the files all to the outer edge, it can/will prioritize them on what kind they are(such as OS system files being the very first files) or usage.

Let me get this right about what you were saying. Say partition 1 is for OS and partition 2 is for games. If the OS takes up say 1GB of space, and you partition exactly 1GB for partition 1 and the rest to partition 2. This would be equal to not having a partition and installing everything on just an unpartitioned drive?

From a performance(drive seeking) standpoint, yes, if things happened that way, which it doesn't. There would still be the issue of the files not being placed right at the start of the partitions by Windows. You'd have to use a third party defragmenter to do that, but then if you have one, why bother partitioning? IMO, the only reason to partition a drive would be if it's the only one you have. This would allow you to do fresh OS installs without affecting data. You would keep your OS, apps and games on one partition and data on another. And on this data partition, I'd have an image of the OS partition to get me up and running again within minutes if it became corrupt or something similar. I keep an image of my RAID0'd OS drives on my single data drive to do such a thing.

And basically saying if you do not use any data on partition 2 and only data on partition 1 then it would be fair to say having no partitions would be par on performance right?

No, since like I stated earlier, your OS would scatter the files all over the place. And since they wouldn't be confined to a small partition, more seeking would be done by the drive to find files as well as some data would be located in the inner disk areas where the platter density isn't as high(i.e. slower). Now again, if you had a good defragmenter, the performance would be the same.

But what I was trying to ask previously was striping individual partitions on a RAID array. Is this possible. Like say you stripe partition 1 16k and partition 2 32k.

No, since you must create the array before you can partition it, it will be the same for the whole drive. With Matrix RAID you could something like this, but what you would be doing is creating two separate RAID arrays, not partitions, with different stripe sizes. Yes, you could make two RAID0 or 1 arrays with Matrix RAID if you needed to for some strange reason. Like mentioned before, the arrays would basically act as partitions.

Also, how would the cache on the hard disk work on a RAID array? And would there be differences if you were to use a setup of 2 hard disk 8mb cache in RAID and a setup of 2 hard disk 16mb cache?

Whether as a single drive or in RAID, the operation of the cache would perform the same. A drive doesn't "know" whether it's in a RAID array or not.

And what if you were to use a 8mb cache and a 16mb cache in a RAID setup? Will the RAID array work on the lesser of the 2, therefore only 8mb cache will work?

I'm not sure how it'd work from an operational standpoint, but I can say that any benefit that the 16MB cache drive would have had will be negated in a RAID array since performance does drop to the capability of the weaker drive.


In the end, a third party disk defragmenter that places all your files in order from the very start of the outside platter inward will trump any kind of partitioning/Matrix RAID array scheme you could come up with to improve file access. If you don't have the money for good defragmenter software, than these partition/array setups are the next best thing(free).

 

[Rickster]

The best thing to have is a third party defragmenter like PerfectDisk or Diskeeper, which will not only place the files all to the outer edge, it can/will prioritize them on what kind they are(such as OS system files being the very first files) or usage.

Yep, I have Perfect Disk and O&O Disk Defragmenter. O&O defrags by last modified, last accessed and by name. Currently, I'm using by name.

No, since like I stated earlier, your OS would scatter the files all over the place. And since they wouldn't be confined to a small partition, more seeking would be done by the drive to find files as well as some data would be located in the inner disk areas where the platter density isn't as high(i.e. slower). Now again, if you had a good defragmenter, the performance would be the same.

Why would more seeking be done by the drive if it was confined to a smaller partition? Say if the smaller partition is the outter disk areas?


Just after reading these posts, I'm already interested in getting another raptor or two. I currently have a 74GB raptor but its the 8mb cache ones. I may plan to get a pair of 36GB raptors with 16mb cache since for some reason I don't use massive amounts of space for some reason. I know that the smaller the hard disk space the faster seek times since there are less platters, hence the acceleration of the spinning from slow to fast is much faster than the bigger hard disks. IS there any other reasons why the 36GB would be faster than the 74GB?

tuskenraider, you produced some very good answers that was not in the stickies. Appreciate the information here.

 

[Audioaficionado]

The 74GB is faster than either the 36GB or 150GB Raptors.

 

[Rickster]

The 74GB is faster than either the 36GB or 150GB Raptors.

peculiar. why is this? even if its a 74GB 8mb cache?

 

[jivetrky]

peculiar. why is this? even if its a 74GB 8mb cache?

No, not the 8MB version...but the new 16MB version is faster, I believe, because the seek times are slightly better.

 

[Audioaficionado]

Maybe with the 16mb cache versions things are different now. The speed/seek specs look to be the same for all 3 versions on Newegg.

When they were still 8mb, the 74GB was faster than the 36GB.

 

[tuskenraider]

Why would more seeking be done by the drive if it was confined to a smaller partition? Say if the smaller partition is the outter disk areas?

I was responding to your question asking if single partition performance would be on par with two partition performance, but not using the second partition. My answer was "no", since data wouldn't be confined as it would in the two partition scenario. Seeks would be longer since the data would be more spread out.

I know that the smaller the hard disk space the faster seek times since there are less platters, hence the acceleration of the spinning from slow to fast is much faster than the bigger hard disks.

Sorry, not true. Smaller drives typically have less dense platters, which means the data is spread out further across the disk requiring more spindle rotations to read data once found and can require longer seeking for non-sequential files. As far as spindle acceleration, once it's on, it's on. There is no acceleration or deceleration except at power on/off(well you could use power saving), which really wouldn't be a performance factor.

IS there any other reasons why the 36GB would be faster than the 74GB?

tuskenraider, you produced some very good answers that was not in the stickies. Appreciate the information here.

