With the iminent release of of SP1, and a possible re-install of FSX coming my way, I am leaning towards getting a 150 gig WD Raptor for my FS install.FS stuff is all I'd put on the drive...I think.Or should I get the 74 gig? With the 74 gig, would I run out of space for add-ons like terrain mesh? What is wisest course or action?RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

Take a look at your current install and go from there. I'm running FSX with FSGenesis North American mesh, plus assorted other addons, and my FSX directory weighs in at 25GB-ish, and I've got 45GB-ish free on the drive (76GB Raptor). Personally, I think it's an ideal size for MSFS, but if you know you will be using a TON of addons, the larger drive might be better suited. Not because of the size factor, but because a larger drive will have more capacity at the drive platter's outer edges, thus improving seek times with a properly arranged (outer-edge optimized defrag) drive. A 76GB drive full to the brim will work a little slower than 76GB on a 150GB drive. -Greg

The thing is, in the future, I may decide to put the OS and FSX on the Raptor--if that is something you all recommend.If it's not, then I will just keep it FS-only.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

Get 2, 7200 RPM, 80 gig SATA drives and a single 160 SATA. RAID 0 the 80s and use the 160 as a clone'd, positive backup. With the Raptor, you'll get about 70 MB/sec xfer rates. With 7200 RPM drives in Raid 0, you'll get 90 to 100+ MB/sec.This setup will get you: 1) Significantly better performance, 2) Double the storage capacity,3) Fully redundant backup and . . . 4) Cost less!I'm using 2 old (P)ATA100 160s in a raid 0 with a PCI addon card right now. The old (P)ATA100 buss can handle a max of 100MB/sec. So I'm right up against that buss limit. As an experiment, I installed a couple of 7200 RPM, SATA drives onto my MoBo's, onboard SATA I Raid controller. That got me a bit more . . . up to 110-120 MB/sec xfer rates. I think this had more to do with using modern, up-to-date 7200 RPM Seagates, rather than my 3 year old 7200 RPM Western Digitals. The SATA buss made only one contribution. It allowed these more modern 7200 RPM drives to run at their full capacity. Think about it this way. The buss is the racetrack. The drives are the cars that run on this racetrack. SATA II is a complete waste of capacity. This "track" will allow transfer rates (speeds) of up to 375 MB/sec. That's great, except it would take 4 Raptors -- in Raid 0 -- to get any where close to that capacity. For normal systems, SATA II is just marketing jabber to impress the uninitiated. I'm just now finally using (3 year old) PATA100 capability to it's full potential. Any single drive (modern race car) even today -- including the Raptor -- would not be limited by the old PATA100's 100MB/sec "track." And so it goes, but . . . Once you've been on a Raid, you'll never go back. Check out the Raid 5 capability the new MoBos are offering. Now that's the way to go. 3 drives in a a Raid 0, except if one drive fails, the array keeps working. You zoom down to Best Buy, grab a replacement, swap out the bad drive and the system rebuilds your array. Raid 0 with a hardware fail-safe. It's magic.

I have 4 7200 rpm WD SE16 caviars - 1 for the OS, 1 for photo scenery and a RAID 0 for FSX - excuse the pun but it flys! - so I would go along with the above, Raptors are expensive and not necessarily the only way to go. I will probably go to RAID 5 when I reinstal FSX for SP1.

