My new computer, with XP MCE2005 installed, came with a 200 GB hard
drive, which is a 7200 rpm Western Digital with a 2 MB cache, and
the head movements are fairly noisy.

I'll be transferring a relatively new 80 GB drive from my old 98SE
computer into the new case. It's also a 7200 rpm W.D., but has an 8
MB cache and is a lot less noisy.

Well, I'm thinking I really ought to use the little drive as my main
drive, and leave the big drive for video capture and format
conversion. My C partition is only going to be about 25 GB in
either case, and that's the only partition I will back up on a
regular basis. So it would look like this:

80 GB Drive:

C: 25 GB for O/S and applications, but not major data stuff.
D: 51 GB for major data items - pictures, videos, music
R: 4 GB hidden recovery partition

200 GB Drive:

X: 200 GB for video capture and processing, and other things
where using a second physical drive prevents thrashing

Does this make sense? In case it matters, I am not a gamer, but do
a lot with video.

It just seems to me that the little drive might actually be faster,
and I know it will be more quiet.

Peabody wrote:

>My new computer, with XP MCE2005 installed, came with a 200 GB hard
>drive, which is a 7200 rpm Western Digital with a 2 MB cache, and
>the head movements are fairly noisy.
>
>I'll be transferring a relatively new 80 GB drive from my old 98SE
>computer into the new case. It's also a 7200 rpm W.D., but has an 8
>MB cache and is a lot less noisy.
>
>Well, I'm thinking I really ought to use the little drive as my main
>drive, and leave the big drive for video capture and format
>conversion. My C partition is only going to be about 25 GB in
>either case, and that's the only partition I will back up on a
>regular basis. So it would look like this:
>
>80 GB Drive:
>
>C: 25 GB for O/S and applications, but not major data stuff.
>D: 51 GB for major data items - pictures, videos, music
>R: 4 GB hidden recovery partition
>
>200 GB Drive:
>
>X: 200 GB for video capture and processing, and other things
> where using a second physical drive prevents thrashing
>
>Does this make sense? In case it matters, I am not a gamer, but do
>a lot with video.
>
>It just seems to me that the little drive might actually be faster,
>and I know it will be more quiet.
>
>
>
>
You are probably right, but I suggest getting the exact model number for
each drive, then looking up their specs at wdc.com or storagereview.com.

Also, if possible, stick the two HDs on separate buses to maximize
performance. {Won't matter with most Winduhs apps, but may with
video editing.}

--
Cheers, Bob

Peabody <waybackKILLSPAM44@yahoo.com> wrote:

>My new computer, with XP MCE2005 installed, came with a 200 GB hard
>drive, which is a 7200 rpm Western Digital with a 2 MB cache, and
>the head movements are fairly noisy.
>
>I'll be transferring a relatively new 80 GB drive from my old 98SE
>computer into the new case. It's also a 7200 rpm W.D., but has an 8
>MB cache and is a lot less noisy.
>
>Well, I'm thinking I really ought to use the little drive as my main
>drive, and leave the big drive for video capture and format
>conversion. My C partition is only going to be about 25 GB in
>either case, and that's the only partition I will back up on a
>regular basis. So it would look like this:
>
>80 GB Drive:
>
>C: 25 GB for O/S and applications, but not major data stuff.
>D: 51 GB for major data items - pictures, videos, music
>R: 4 GB hidden recovery partition
>
>200 GB Drive:
>
>X: 200 GB for video capture and processing, and other things
> where using a second physical drive prevents thrashing
>
>Does this make sense? In case it matters, I am not a gamer, but do
>a lot with video.
>
>It just seems to me that the little drive might actually be faster,
>and I know it will be more quiet.
>

I very much prefer the JB series drives from Western Digital, which is
what your 8 mb cache model probably is. For one thing they have a 3
year warranty as compared to the 1 year on the BB series drives with 2
mb cache.

I would use the 8 mb drive as the primary master and install Windows
on it. That way you will get the maximum performance benefit from the
8 mb ondisk cache.

Good luck

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

Ron Martell says...

> I very much prefer the JB series drives from Western
> Digital, which is what your 8 mb cache model probably
> is. For one thing they have a 3 year warranty as
> compared to the 1 year on the BB series drives with 2 mb
> cache.

> I would use the 8 mb drive as the primary master and
> install Windows on it. That way you will get the
> maximum performance benefit from the 8 mb ondisk cache.

As you say, the drives are the WD800JB and WD2000BB.
Looking at the specs on wdc.com, the only difference, other
than the cache size is:

Data Transfer Rate - Buffer to Disk:

WD800JB - 602 mbps maximum
WD2000BB - 736 mbps maximum

I assume that's just from the higher density on the big
drive. Anyway, that might be offset by the bigger buffer on
the JB. In any case, I'm not sure I would notice the
difference in performance, but certainly would notice the
difference in noise.

I need to put both of these on the same IDE controller. The
other controller has the DVD burner and the CD-Rom drive,
which I don't think I should mix with hard drives.
Please let me know if you see any problem with this setup.

Peabody <waybackKILLSPAM44@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>As you say, the drives are the WD800JB and WD2000BB.
>Looking at the specs on wdc.com, the only difference, other
>than the cache size is:
>
>Data Transfer Rate - Buffer to Disk:
>
>WD800JB - 602 mbps maximum
>WD2000BB - 736 mbps maximum
>
>I assume that's just from the higher density on the big
>drive. Anyway, that might be offset by the bigger buffer on
>the JB. In any case, I'm not sure I would notice the
>difference in performance, but certainly would notice the
>difference in noise.
>
>I need to put both of these on the same IDE controller. The
>other controller has the DVD burner and the CD-Rom drive,
>which I don't think I should mix with hard drives.
>Please let me know if you see any problem with this setup.
>

No real problems in configuring your drives as you have indicated.

There might be some slight performance advantage under some
circumstances, such as when simultaneously using files from both hard
drives, if you put the two hard drives onto separate IDE channels as
master drives, with the DVD burner as slave on one channel and the
CDROM as slave on the other.

However the geometry of most computer cases is such that this
configuration would likely cause problems in getting the data cables
to fit, so your proposed setup is probably the optimal choice. It is,
in fact, the way that I have my own computer setup, except that I am
currently without a second hard drive (it died).

Good luck

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca