One Raptor or Two?

[Guest RichardL]

Are two Raptors better than one?I'm configuring a new system for FSX. I'm considering two Raptors; one, a 36GB, for MS Vista 64 and another, a 74GB, for FSX.Any recommendations? Are two Raptors better than one 150GB Raptor with a partiction for Vista 64 and a partiction for FSX?Many Thanks,Richard

[greggerm 312]

The Case for Speed:With two drives, when Windows wants to hit the page file or a system file, or ANYthing unrelated to the simulator, it will have it's own read/write head dedicated to the task. If you have the OS and Simulator on a single drive, you have to "share" the heads between the two, and a system file access or simulator file access might have to wait a brief instant for the other task to finish. You also gain the secondary benefit of having a second physical drive - FSX will be fully isolated from the rest of your machine... this may be good when it comes to "file housekeeping", like backups and defragging. The Catch!:We're really only talking about gains with loading scenarios/flights, and the initial loads of scenery. In-simulation performance will likely *NOT* be impacted. You'll see no improvements in FPS between the two drive scenarios, and it is doubtful that you would notice with your eyes any improvements in texture loading - even though they are often hard drive dependent. The Bottom Line:You certainly won't harm your system or slow it down if you go with a dual drive scenario.... but the improvements may not be fully worth the costs - which include less total drive space, a potentially more expensive pricetag, and adding another component to the computer which could break. If you're trying to eek out every. last. ounce. of performance for the simulator, you'd choose the double drives. You certainly would not be faulted if you chose the conventional installation. -Greg

[Guest wayupthere]

Hello Richard,IMO, you don't really need a Raptor for the OS itself. A regular 7200rpm will suffice for your daily Windows usage. (But if you want to splurge then go for it) It speeds up loading a little bit, but justify for yourself if its really worth it.If I were you, save yourself some cash, get a standard 7200rpm drive for the OS, and get a 150 Raptor for FS.For best performance, don't partition your FS drive. Let FS have the drive for itself, and do all of your other needs on the main OS-drive.Regards,

[Guest baksteen33]

And make sure you have a lot of free space... ;-) Agree with what was said, a 320GB WD Caviar SE (or Hitachi/Seagate equivalent) would be a nice start. Kind regards Jaap

[Guest RichardL]

Thanks for the great information. I knew I might be overlooking something.I do like the idea to put the OS on a 7200rpm drive and FS on the Raptor. I probably will not opt for a really large 7200 rpm drive.The computer is only used for FS. Currently I have a 40GB hard drive with two partitions. WinXP is on C: at 8GB with 1.6GB free space. D: is 32 GB with 6.4GB free and has FS9, FSX, ActiveSky, FSGenesis, VoxATC-X, a lot of WOAI aircraft and other programs. I'll probably go for something larger than 40GB this time.Thanks again for everyones help. Please post again if you read something odd in what I propose.Richard

[Guest wayupthere]

Hello Richard,Keep in mind though, that the drive holding your OS will need sufficient space for your Page-File (The recommended size is equivalent to about 1.5 times the amount of RAM on your system)._______________SidenoteThe following isn't necessary, but should you choose to change your Page-File settings manually:Preferably, have your Page-File set on any drive other than your OS or FS drive, this for best performance. (putting your Page-File on a partitioned drive will do no good performance wise, best practice put it on a separate drive that isn't accessed much, when system is in use)Regards,

[Guest baksteen33]

Hi Davissan, yes thanks (to answer your question from the other thread), significantly better again. @ Richard, best is to install everything in one large partition. Splitting a single disk into multiple partitions is counter productive. Windows defines a couple of important parameters based on the partition's FREE space. ;-) The second main reason being, avoiding unnecessary HD-head travel in between partitions. This cripples overall HD performance. Hope this adds to thoughts, kind regards Jaap

[Guest RichardL]

Thanks guys! Richard