Dual hard drives?

  simon_lambert 10:34 28 Feb 2007

I have noticed some companies offer two smaller hard drives as standard, instead of one larger one more commonly available. What are the advantages and drawbacks of having two HDD's in one PC? Thanks :)

  Kate B 11:14 28 Feb 2007

Lots of reasons. I've got three hard drives. I run two identical fast (10,000rpm) drives in Raid 0, which means they act as one big hard drive. It makes for faster data retrieval - this machine is built for gaming performance. I also have an external hard drive on which I do backups and store copies of my data.

If you set up two drives in Raid 1 what you're doing is creating a mirror image of the first HDD on the second, so that if one fails, the other one can step in seamlessly. That I think is a luxury, but people do use that set-up.

Or you don't have to set them up in Raid, you could use one smallish hard drive just for the operating system and store all your data on the other one so that if the OS goes *phut* you won't lose all your data.

  Pine Man 12:02 28 Feb 2007

I also have three hard drives in my PC. The main one is for the o/s etc and the second one is for True Image back-ups.

The third one is there because - well I had it left over from an old PC and it's more use in the PC than in a drawer! It is actually full of photos.

Drawbacks; none unless you are running a small PSU!

  terryf 20:10 28 Feb 2007

You only put the os and your programs on C:, then put EVERYTHING else on D: or E:, if you use something like Acronis TI to make a backup on to D or E, you can restore in about 15 mins instead of having to reload windows if you have a system crash, You can even put your OE store folder on another drive and never lose your emails if you have to reload windows.

  CodenameCueball 19:16 07 Mar 2007

two hdd's are much better because you can save files to the spare one so if your computer crashes and you have to wipe your main hdd, everythying exists

  Diemmess 19:56 07 Mar 2007

C: D: and E: running at the same time treble the chances of one failing!

So that is where an external HD crowns the situation!
A luxury perhaps, but switched on only when needed, it can hold stuff that would break your heart to lose as well as very handy container if you need to cart several Gbytes about.

  terryf 21:45 07 Mar 2007

Diemmess, I don't understand your logic, are you suggesting that 3 disks with different capacities, maybe 3 different speeds are more likely to fail than any one of them? Having said that, I have 2 internal, 2 external. Use Acronis to back up C (containing only progs and OS) to D:, back up important data and Acronis backups regularly to 1 of the externals and back up D less regularly to the other external. After 44 years in computing, I am just a 'leetle' paranoid about backups (remember the Zip drives which didn't zip and the tape backups that took ages to run through the tape looking for data).

  Diemmess 08:58 08 Mar 2007

Tongue-in-cheek really!

I couldn't resist pointing out that in any array of HDs the risk of ONE failing - increases with every extra disk that is running.

I have two internal and one external HD for all the good reasons others have offered.
My external disk is only ON when needed for transfer of vital files

The risk of any single H-Drive failing may be increased, but emergency cover is already there.

Yes I do remember all sorts of difficulties making backups.
I had a Jaz drive once but @ 1Gb it was too small almost from the begining, and in those days I started using a second HD, still short of disk space and various complicated ideas to separate OS from applications which turned out more confusing than effective.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

AMD Ryzen news - release date, UK price, features and specifications

The pulp art of 80s computer game magazine covers

Best value Mac: Which is the best £1249 Mac to buy

Comment faire des captures d’écran sous Windows 10 ?