Partitions...

Egon · 21 Oct 2008 at 15:07

I change this around all the time. Current build is simple:

Internals:
2x WD3200AAKS (320GB)

First drive for Operating System and Apps.
Second Drive for Games.

Extras:
1x 80GB external drive for backup of important files.
1x 160GB network drive for Music and Video

Fibre_Optic · 21 Oct 2008 at 15:11

MeatLoaf · 21 Oct 2008 at 16:39

I have :

C : Vista 64
D : Vista 32 - soon to be blitzzed
E : My Stuff
F : Misc Stuff - downloads etc

And a 320Gb External for backup.

PhillyDee · 21 Oct 2008 at 17:39

Heh.

C: 300Gb Velociraptor

Then server . .
3x500gb drives, and im just in the process of adding 2x1tb drives to the pool. Duplication is turned on for nearly everything. Im storing my entire DVD collection on it. Will take 2-3 months. . .

Pulse · 22 Oct 2008 at 00:31

bledd. said:
you know if one drive fails, you loose everything yes?

Pulse said:
Would it be subject to data lost just because it's bigger or do you mean, the fact that if I had 2TB in raid0 then one of them failed I'd loose a lot of data?

So yeah, I do understand the implications of it. So you're saying I'd be better off with a single 1TB drive?

PhillyDee · 22 Oct 2008 at 00:48

Raid 0 will fragment a file across 2 disks to increase acces and write times. One drive fails and you lose half the file. It destroys the array and you lose 2x1tb drives worth of data. Raid1 protects this by writing the same data to both drives, so if there is a failure, you still have a copy of it. Doesnt protect against 2 failures still. Keep them as 2 single volumes and you lose whatever is one the disk.