1 drive or 2?

[Dvorak]

I've been reading the forums here for several months and am slowing compiling a list of parts that I will be using in an upcoming build. One question that I do have (and everyone seems to have differing opinions about) is whether to buy a single hard disk with a OS partition and a data partition, or to buy two disks and install the OS separate from the data.

Some people say that a single disk, with the OS installed on a partition on the outer edge of the disk, will improve boot speeds and is the best way to go (makes sense since outer portion rotates faster and you're confining the OS to a smaller portion of disk to minimize seeking across disk). Then you use the inner portions of the disk for data (less frequently accessed so it doesn't need to extra speed). The downfall I see with this setup is that if you do frequently access data on the inner portions of the disk, the drive will spend a lot of time jumping between the two partitions, which would slow down the computer and put a lot of wear-and-tear on the disk.

The two disk method (one small, fast drive for OS and a larger disk for data) would eliminate both of these downfalls, but would up the cost of the build. If I had the money this seems like the better choice.

Is my logic correct, or am I up in the night? I'll be using my computer for the normal stuff (surfing, gaming, word processing, etc.), but I'll also be using it for some image manipulation (school related) which requires a lot of reading and writing to the "data" disk (whether it is a partition or a separate disk entirely).

Anybody have any experience here, opinions (hopefully backed with some supporting facts)?

Thanks.

[The Wise Monkey]

I have used the two disk scenario for a few years now, and you will only really notice a significant performance difference if you decide to go for a 10,000RPM HD for your OS - a WD Raptor, for example.

To be honest, it really doesn't make much difference any more. Computer hardware is much more reliable than it used to be, so HDs last a lot longer. You don't really need to make partitions either, but it makes things easier to defragment and manage.

If you do decide to go for two disks, you needn't spend a huge amount. A 74GB Raptor should suffice for all your program needs, even with Vista.

[Dvorak]

Thanks for the response.

How much of a performance boost are we taking about by using a 10k or 15k RPM HD for the OS? Unless it is significant, I'm not sure it's worth the cost of Raptor. I might as well spend the extra money and get a single 1TB HD and not have to worry about storage for years to come.

[The Wise Monkey]

Here are some graphs:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cheap-raid-ravages-wd-raptor,1562-7.html

So about a 25% increase in read speeds, but write speeds remain around the same. Since you are not going to be writing main OS files all the time, then read speeds are much more important.

Actually, that whole article compares a WD raptor to two 7200rpm drives in RAID 0 setup, which might be the way you want to go, although this does give a lot less data security. To be honest, I prefer having separate drives for the OS and storage but you can go either way, considering the standard 7200rpm drives are so cheap now.

[Dvorak]

I'd actually seen that article on tomshardware, but had forgotten about it. Thanks for reminding me, and for the quick response.