Re: 7200 RPM RAID-0This setup will get you:1) Significantly better performanceFrom experience, I disagree. Strongly. :) I had a RAID-0 stripe setup (7200RPM SATA2 WD 160GB Caviars x2) on my PC, and I moved to the Raptor for the simple and compelling reason of seek times - the speed in which the drive can actually get to the file. RAID-0 will provide you a much faster transfer rate, no doubt. But in the realm of MSFS, you aren't concerned with transfer rates - you are far more bound to seek times.If MSFS was based upon several very large files that needed to be loaded into memory at once, RAID-0 would be king, just as it is in multimedia editing and large file work. In reality, FS9/FSX contains tens of thousands of little files (my FSX install is at 43,000) - BGLs, Textures, etc. The hard drive system has to seek each of these little files before it can load them in. Most of the little files are so small, the improved transfer rate of RAID never gets used - ANY drive could load them in one pass of the read/write heads. Physically getting to them is the real challenge. A 10,000 RPM hard drive's claim to fame is the ability to seek files fast. Enter the Raptor. 7200 RPM RAID-0 seek times are significantly slower than those of a Raptor, and in fact they are often slower than a stand alone 7200 RPM drive - this is because the array often has to sync the data from two drives, as data is not always stored in equal positions between the two units. RAID-0 could be considered the Mack Truck of drives - once you get her going, she'll move lots of data really efficiently, but it's not all that maneuverable. Raptors are the annoying little Hondas and Jettas darting in and out of traffic without using their turn signals. They are GREAT at moving little bits of data very quickly, and this is key for the MSFS series. That kind of arrogant platter maneuvering is what you want in a small file retrieval situation, which is precicely what MSFS is. (Sidenote: The small file issue is also one of the major reasons why structured defragmentation of your MSFS drive can lead to noticeable load time improvements - by ordering files, you can further reduce the travel of the physical drive heads, and in turn improve seeks) I observed a significant improvement in MSFS flight loading times after my switch to a Raptor from my RAID-0. In-game frame rates are identical between the two, as texture and scenery loading is handled in the background once flying. RAID-0 has it's place without question, but for Flight Sim and it's plethora of wee-small little files, something nimble and quick is the optimal choice. Once you've flown with a Raptor, you will *not* go back. :) I wouldn't give my MSFS-dedicated Raptor up in order to return to RAID-0 without a fight - unless, of course, it was a RAID-0 made up of Raptors! -----------------------------------Rhett, as for your thoughts about combining FSX and the OS - I would avoid it if you have the budget to do so. By putting FSX on a separate drive, you can guarantee through defrag tools that FSX is on the outer edge of the drive, ensuring high seek and transfer times. Combining may force some OS files to the edge, preventing you from getting peak performance. (perhaps not noticeable, but worth noting anyway)Additionally, the OS will call itself while the sim is loading and running. By separating the two on different PHYSICAL drives, you now have two physical drive heads looking for data - one for the OS, one for the sim - they won't be shared, each is dedicated, and things get more efficient. Yet another reason is the pagefile - XP and Vista still want to have a pagefile available, and you can designate the NON-FSX drive to have this running. If FSX or the OS need to access the pagefile, it won't do so at the expense of and simulator-required drive reads. One last reason is a clean install - it's just nice to have MSFS running in it's own space rather than combined with everything else. If you can do it, there are benefits to keeping things on different physical drives. -Greg

And Greg knows his stuff....trust me:)Rhett I am running FS9 on a 36GB Raptor (getting a little full) and it has been faster with loading/etc compared to when I ran it on my WD Caviar 250GB 7200rpmI'd go with the 150GB just because...they're not too bad these days...http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16822136011OEM and HEY theres a rebate woot for $210 and then $180 after rebate SWEET!edit lol I spelled rebate as reboot hahah

Well said. These are very good points. I've been hanging on for Intel's Turbo Cache that will be introduced on the Santa Rosa laptop platform, It will be up to a gig of onboard flash. That stuff will be virtually zero access time. INTC is claiming 50% faster boots and program load times. It will be interesting to see how FS responds to this new hardware. It won't be long until this hardware is also offered on desktop MoBos. It will likely be available with the new P35, BearLake chipset. Just for fun, here's a link showing just what a raptor raid 0 can do. They raid 0'd 4 raptors. This is the transfer test, but look over the whole article. They also spotlighted a raid 5 in action. http://tomshardware.co.uk/2007/01/03/the_s...ransferdiagramsWoah! The SATA II buss has a capacity of 3Gb/sec (that's 375MB/sec). Notice how the Intel chips sit right up at 300MB/sec. So the story goes, that extra 75MB/sec is needed for "overhead." For a consumer system, this is the absolute maximum available today. This is as good as it gets. However another more quietly spoken disclosure here is that the Nvidia 6XX chipset's SATA II capacity is limited to about 110MB/sec. In other words, it's broke. Do NOT go with an Nvidia chipset MoBo if you are setting up any kind of raid.Here's s'more hardware charts. This chart clearly show what Greg was saying. The 10,000 RPM raptor runs a 8ms seek time, while the 7200 RPM drives run a 12ms seek time. That's just what we'd expect. The RPM delta is the same as the seek time delta. Here, the raptor has about a 25% advantage. http://tomshardware.co.uk/storage/charts.h...l2=121&chart=32Next is the read xfer charts. The raptor is at about 75 MB/sec. My 7200 SATA raid ran at about 100MB/sec. Here, the raptor is at about a 25% disadvantage. http://tomshardware.co.uk/storage/charts.h...l2=117&chart=34 The discussion might continue that exactly "X" number of files have to be found. Here, the raptor has a clear 25% advantage. However once these files are found, exactly "Y" amount of data still has to be moved. Here the raid has a 25% advantage. On paper at least, raptor vs 7200 RPM raid performance in a small file environment appears to be a wash. That might bring the decision (at least closer) to strictly a cost analysis. (However don't forget that additional drive the raid will need for backup. It's positive backup. That's a bonus. But it is also necessary because you are still running a raid.) Gotta love those raptors . . . even though it's also interesting to note that the best preforming 7200 RPM drives have almost caught up with the raptors in xfer rates! It seems that the raptor's disk system is aging a bit . . . getting to be older technology that just spins real fast. I understand Seagate is gunning for the 10,000 RPM market in the consumer space. Maybe we can finally get some competition, modern disk systems and some more reasonable prices. Still, if you can afford it, those raptors really are the way to go.

