Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Drive for OS vs a drive for files


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 drding

drding

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:12:08 AM

Posted 12 July 2013 - 02:20 PM

Hey there,

I was looking for opinions based on two different drives and which one would be better used for installing an OS (Windows 8) on and run programs, and which one should be used for file storage.

Here are the two drives in question:
 

Western Digital Red
  • 3TB storage
  • SATA3 (6gb/s transfer)
  • 64mb cache

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008JJLW4M/ref=pe_385040_30332190_pe_175190_21431760_M3T1_ST1_dp_1


VS.
 

Samsung EcoGreen
  • 2TB storage
  • SATA (3gb/s transfer)
  • 32mb cache

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152245  (I know this one says out of stock but the drive was received a while ago)


Thanks!



BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 smax013

smax013

  • BC Advisor
  • 2,329 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:11:08 PM

Posted 12 July 2013 - 04:34 PM

Hey there,

I was looking for opinions based on two different drives and which one would be better used for installing an OS (Windows 8) on and run programs, and which one should be used for file storage.

Here are the two drives in question:
 
Western Digital Red

  • 3TB storage
  • SATA3 (6gb/s transfer)
  • 64mb cache
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008JJLW4M/ref=pe_385040_30332190_pe_175190_21431760_M3T1_ST1_dp_1


VS.
 
Samsung EcoGreen
  • 2TB storage
  • SATA (3gb/s transfer)
  • 32mb cache
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152245  (I know this one says out of stock but the drive was received a while ago)

Thanks!


They will likely both have about the same performance level. Both are essentially designed for low power consumption and data storage. It is possible that the WD Red might be a tad faster with the larger cache, but a larger cache does not ALWAYS translate into a faster drive (assuming all other things nominally equal).

The primary difference is that the WD Red in theory should be a more "robust" drive (and thus likely more expensive). It is supposedly designed for the more harsh conditions that exist in a multi-bay NAS device compared to a single drive desktop.

Are you planning on using both drives...one for the OS and one for programs? Or just both on one drive? It was not completely clear to me. If it is the former, then I would suggest getting a smaller (and potentially faster...such as a VelociRaptor 10000 rpm drive or even an SSD) for the OS. Using a 2 TB or 3 TB drive JUST for the OS and programs is kind of a waste.

#3 drding

drding
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:12:08 AM

Posted 12 July 2013 - 04:53 PM

Hi thanks for the reply!

 

Sorry I should have added more. I have to get the final usage plan from the person who's going to be using the drives (They're both purchased by the way). But he works alot with videos and video editing so we were thinking the OS, programs, and files he'll access often would go on the WD Red because in theory it would make using files a bit faster and then the Samsung would be for perhaps sending final renders to or at least backing them up and backing up other files. Maybe even keep lesser used files there too.

 

We just weren't sure out of the two drives which would perform better for that. If you think they're going to be about the same, I'm guessing then it would be better to run the OS, programs, and most used files off the WD Red then?



#4 smax013

smax013

  • BC Advisor
  • 2,329 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:11:08 PM

Posted 12 July 2013 - 09:22 PM

Hi thanks for the reply!
 
Sorry I should have added more. I have to get the final usage plan from the person who's going to be using the drives (They're both purchased by the way). But he works alot with videos and video editing so we were thinking the OS, programs, and files he'll access often would go on the WD Red because in theory it would make using files a bit faster and then the Samsung would be for perhaps sending final renders to or at least backing them up and backing up other files. Maybe even keep lesser used files there too.
 
We just weren't sure out of the two drives which would perform better for that. If you think they're going to be about the same, I'm guessing then it would be better to run the OS, programs, and most used files off the WD Red then?


I don't have any hard data, but my intuition/gut says the WD Red might be a bit faster. If it were me and I was putting the OS, programs, and data all on one drive, I would likely pick the WD Red unless I found some information that suggested the Samsung drive was the better choice.