No problem. All the new 16MB Raptors perform about the same. I've owned a bunch myself and have seen plenty of benchmarks show this as well. The only physical difference between the models are number of read/write heads and platters. Platters are all the same size, just more used to get more space. 36GB=1 head, one side of 1 platter. 74GB=2 heads, both sides of 1 platter. 150=4 heads, both sides of 2 platters.

 

[jivetrky]

Hmmm....well I was going off of a benchmark I saw recently (it was for the new 1TB Hitachi drive, but it showed results of many other drives also, including the 74GB and 150GB 16MB Raptors.


But this one at Anandtech shows the 150 to beat the 74 in many of the tests. Not sure where I saw the review


But these reviews give you a good comparison of the 74GB and 150GB Raptor...and also the second review shows the 150GB raptor in RAID0 to show the comparison of single drive and RAID0.

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2949&p=1
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2969&p=1

 

[tuskenraider]

Hmmm....well I was going off of a benchmark I saw recently (it was for the new 1TB Hitachi drive, but it showed results of many other drives also, including the 74GB and 150GB 16MB Raptors.


But this one at Anandtech shows the 150 to beat the 74 in many of the tests. Not sure where I saw the review

I've posted various links in this forum before showing the similarities, but I'll just sum up those by saying typically you'll see average read performance of the new Raptors around 75-78MB/s and seeks at 8-8.5ms. Factor in a margin of error and the fact they're in various systems, it's pretty much a wash.

 

[Rickster]

No problem. All the new 16MB Raptors perform about the same. I've owned a bunch myself and have seen plenty of benchmarks show this as well. The only physical difference between the models are number of read/write heads and platters. Platters are all the same size, just more used to get more space. 36GB=1 head, one side of 1 platter. 74GB=2 heads, both sides of 1 platter. 150=4 heads, both sides of 2 platters.

So more read/write heads would mean better since.. well more heads to read/write of from aight? Why would the 36GB raptor perform the same as the 74GB when you previously said lower space means lesser dense platter, considering the 74GB use 1 platter aswell.

So tuskenraider, why did you choose to RAID 2 36GB raptors, because of price issues and not needing that much space anyway? Or is there some sort of performance reason, which I can't think of any?

 

[tuskenraider]

So more read/write heads would mean better since.. well more heads to read/write of from aight? Why would the 36GB raptor perform the same as the 74GB when you previously said lower space means lesser dense platter, considering the 74GB use 1 platter aswell.

The platter densities are the same for all Raptors, it's just the 74 and 150GB drive use both sides of the platter, not one. Theoretically, more heads and platters should be better, but the benefit just hasn't been proven with synthetic benchmarks or in real world usage as far as I've seen. I used to be aware of the more intricate details to explain this better, but it isn't something I've cared to remember.

So tuskenraider, why did you choose to RAID 2 36GB raptors, because of price issues and not needing that much space anyway? Or is there some sort of performance reason, which I can't think of any?

Since I don't use but 20GB of space for my OS, apps and games, the smaller the better for me. With RAID0, there is a performance benefit for some things, but I've found this to be more controller dependant than anything. My current NF4 controller doesn't give me much benefit for boot-ups, program launching, game loading, etc. like I had with previous setups. We're talking 1 second or less with most apps I use but it does haul *** installing files, moving files and similar such things to where I won't give it up. Now my old VIA based motherboard would show a 7 second decrease in bootup, 5 second decrease in some game launches, etc. I averaged it to be about 15% performance gain for most things I used, which was worth it to me since the hard drives are about the slowest thing in your PC that is constantly used. Because of the disparities in performance over various platforms, I can only recommend that if you have the time and money to try it yourself and see if it benefits you.

Here's a link to my NF4 RAID testing done on my current rig.

 

[Rickster]

hmm.. I just read your testing all the RAID testing stickies. Sounds very controller independant, considering I'm also using a NF4 board (ABIT KN8), I think I'm going to put my money elsewhere first before deciding on RAID. But still very good info.

 

[squashfx]

2 74 gb raptors in matrix raid....... nothing can touch that! and for matrix raid you need an intel chipset i would say get a badaxe2 with a core 2 duo..... you can have all the processor you want but its not gonna do any good without a fast hard drive

 

[tuskenraider]

2 74 gb raptors in matrix raid....... nothing can touch that! and for matrix raid you need an intel chipset i would say get a badaxe2 with a core 2 duo..... you can have all the processor you want but its not gonna do any good without a fast hard drive

Please enlighten us on how Matrix RAID makes the drives "untouchable" beyond manipulating files so they are located at the begining of the disk. How does that better performance than by putting all the files there with a third party defragmenter?

 

[Rickster]

tuskenraider, what third party defragmenter would you recommend. Also, I was reading up yesterday about how to boot into winows faster and there's a few softwares that can arrange your boot.ini files to do so.

 

[tuskenraider]

tuskenraider, what third party defragmenter would you recommend. Also, I was reading up yesterday about how to boot into winows faster and there's a few softwares that can arrange your boot.ini files to do so.

I've used Diskeeper, PerfectDisk and O&O Defrag. I like PerfectDisk's interface best, but O&O does provide a little more hardcore options(such as being able to defrag/place files in order by filename), though I couldn't see the benefit of that. Diskeeper is designed to be constantly watching and defragmenting files in the background so you don't ever build up much fragmentation. I don't like things running in the background myself so I don't prefer it. PerfectDisk uses "smart placement" to order the files by usage and I just run it every week or two to stay on top of things. I think they all have free trials so you could test them to see what you like and of course price may be a factor. As far as booting Windows faster, there are a few ways to tackle that. Myself, I make sure only the minimum of program files load that are needed at startup as well as disable all the services I don't use. I'm happy with that.