Planning on a build in December

[Illiad86]

Yeah, I guess it's something with Seagate drives...I got one myself, 16MB cache...kinda seems like it's fast :P I guess it's how the firmware is, better firmware, better harnessing of the cache. Might want to look up a review on some of Western Digital's HDDs :)

 

I've heard that you can get more corrupted and orphaned files with HDD's with larger cache as you lose all that cached data when the computer crashes. Suffered that with my previous drive...but it was defective to begin with, died shortly after that lol.

 

Oh, Read/Write times, my boyfriend says, has to do with the RPM and the density of the disk. You want the fastest? Haha here it is:

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...6-322-_-Product

 

Average Transfer rate:

VelociRaptor - 101.4 MB/s

750GB Caviar Black - 90.5 MB/s

 

Burst Rate:

VelociRaptor - 182.2 MB/s

750GB Caviar Black - 143.1 MB/s

 

Access Time:

VelociRaptor - 7.0ms

750GB Caviar Black - 11.1ms

 

Or SSDs are really really fast...but low capacity and expensive still :(

[Vagrant0]

Yeah, I guess it's something with Seagate drives...I got one myself, 16MB cache...kinda seems like it's fast :P I guess it's how the firmware is, better firmware, better harnessing of the cache. Might want to look up a review on some of Western Digital's HDDs :)

 

I've heard that you can get more corrupted and orphaned files with HDD's with larger cache as you lose all that cached data when the computer crashes. Suffered that with my previous drive...but it was defective to begin with, died shortly after that lol.

 

Oh, Read/Write times, my boyfriend says, has to do with the RPM and the density of the disk. You want the fastest? Haha here it is:

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...6-322-_-Product

Not looking to spend more than like $90 on a single harddrive (maybe about $150 total). Basically just looking for biggest bang for my buck without going to some crazy extreme. You know, good balance of storage space, reliability, and speed.

 

 

Looked into SSD before, seemed to only be a practical for running an OS, and even then you have to play around with too many settings to redirect all those temporary files windows likes to make to another drive. In short, more trouble and cost than its worth just for the sake of faster boot times.

[Illiad86]

Well get 2 of these and put them in RAID

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16822136320

 

these are a wee wee bit faster than other HDDs

 

No HDD spins faster than the Velociraptor....yeah it's expensive as stink, but sheesh look at those read/write times

[Vagrant0]

Well get 2 of these and put them in RAID

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16822136320

 

these are a wee wee bit faster than other HDDs

 

No HDD spins faster than the Velociraptor....yeah it's expensive as stink, but sheesh look at those read/write times

Those two are what I ultimately went with as higher capacity versions were reported to cause errors. How exactly would I go about setting them up in a Raid, and what exactly would that accomplish if going with a setup like:

 

Drive 1 partition C: - System, ballast, applications and games

Drive 2 partition D: - Pagefile, random stuff, games which have data folders I wouldn't want to lose to reformatting, and storage

 

 

And now for a fun question. I have 2 old IDE drives which I can't seem to power up or detect when hooking them up to an ancient Circa 1996 computer (still runs, you can gasp in amazement now), or this one which has an open IDE connection. One of the drives I've always had power and detection issues with, the other I didn't. I don't care too much about being able to revive these drives since my new computer won't be able to use them, but I also don't remember what might be on these drives. Without being able to hook up the drive, is there any way to completely wipe any data on them before I try and find a recycling center that takes them?

[Illiad86]

Either run a nice sized magnet across it is the best plan :) Wipes all the data off of it. Or you can smash it :P

 

With RAID, I believe you just turn it on in the motherboard BIOS.