That is really interesting Greg, that is what I like about this site, every time I think I understand something someone puts the opposite argument.I guess if I had gone for the same configuration of drives using raptors it would have cost a bundle, but it is interesting to see the reasoning for choosing a raptor and that the RAID 0 may not have been necessary. Part of the reason I used RAID 0 was that I fancied giving it a go. Certainly not complaining about the performance I get in FSX with my drive set-up, but it is interesting to know that I do not have an optimum configuration so may now want to consider a different set-up when reinstalling FSX for SP1.So thanks for that very clear explanation.

Greg,Seems that you know your stuff very well. So, the bottom line is, get 2 10K rpm Raptors but DO NOT set them at RAID0 for best MSFS performance? Thanks.

If on a budget, I would get (or keep) a 1x 7200 RPM drive (large size) for Operating System and assorted other programs, and 1x 10000 RPM drive (sized appropriately, 76 vs. 150 GB) for exclusive MSFS use. If money is less of an object, you can get 2x Raptors and follow the above model (one for OS, one for FS) - this would bring the benefits of a quick Raptor drive to bear on your everyday work. :) If money is ZERO object, I'd get three Raptors, RAID-0 the OS and apps drive, and leave FSX on a single Raptor. :) Important note on performance: No amount of hard drive tweaking will amount to any frame rate improvements - it will only assist with load times. It *might* improve overall system performance, but probably on the order of fractions of frames per second and not measurable. ---------------------------------X15 - I was just like you too - I originally went with a RAID setup in large part because I wanted to experiment with it! I ended up disappointed with load time performance, so I researched it and discovered the problem with the RAID-0 + MSFS combo. ---------------------------------My personal HD architecture is... C: (7.2k 300GB) - OS and Apps, etc. D: (10k Raptor 72GB) - FSXI: (7.2k 160GB) - Pagefile, Archives, and "Internal Backup" - Pagefile is independant of both the C: and D: drive, so any read/writes to the page file will not interfere with either "operating" drive. Archives are my downloaded programs, such as all my MSFS addons. Internal backup is a duplicate of all important data from the C: drive, like digital photos, Quicken data, email records, etc. When restoring hard drive images, I use this internal backup to restore the personal data quickly. Updated daily at login.U: (7200 RPM 250 GB External USB2) - External USB Drive Backup - External backup is a second copy of all important data found on the internal backup, including my archives. If the internal backup drive fails when rebuilding, I have this copy to fall on. Also, in the event of a home emergency, I can grab the drive and evacuate. Updated daily at login. X: (7200 RPM 150 GB External USB2) - OFFSITE - Yet another copy of my irreplacable data, located in my desk drawer at work. Refreshed periodiocally. I had an apartment fire rip through my building last year - luckily I didn't lose my computer equipment and data, but it certainly made me think long and hard about getting information out of the house and having it in two locations. My nearly 10 year old collection of digital photos that I've taken is near and dear - If I can't save my computer gear in a disaster, at least I have an offsite copy no more than a month or two old to salvage. My drive architecture is a little extreme, but I had the drives hanging around to get a little more complex. I was toying with the idea of bringing my RAID-0 back into the mix for non-FSX use, but I decided against it. No real reason, just satisfied with what I am doing now!

>Greg,>>Seems that you know your stuff very well. So, the bottom line>is, get 2 10K rpm Raptors but DO NOT set them at RAID0 for>best MSFS performance? Thanks.>>>>RAID5 with Raptors I think...But that's expensive.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

>And Greg knows his stuff....trust me>>:)>>Rhett I am running FS9 on a 36GB Raptor (getting a little>full) and it has been faster with loading/etc compared to when>I ran it on my WD Caviar 250GB 7200rpm>>I'd go with the 150GB just because...they're not too bad these>days...>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16822136011>>OEM and HEY theres a rebate woot for $210 and then $180 after>rebate SWEET!>>edit lol I spelled rebate as reboot hahahYou're linking to the Raptor X (the one with the cute-sy window). I was looking at the retail (box) one but ya know I have not had any problems with OEM, either cpu or hd. You ever had any probs with OEM vs. boxed in anything?RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

Good pts re: the OS too.As I understand it, Raptors are all PATA. There are no SATA versions. Is that right?Are there any known issues running a SATA2 drive with a PATA on the nForce4 chipset?RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

Hopefully this integration of flash memory drives into traditional hard drives will really cause a big speedup.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case