Question about new harddrive

[delanejenkins]

I just purchased an additional new internal harddrive for my pc. It is much faster than my current hdd. My question is this: should I partition the drive and use it as my boot drive and run programs since it is faster and use the remaining space as storage as well as format my current drive for storage? Or should I just leave all my programs on my current hdd and use my new one as storage. I'm mainly wondering if either scenario will increase encoding speed and program processing speed.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Neither will effect encoding speed, because encoding is mainly CPU limited! HDD throughput shouldn't bottleneck your encoding speed, unless you are reading uncompressed data as input.

Anyway, I would use the "faster" HDD to install the OS and the application. Not because it improves performance, but because it decreases the system/application startup delay ;)

Also you should make sure that Windows has its Swap file located on the "fast" HDD. If you ever run out of RAM and Windows starts using the Swap file, this will improve performance.

[delanejenkins]

As always Lord Mulder, thanks for the advice

[Ghitulescu]

I would do exactly the opposite: I'll keep my old one for the applications, while using the new one as temporary space (maybe I'll juggle a bit with both to use always 2 HDD in the same time - one as a source, the other as destination). I assume the new one is also bigger :) But this is my setup as I don't encode, just remux (DVB/DVD->DVD), so HDD speed is more important than CPU speed.

The biggest speed-up comes from a clean software (install only the "bare necessities") and you can save good seconds, even minutes, if you connect the USB devices after the system start-up (soft power does not help, USB and/or mains disconnection yes).

Another hint: even as NTFS, the drives become louzier and louzier, so a format would have to be performed every now and then. However, if you don't install anything, the system HDD won't need this maintenance.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

However, if you don't install anything, the system HDD won't need this maintenance.

That's a bit optimistic. A running (Windows) system creates and deletes temporary files like there's no tomorrow :rolleyes:

I recommend to schedule automated daily/nightly defragmentation on the system drive. My favorite is MyDefrag, previously known as JkDefrag:
http://www.mydefrag.com/

It ships with scripts for "complete" (slow) and "update" (fast) defragmentation. I run the first once in a while and the latter daily...

[von_Runkel]

If the new drive is considerably bigger and faster, use it for both the operating system and your applications and make a partition for your current encoding jobs. These partitions need to be defragmented on a regular basis.

Use the old drive for "slow" content like your music & video library.

This way, you will get the most out of your investment because your computer will be more responsive.

[Ghitulescu]

That's a bit optimistic. A running (Windows) system creates and deletes temporary files like there's no tomorrow :rolleyes:

But they will be placed after the system files, if a good optimisation was previously done. Good point anyway, because accessing fragmented temporary data is time consuming.
I recommend to schedule automated daily/nightly defragmentation on the system drive. My favorite is MyDefrag, previously known as JkDefrag:
http://www.mydefrag.com/

It ships with scripts for "complete" (slow) and "update" (fast) defragmentation. I run the first once in a while and the latter daily...

Seems to be exactly what I was looking for (because of the permissions ;)) ... Thanks
Since it depends on internal functions it is probably no faster than the default windows defragmenter, but it doesn't matter.


If the new drive is considerably bigger and faster, use it for both the operating system and your applications and make a partition for your current encoding jobs.
If you transfer large amounts of data, this is wrong - because copying data from one place force the HDD to move its heads towards a cylinder of that partition, writing it to another partition it would force it again towards a cylinder of the latter - in the end the drive headarms would act like rainwipers, make noise and prone to mechanical failure.
It's not a problem if you process lower amounts of generously sized buffered data.
Since the mechanical access practically defines the speed of a HDD (and that of a CD/DVD/BD).

-=-
and remember, the HDDs of today are not made to work non-stop (I think less than 300h a month or something, roughly 8h a day - the office day), so in the end it depends what you consider to be more important: the software or the data.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

But they will be placed after the system files, if a good optimisation was previously done. Good point anyway, because accessing fragmented temporary data is time consuming.

Don't forget that not only temporary files are created/deleted (in the "free" area of a properly defragmented HDD), also many existing files are extended with new data (log files, mailbox files, etc).

And since the existing files have been "compacted" before (no free "gaps"), the files will need to be fragmented and the new data will be located somewhere in the previously "free" area.

Last but not least, even if you don't actively install new software, system files will be modified or replaced. Just think about Windows update, Anitivirus update, necessary driver updates and so on...

As a result the daily defragmentation will never be out of work, believe me :D

Seems to be exactly what I was looking for (because of the permissions ;)) ... Thanks
Since it depends on internal functions it is probably no faster than the default windows defragmenter, but it doesn't matter.

That applies to any Defragmentation tool for M$ Windows that works "online" (while the OS is running in the back) ;)

[Ghitulescu]

So, Lord_Mulder is right in almost every item, since the PC of a normal user serves multiple purposes, like we say eierlegende Wollmilchsau, in English it would be the sow that gives us eggs, wool, milk and of course meat, since that's the purpose of every domestic pig. It seems that whiskey is not mentioned, a big mistake ;)

My setup is a very conservative one, each hobby has its own PC, so I don't care about antivira, windows updates, emails and so on. I think I still use some 1996 software on my audio PC (and I never performed any defrag in all these 12 years as the data is on an external SCSI HDD that is completely deleted after the recording session ends, faster and safer), my video processing PC is however updated to the last software, but no trials or dubious freewares (and again no antivira - I cannot get viruses from MPEG-2 files, do I?, and they have no idea what the internet is) nor endless codec/drivers changes. If it works why bother! The internet PC is a special one, it runs Linux, and in case it got virused I'd erase it completely and start over.

So if you have a setup like Lord_Mulders's then use his options, are better. If you want to use your PC for a specific purpose, use mine. Von_runkels' ideas are also good, at least you may have the data intact if you got a virus.
There is no best solution, like there is no best car.

[Blue_MiSfit]

Vista and Windows 7 practically never need to be manually defragmented anymore, since they always defrag in the background :)

~MiSfit

[LoRd_MuldeR]

And the Linux file system usually doesn't need a defragmentation software at all, because it is extremely good in avoiding fragmentation ;)

[davidmoore]

You should buy more fast hard drives and get rid of your old one and setup a raid 5 array and partition that.

[von_Runkel]

You should buy more fast hard drives and get rid of your old one and setup a raid 5 array and partition that.

This is misleading information and not helpful in any way for the OP.

Do not use RAID-5 in a workstation, unless:


You know exactly what you are doing and fully understand the negative side effects of this RAID level, especially with just three or four disks.

You have more than a handful of identical disks and looking for speed, size and redundancy not found in other RAID levels.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Agreed. For Desktop machines a RAID is usually overkill. One may consider using a RAID-1 if two identical HDD's are available, if redundancy is very important and if limited capacity can be accepted. But usually it's much more space-efficient and simpler to set up if you just make a backup copy of the important files on the first HDD to the second HDD (or vice versa) now and then. This can be automated using backup utilities. RAID-5 is out of range, unless you have at least three identical HDD's that you want to combine to one logical drive...