Originally Posted by kevinf
I didn't say that at all.
Drive1 Partition1 = Data 1
Drive1 Partition2 = Backup Data 2
Drive2 Partition1 = Data 2
Drive2 Partition2 = Backup Data 1
You have a lower risk, and you can do scheduled backups weekly.
You WILL have faster performance... for day to day, you disk heads will not need to travel past the first 500GB. You can also listen to music off Drive2, while playing a game on Drive1, without suffering from Random Read penalty.
Short stroking DOES improve performance, HDDs are not filled linearly, specially if you have large files, say 20GB VM, that is not fragmented, perhaps gets further towards the end of the HDD. Files are copied, moved, deleted.
Partitioning your drive so windows is the first 40GB is proven to speed up access time, as all of windows files are forced to be located near each other... similar to the defragmenter 'compact files' feature... but this way is automatic.
Congratulations, you've effectively made a RAID 1 with better seek times and worse read times. You have slightly more protection, in theory, but not really in practice. You also just gave up downtime protection, and can still
lose up to a week of data at a time in the event a mechanical failure does
occur. Oh right, and now you need to dedicate a time where your computer is going to slow down to turtle speeds once a week because both drives and being used for the scheduled backup.
And seriously, make your mind up, are you short stroking or partitioning? Don't validate your claims regarding shortstroking by presenting arguments in favor of partitioning. They are not
the same thing, and I've already said that partitioning was the smarter route.
As for data not being written linearly to a drive, that's only partially true - and any non-linearity will still exist after partitioning or short stroking. You can help confine the mess that windows and certain apps might create, but you can't prevent it. For the most part however, if you keep your data defragmented and consolidated
, most new writes will occur fairly close if not directly after the current existing data, and any errant files or freespace fragmentation due to erases can be solved, once again, by consolidation.
In short, whether you use a partitioned, shortstroked, or normal drive, you should be consolidating your free space for best performance (unless you have a SSD), and once you do so, most of your previous arguments become invalid.
Regarding your dual HD backup dance - It might work better for a few users, but it's not going to replace RAID1. If anything, it could be used to supplement
it if your data is super important to you AND you need better performance than RAID 1 alone, AND have twice as many drives, but at that point you might as well just use RAID 10.
Originally Posted by Brutuz
Except with two partitions (One short-stroked, one using the rest of the drive) then you're ensuring that some data has the faster speed on the HDD...This can be useful if you, for example, made a 1TB partition for games, etc then 3TBs for your documents, downloads, etc, the documents and stuff don't need to be accessed ultra fast while having the games always in the first 1/4th of the drive
It's verging on it, you may as well buy an extra drive and get double the storage in RAID5 or get 4 smaller (And cheaper ones, as of writing I can get a 3TB for half the price of a 4TB...May as well get 4x3TB for $100 extra over the 2x4TB (Aussie prices, at least) and gain an extra 2TB storage and more redundancy for RAID6 if you buy a RAID card (Which isn't that big of an expense...You can put it in motherboard after motherboard and it'll last) or RAID10 (Same redundancy as RAID1, but with a speed increase and more space too) if you don't want to. $100 extra for 2TB more space, more redundancy or faster speeds doesn't sound too shabby to me...Then again, I do have plenty of room in my case to throw another HDD or 4.
I already said RAID 10 is viable if you can afford the cost and physical space hit of an extra two drives. Raid 5 isn't really viable with onboard RAID simply because of it's HUGE performance hits, and
risk of RAID failure on the controller level. If you have a proper RAID controller, that's another story.
And yes, I'm familiar with the concept of partitioning to ensure important data stays in the faster area of the drive. That's all well and good, but it won't
make the data any safer
, and it is not the same thing as shortstroking as it still allows you to actually utilize the full capacity of your drive. That was my whole point.