Best way to arrange PC?

[zeva]

Hello all I was wondering what would be the best way to arrange my PC... I have 3 Hard drives (internal) and 2 external back ups
Internals
120 GB SATA
320 GB SATA
250 GB PATA
60GB Pata If needed
a 160 external and a 500 external

I would like to know what would be the best way to have my stuff going to do a full install....

what i have/ will be putting on my PC
Windows Vista 32bit Ultimate
Photoshop CS3
Light Room
and some games and stuff...

system specs
EVGA 8800 GT Super OCd
Asus PQ5 Pro
E7200 @ 3.17
120 GB SATA
320 GB SATA
250 GB PATA
500GB SATA <--- Adding on BF
2gb RAM <--- GOing to be upgraded to 6gb when i get 64bit Vista



If you need any other specifics please ask and i will gladly tell you :) thanks for the help! Also, i have about 200 bucks i will be soon be spending on computer upgrades (not including the 2 500gbs and the 64Bit windows and ram)

[S.E.V.]

I would personally put the 160 as the main internal drive. then use the 320 and 250 as internal storage. 160 should be plenty of room for vista PS and some games. Then have the 500 as your main external. I would recommend you get another 500 as a secondary backup to the first 500 so that the size of the drives are matched up.

Sevan

[tim]

Smallest drive as system, biggest drive for images, mid size drive as random data or swap. Externals kept offsite as backups.

[Colorblinded]

I would personally put the 160 as the main internal drive. then use the 320 and 250 as internal storage. 160 should be plenty of room for vista PS and some games. Then have the 500 as your main external. I would recommend you get another 500 as a secondary backup to the first 500 so that the size of the drives are matched up.

Sevan
Agreed, however if your system drive is an older model it might be worth upgrading to a newer drive for your system drive and possibly data drives if speed is a concern to you. The drives of several years ago generally aren't as fast as newer drives.

[zeva]

WEll the 160 is a 2.5 while all the others are 3.5s also, my 120 is apparently significantly slower (its about 4 years old i got it when SATA was new... infact it has a SATA power and Molex... ) so I m not sure what to do vista rates the 320 as a 5.9 and the 120 as a 5.0

[S.E.V.]

Then use the 250 as the man and the 320 as the storage on internal and ditch the 120gb. Honestly it is totally up to you on how to run then, In the end as long as they work you will be fine. Better better off with the smaller as the main and the larger as the storage.

[jdizzle]

Since we're on the subject of hardrives, what would be the best setup for RAID? I've tried RAID 0 but, I definitely ran into problems. I would love some input. Thanks!

[Faolan]

RAID 0 for speed
RAID 5 for data/speed
RAID 6 for data/speed (2 drive failure)

Oh and get a dedicated RAID controller like the Adaptec 5805/5405 with at least 256Mb cache... It's a world of difference compared to Mobo RAIDs. The controller presents the array as a single drive and is totally transparent to the OS.

My personal viewpoint with hard drives is duplication. I buy two hard drives of the same type/size and then mirror them. I live by the simple rule of it's not If it's When and if I'm storing data on drives then I want a backup.

[jdizzle]

RAID 0 for speed
RAID 5 for data/speed
RAID 6 for data/speed (2 drive failure)

Oh and get a dedicated RAID controller like the Adaptec 5805/5405 with at least 256Mb cache... It's a world of difference compared to Mobo RAIDs. The controller presents the array as a single drive and is totally transparent to the OS.

My personal viewpoint with hard drives is duplication. I buy two hard drives of the same type/size and then mirror them. I live by the simple rule of it's not If it's When and if I'm storing data on drives then I want a backup.
Thanks Faolan. I may go with a RAID 5 and see how that goes.

[tim]

RAID is generally a waste of time and money for home users, IMHO. The bottleneck for my system is currently CPU, I rarely wait for disks - most of my work is in RAW, batch conversions and such. I have things arranged so it reads from one disks and writes to another during batch conversion, but even using the same disk it's fine.

Just have a few good quality Seagate disks in the machine, and enough external capacity to back them up offsite, do the backup regularly, and you're safe.

[jdizzle]

So I should just go back to old IDE? I see your point about RAID being a waste of time and I do have mucho external storage so that's not a problem. I guess I won't know till I actually build the system. At this time, I'm open to any suggestions. Thanks Tim.