 

# RAID 0 (striped disks) distributes data across multiple disks in a way that gives improved speed at any given instant. If one disk fails, however, all of the data on the array will be lost, as there is neither parity nor mirroring. In this regard, RAID 0 is somewhat of a misnomer, in that RAID 0 is non-redundant. A RAID 0 array requires a minimum of two drives. A RAID 0 configuration can be applied to a single drive provided that the RAID controller is hardware and not software (i.e. OS-based arrays) and allows for such configuration. This allows a single drive to be added to a controller already containing another RAID configuration when the user does not wish to add the additional drive to the existing array. In this case, the controller would be set up as RAID only (as opposed to SCSI only (no RAID)), which requires that each individual drive be a part of some sort of RAID array.

 

# RAID 1 mirrors the contents of the disks, making a form of 1:1 ratio realtime backup. The contents of each disk in the array are identical to that of every other disk in the array. A RAID 1 array requires a minimum of two drives. RAID 1 mirrors, though during the writing process copy the data identically to both drives, would not be suitable as a permanent backup solution, as RAID technology by design allows for certain failures to take place.

 

 

What I do, I have a 250GB HDD, I just partitioned off 50GB of it for backup. That's easy to do right during Windows installation, especially in Vista and 7 I've seen :) I just stick with that because RAID seems to have issues still...unless you have a really great motherboard or something...I'm not too sure, but it's more prone to failure...even in RAID 1

[Vagrant0]

Either run a nice sized magnet across it is the best plan :) Wipes all the data off of it. Or you can smash it :P

 

With RAID, I believe you just turn it on in the motherboard BIOS.

 

# RAID 0 (striped disks) distributes data across multiple disks in a way that gives improved speed at any given instant. If one disk fails, however, all of the data on the array will be lost, as there is neither parity nor mirroring. In this regard, RAID 0 is somewhat of a misnomer, in that RAID 0 is non-redundant. A RAID 0 array requires a minimum of two drives. A RAID 0 configuration can be applied to a single drive provided that the RAID controller is hardware and not software (i.e. OS-based arrays) and allows for such configuration. This allows a single drive to be added to a controller already containing another RAID configuration when the user does not wish to add the additional drive to the existing array. In this case, the controller would be set up as RAID only (as opposed to SCSI only (no RAID)), which requires that each individual drive be a part of some sort of RAID array.

 

# RAID 1 mirrors the contents of the disks, making a form of 1:1 ratio realtime backup. The contents of each disk in the array are identical to that of every other disk in the array. A RAID 1 array requires a minimum of two drives. RAID 1 mirrors, though during the writing process copy the data identically to both drives, would not be suitable as a permanent backup solution, as RAID technology by design allows for certain failures to take place.

 

 

What I do, I have a 250GB HDD, I just partitioned off 50GB of it for backup. That's easy to do right during Windows installation, especially in Vista and 7 I've seen :) I just stick with that because RAID seems to have issues still...unless you have a really great motherboard or something...I'm not too sure, but it's more prone to failure...even in RAID 1

I don't think I'll be doing that. Speed isn't worth the lack of reliability. This might be a different story if I happened to be someone with an excessive amount of free time and an unlimited budget, but doesn't seem like a good idea for me. As is I end up having to spend a day or so reinstalling and setting up crap when doing a reformat, and even though I can fit stuff on a drive which isn't being reformatted, I still always end up losing stuff, and time in the process. I don't even want to think about how screwed I'd be if something failed before I was able to back it up. Recovery tools and such have never seemed to work right.

[LHammonds]

For old drives, IDE, laptop drives or SATA, you might want to look into investing in a USB cable that has all those connectors on the end so you can hook up your old drive via a USB cable to obtain the contents. It is a $30 cable I think. I'll post a link here if I find it. I mentioned it in a topic I started here when my drives died.