To some degree, I might suggest that you get a smaller drive still for the OS (something on the order of a 160 GB or 250 GB drive). It could be just another 7200 rpm drive or goto something faster light a Velociraptor or SSD. Then you can use one of the drives you already for the data drive. The other drive you could then get an external enclosure for and then use as a backup drive...or it could be installed internally and used as a backup drive.

#5 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 55,723 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:11:08 PM

Posted 13 July 2013 - 01:09 PM

Well...to be honest...since the advent of SSDs, I don't even consider putting the O/S on a large hard drive.  I install the O/S on an SSD...and use all my other hard drives (I have a ton of them) for data storage and backups.

 

I do this because it seems to make sense, not because I'm innovative or eager to buy/use the newer hard drives.

 

SSDs are the right size to contain an O/S or multiple O/Ses.  They don't require the defragging that PATA/SATA large hard drives require and, even if they did, they are small enough that any disk maintenance could be accomplished quite quickly.

 

One other thing I've noticed...when there are multiple partitions on the same hard drive...moving data to/from those partitions takes longer than if I were moving the data to a separate drive.  While I appreciate the fact that a drive can contain 3GB of data...I don't like to put all my data at risk on one drive, preferring to have 2 or 3 smaller drives (500GB to 1TB) for storage, rather than 1 large 2TB or 3TB drive.

 

If the Windows partition is on a separate drive...which I can easily clone to a spare drive for purposes of potential disasters...then I feel a lot better and more secure about the possibility of hard drive failure and the ensuing data loss.  Multiple partitions on the same hard drive...don't really address this prospect that we all face and if flies in the face of reality...in that, when hard drive failure occurs, it may affect the entire drive...not just one partition on the drive.

 

Large hard drives are definitely a plus in today's world...but some risk management should be considered before purchasing such.  I'd rather lose a 1TB drive with some of my data stored on it...than a 2TB or 3TB drive with all my eggs in one basket.

 

Laptop owners don't have much choice....but we desktop owners...we can do what we can to minimize the frustration that failing hard drives bring to many.

 

Since hard drives, IMO, are the system hardware item which fails more frequently than any other...I don't believe in pretending that one giant hard drive is the best way for anyone to go when setting up a system.

 

Louis


Edited by hamluis, 14 July 2013 - 01:10 PM.


#6 rotor123

rotor123

  • Moderator
  • 8,093 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Local time:12:08 AM

Posted 14 July 2013 - 09:10 AM

I agree with Louis.

 

I'll tell you how I did (Do) it.

 

One 300Gb Intel SSD for Windows & Programs. Swap files and email.

 

One 7200 RPM for HD captures.

One 7200 RPM to Edit to and render to and then the final output after authoring goes back to the first 7200 RPM drive.

 

This way all data moves from one drive to the other drive during the capture, conversion and authoring processes.

The SSD drive loads windows quickly, Programs load very quickly too.

 

Good Luck

Roger


Fortune Cookie says: Fortune not Found: Abort, Retry, Ignore?

Sent from my All-In-One Desktop. Perfect for Internet, Not for heavy usage or gaming however.

How Does a computer get Infected? http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/2520/how-did-i-get-infected/
Forum Rules,    The BC Welcome Guide

167 @ June 2015


#7 Anshad Edavana

Anshad Edavana

  • Members
  • 2,805 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India
  • Local time:09:38 AM

Posted 14 July 2013 - 09:22 AM

Hi

 

While choosing a SSD drive, i advice to stay away from Crucial and OCZ. Both are famous for buggy firmwares which causes BSOD and crashes occasionally.This is from my own personal experience and other fellow staff member across various other support forums. So far, Intel and Seagate solid state drives seems to be stable and efficient.



#8 drding

drding
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:12:08 AM

Posted 17 July 2013 - 11:31 AM

HI everyone,

 

 

Thanks so much for all the advice. We ended up going with the OS and programs on the 3TB (WD Red) and using the 2TB (Samsung) for addtional file storage/file backup.

However, I'll keep it all this great advice for moving to a SSD drive in mind if my friend decides to change his setup. Sounds like a good configuration to go with and makes a lot of sense.

 

 

Thanks again!






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users