[Colorblinded]

Personally I'd recommend some new drives if you've got $100-150 to spare.

[zeva]

what is the minimum number of drives for raid 5?

[S.E.V.]

what is the minimum number of drives for raid 5?

RAID 5

What is it?

RAID 5 accomplishes both techniques of RAID 0 and RAID 1. There are other benefits of RAID 5 but lets leave that discussion to the techies. You'll just have to take my word for it. RAID 5 requires a minimum of three drives and it is recommended that all drives on the system be of the same size. The more drives you have on the server, the better RAID 5 will perform. We usually recommend having five drives where one is used as a spare. This will allow for up to two drives to fail and the system can keep running.
RAID 5 is the version most often recommended. Because the price of disk drives have drastically dropped, the cost of implementing RAID 5 is now within most companies budgets.
Speed

There is a decrease in write speed due to calculations that have to be made before data is written to the drives. If you want to increase read/write speed and have the benefits of RAID 5, you need to implement RAID 10.
Disk Usage

The loss of disk space is basically 100 divided by the number of disk drives. With 3 drives, there is a 33% loss of disk space. With 5 drives, there is a 20% loss of disk space.
Requirements

RAID 5 is more expensive to implement. You will need additional drives and a RAID controller. The cost of implementing RAID 5 could be in the range of $1000 to $5000 depending on the total number of drives, type of drives and controller required.

[tim]

So I should just go back to old IDE? I see your point about RAID being a waste of time and I do have mucho external storage so that's not a problem. I guess I won't know till I actually build the system. At this time, I'm open to any suggestions. Thanks Tim.

Not IDE, SATA.

[zeva]

RAID 5

What is it?
RAID 5 accomplishes both techniques of RAID 0 and RAID 1. There are other benefits of RAID 5 but lets leave that discussion to the techies. You'll just have to take my word for it. RAID 5 requires a minimum of three drives and it is recommended that all drives on the system be of the same size. The more drives you have on the server, the better RAID 5 will perform. We usually recommend having five drives where one is used as a spare. This will allow for up to two drives to fail and the system can keep running.
RAID 5 is the version most often recommended. Because the price of disk drives have drastically dropped, the cost of implementing RAID 5 is now within most companies budgets.
Speed
There is a decrease in write speed due to calculations that have to be made before data is written to the drives. If you want to increase read/write speed and have the benefits of RAID 5, you need to implement RAID 10.
Disk Usage
The loss of disk space is basically 100 divided by the number of disk drives. With 3 drives, there is a 33% loss of disk space. With 5 drives, there is a 20% loss of disk space.
Requirements
RAID 5 is more expensive to implement. You will need additional drives and a RAID controller. The cost of implementing RAID 5 could be in the range of $1000 to $5000 depending on the total number of drives, type of drives and controller required.

so would you suggest raid 10? btw do you mind me asking where you found that info? it was very informative

[S.E.V.]

so would you suggest raid 10? btw do you mind me asking where you found that info? it was very informative

Raid Info (http://www.ahinc.com/raid.htm#RAID%205)

[zeva]

aww no explanation of raid 6 or raid 10 :(

[S.E.V.]

aww no explanation of raid 6 or raid 10 :(

Raid 6 (http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/levels/singleLevel6-c.html)

Click the next button as the botom left of page to go to raid 7 and so on.:)

[Colorblinded]

Are you buying Vista 32 first and swapping it for 64 bit later? I really don't see a point to this. Just start with 64 bit.

[bacchanal]

aww no explanation of raid 6 or raid 10 :(

RAID 10 afaik, is just RAID 0+1, it requires 4 drives. It is simply mirroring a striped RAID0 array.

[bacchanal]

Are you buying Vista 32 first and swapping it for 64 bit later? I really don't see a point to this. Just start with 64 bit.

I agree, the reasons for staying 32bit are becoming fewer and fewer.

[zeva]

No i already own a 32 bit... i will be upgrading to 64 bit when i get my new ram... and anyone think windows 7 will be 64bit only?

[Colorblinded]

and anyone think windows 7 will be 64bit only?
Probably might as well be.

Anyway, there's no point not getting the 64 bit version now (actually your 32 bit license may install 64 bit if you can find a copy of the 64 bit media). You can run 64 bit on the RAM you're putting in now, and take full advantage of the boost in ram when you upgrade it later without having to go through a reinstall hassle.