 

EDIT: Roswell USB Adapter

 

As for data backup, you don't have to have an elaborate or expensive system to keep your data safe. I prefer working "smart" over relying on hardware to save the day. Even if you rely on a mirrored drive approach to safeguard data, you will probably run into a situation where both drives will be fried at the same time. hehehe. I like to ensure all my data that I want backed up and safe to be retained under a single folder (I call "MyData") and I have a daily automated job that syncs that folder to another physical drive in my computer so if one drive dies, I still have my data on another physical drive. I have another sync job that keeps that same data backed up to an external drive. I have two of these external drives and each time I visit my parents house, I take it over there and swap it out for the drive I keep over there. This ensures that I am safe from a single drive failure an entire system failure and even from my entire house burning down. I have an article on TESNexus that does into detail on how to do this.

 

Drobo has an interesting solution for hard drive usage. Typically, when you raid a system, the drives need to be all the same size or else you will lose space simply because it will only utilize the max amount of space based on the smallest drive. However, Drobo will allow you to use any size drive to add to the raid array. The maximizes the space from all he varying sized drives you may have laying around and also provides for some safety if a drive or two fails...and makes it very easy to replace a dead drive. Although, you still need an offsite solution. Having two Drobos makes them the perfect "external" backup solution because your data is further protected in the storage itself. Whoops, sorry, started dreaming here.

 

Regarding SSD, if you ever get the chance in the future to obtain one, do so. As mentioned, it will speed up your OS but there is enough room to install your most used games or those that have the longest "loading" times because of disk access such as Oblivion. For my PC, I am going ahead and spending the $500 for the 160 GB drive. For now, it is recommended you only purchase the drives that use the Intel chipsets because they have much better algorithms to make the drives last longer.

 

LHammonds

[Vagrant0]

I've put the system together, and it didn't fry out immediately *yay*.

 

Ended up just buying a new cpu case anyway, so I can still use my old computer (sans DvDR drive). Not sure when I'll be making a formal switch yet. New computer is definitely quieter though (dvd drive is loudest component). Had a couple problems fitting everything inside, and still not particularly happy about where I have some stuff mounted, but seems to work.

 

Thanks to everyone who offered help. Kudos for all. Will post back here once I have some final system specs.

 

Initial windows experience index numbers:

Processor - 7.3

Memory (RAM) - 7.5

Graphics (both) - 7.6

Data Transfer - 5.9

Edited December 10, 2009 by Vagrant0

[Pronam]

Nice numbers, good luck with the system and enjoy your new OS.

Indeed a very imporant note about SSD, they have a shorter lifespan. I'd not trust my personal documents with it if I'd had one, simply as I use drives for a prolonged period. It's more than logical to place a 'normal' drive besides it.

 

I'm looking forward to the specs and how high you'll be able to turn the sliders of games!

[LHammonds]

Indeed a very imporant note about SSD, they have a shorter lifespan. I'd not trust my personal documents with it if I'd had one, simply as I use drives for a prolonged period. It's more than logical to place a 'normal' drive besides it.

You might want to re-think this stance on the protection of your data. If it were not for the high cost, ALL of my data would be stored on solid state technology.

 

The absolute safest media you can have your data on is a solid state drive (such as a flash disk or SSD). Why? The medium is not subject to all the problems that others are faced with. Tape corrodes after time or can easily snap. CD/DVDs can get finger prints that cause corrosion over time (or bend or warp from heat or not being stored on its end). Hard drives are susceptible to magnets, mechanical failures that can physically destroy the data on the discs and cannot handle impacts such as being dropped.

 

Regarding the safety of your data and the finite amount of times an SSD cell can be written to, your data that is initially dropped onto the drive and does not change much is still just a single write to that cell. If your data does not change, the cell is not re-written. So SSD drives are actually the BEST storage medium for your data (IMO).

 

Take a look at this article about the Intel X25-M drives. Intel has promised you can write 100 GB to the SSD drive each day for 5 years and still have guaranteed data integrity. That is 2 years past their warranty. Think about it....100 GB per day...every day. If you install your OS, apps and data in such a way that temp files and such are written to a SATA drive, you'd more likely be able to make them last MUCH longer than their expected lifetime.

 

Intel X25-M SSD: Intel Delivers One of the World's Fastest Drives

 

LHammonds