Improving disk performance

[keith_leitch]

tv buffer sounds good on ide drive...could also be used for a second ntfs link target also...

...but not in flash memory? I can't imagine why not...

[keith_leitch]

[QUOTE=pBS;361471if gbpvr is on that win backup, restore will be overwriting your current gbpvr with an old one![/QUOTE]

Right, I get it now...however, as you've said, one can just copy the GBPVR dir and copy it back afterward, so no big deal. Still, this could impact on other software.

[keith_leitch]

Sigh. I hate installations. I've made the 90-minute round trip to the computer store twice today. The first time, I bought a 500gb drive (even 320 is unavailable locally) that the salesman said was 7200rpm with 32M cache. When I got home and researched it, it was 5400rpm with 32M cache. To his credit, the guy stayed late to swap it for a Seagate st3500418as. Turns out this one is 7200rpm, but with only 16M cache.

Honestly, I am just so tired of racing in and out of stores, and really want to get on with the job. How much disk efficiency will I lose, keeping in mind that this will be my system and swap file drive, by losing that extra cache?

[stustunz]

i wouldnt worry about it you probably wouldnt notice more is better but its not a deal breaker

[keith_leitch]

The difference between 16 and 32M cache in the same model line (according to i-tech.com.au) is in the random read seek and random write seek times: <8.5 and <9.5 for 16, and <1.0 and <1.2 for 32. Doesn't that strike you as a huge difference?

On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be much difference at all for the other specs. Sustained data transfer isn't listed for the 32; it is 160/s for the 16, which specs out the same as the 1TB drive (32) that I bought.

[pBS]

<1.0 is a lie...there's no real drive i know of that can do anything near that...
best is around 4.0 and that's a really high end drive...
purely marketing...

7200rpm much more important than cache size...

[keith_leitch]

Still haven't started, due to holiday festivities and a backup that "just won't quit" (still says it's got four hours to go).

Just want some final opinions if anyone is out there. Configuration plan is:

IDE burner (Frees up a fourth SATA connector)

500g drive (smallest new drive available):

50 g "system" partition (windows and applications--smaller to fit on backup)
50 g dual-bootable "testing" partition (with a ghost image that I can mess)
anyone know any software that can make this kind of bootable ghost?
6 g "swapfile" partition (maybe)
not sure whether to leave this here or on the 80g drive (below)
partition for "junk" (e.g. temporary downloads and such).
...and I really don't know what to do with the rest of this drive.


80g drive (used but with swappable replacements available)

50g backup "rescue" partition (always containing an image to restore system)
24g partition for Live TV
6 g "swapfile" partition (maybe)
is this better here or the system drive (above)? this drive usually idle...

1TB new drive
single partition for GBPVR recordings

750g existing drive:

space for photos, music, downloaded video and other static files
space to experiment with NTFS links for recordings
would prefer a single partition to leave drive "as is"

16g flash drive:

possibly live TV buffer (future expansion). opinions?


My final questions:

I now see the sense in keeping Windows in a separate 20g partition, not only in terms of "maintenance," but also reducing fragmentation. However, it would require me to change dozens, maybe hundreds, of references to other software inside scripts, because the software would no longer "live on drive C". I am wondering if I should use NTFS links to overcome this; i.e. make the programs APPEAR to live on drive C?

My biggest problem is the system drive. This drive is much, much bigger than I wanted, because smaller drives simply aren't available. I am tempted instead to return to my original plan of a used (very used) 80g drive for the system, with spares available (really wanted to use a new one). pBS, is 80g my best option in terms of maintaining a full, bootable backup of the system image? Do I need to back up an entire drive to achieve this, rather than just a partition? If so, the 80g drive may be my only hope.

As above: Any opinions as to whether the swapfile is better on a partition with the system drive, or with the drive that would normally be used only for the Live TV buffer?

As above: Anyone see any problem going with a flash drive for the Live TV buffer?

As above: Is it better to partition the "second recordings" drive separately for "recordings" and other stuff?

[JonnyCam]

As above: Anyone see any problem going with a flash drive for the Live TV buffer?

probably too slow for simultaneous read / writes,
Write speed can vary from 1 MB/s to 25 MB/s
Add to that reading the file back off the drive at the same time, and you may have an issue.
Did you have a brand of flash drive in mind? What speed?

Or were you thinking of paying for a SSD hardrive? If thats the case, I think they connect through SATA anyways.

[keith_leitch]

probably too slow for simultaneous read / writes,
Or were you thinking of paying for a SSD hardrive? If thats the case, I think they connect through SATA anyways.

Nah, it was flash memory I had in mind. I was reasoning that video being streamed in real time wouldn't require quick response, and that it would take a bit of load off the hard drives.

SSD is very appealing, but a bit expensive, still. I wouldn't be wasting it on Live TV, though!

[keith_leitch]

From pBS: "500 would be fine, i was just saying a separate channel from big stuff is a bit better...but not much...
plus i'd say the 500 is much faster natively, denser data..not just the interface speed...
just make windows partition first...[faster seeking] big files go better at end..."

Yes, it will be Windows, then Applications, then swap partition, then anything else....unless the swap partition would be better on the 80gig's separate channel (same physical disk as the live TV buffer)?

You'll notice that I am giving a bit on keeping Windows in its own partition. Slow backup speeds have inspired me. However, I need to strategise a way to either change all my scripts with a search and replace, or redirect the location of the programs.