HD replacement

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by vovan, Dec 14, 2007.

  1. vovan

    vovan Guest

    I have 64bit XP Pro with 2 HD - 80GB, 7200 RPM. RAM - 16GB.
    I'd like to replace my drives.
    If I replace the first one with 150GB, 10000 RPM, and the second one with
    1TB, 7200 RPM, will I get a better speed?
    I've heared from somebody that the system works with the speed of the
    slowest HD. Is it true?
    If so, I need to replace the second HD with 10000 RPM too, but all of them I
    saw have sizes not big enough for me.

    Thank you
    vovan
    vovan, Dec 14, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. vovan

    S.SubZero Guest

    The faster hard drive will perform faster. It may be better to have
    it on it's own channel.
    S.SubZero, Dec 14, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. I agree, if you use an IDE Flatcable you probably will not notice any
    significant difference. As you are almost certainly aiming for SATA, you
    should have a potential performance benefit. Potential, because thinking in
    terms of 'speed', may not be helpful - think of
    'point-to-point-traveling-time' instead.

    If you are having congestion on your current setup, a [faster] drive will
    perform better - if you don't have any congestion, you will not see any
    difference!


    Tony. . .


    "S.SubZero" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > The faster hard drive will perform faster. It may be better to have
    > it on it's own channel.
    Tont Sperling, Dec 14, 2007
    #3
  4. vovan

    Carlos Guest

    Tony (or "Tont"?),
    That would also depend on the mobo's hardware.
    Are his ports SATA I or SATA II?
    If they are SATA I then the benefits of going to 10,000 rpm HD's would
    hardly make a difference.
    Carlos

    "Tont Sperling" wrote:

    > I agree, if you use an IDE Flatcable you probably will not notice any
    > significant difference. As you are almost certainly aiming for SATA, you
    > should have a potential performance benefit. Potential, because thinking in
    > terms of 'speed', may not be helpful - think of
    > 'point-to-point-traveling-time' instead.
    >
    > If you are having congestion on your current setup, a [faster] drive will
    > perform better - if you don't have any congestion, you will not see any
    > difference!
    >
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    > "S.SubZero" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > The faster hard drive will perform faster. It may be better to have
    > > it on it's own channel.

    >
    >
    >
    Carlos, Dec 14, 2007
    #4
  5. vovan

    vovan Guest

    How about this part of my question:
    I've heared from somebody that the system works with the speed of the
    slowest HD. Is it true?

    vovan


    "vovan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I have 64bit XP Pro with 2 HD - 80GB, 7200 RPM. RAM - 16GB.
    > I'd like to replace my drives.
    > If I replace the first one with 150GB, 10000 RPM, and the second one with
    > 1TB, 7200 RPM, will I get a better speed?
    > I've heared from somebody that the system works with the speed of the
    > slowest HD. Is it true?
    > If so, I need to replace the second HD with 10000 RPM too, but all of them
    > I saw have sizes not big enough for me.
    >
    > Thank you
    > vovan
    >
    vovan, Dec 14, 2007
    #5
  6. vovan

    R. C. White Guest

    Hi, Vovan.

    There are two speed factors to consider. The first is the speed of the
    drive itself. You've already tackled that; your 10,000 RPM disk should
    serve up reads and perform writes much faster than the 7200 RPM. Of course,
    there are other specs to consider, but usually bigger and newer drives are
    faster, too.

    The other factor is getting the data to/from the drive - and that's where
    the cabling matters.

    For years, the standard PC configuration had 2 IDE (also known as ATA or
    PATA - for parallel) channels, each with two connectors (dubbed Master and
    Slave). If one channel had a fast drive and a slow drive on its connectors,
    the speed of that channel might be limited to the slowest device on it.
    This was most noticeable when a relatively slow optical (CD or DVD) drive
    was added to the same channel as a fast hard drive. I'm not sure if that
    restriction still applies.

    Nowadays, most motherboards have multiple SATA (S for Serial) connectors,
    and each connector serves only a single drive. So one SATA channel is not
    affected by the speed of other channels. The first SATA channels could
    handle 150 MB per second but nearly all SATA today is SATA II, which handles
    300 MB/s. Your drives are probably both SATA II. But, even if it is SATA
    I, it won't slow down your big, fast drive on the other SATA channel.

    (My system now has 4 SATA II drives, each on its own dedicated cable, plus 2
    DVD burners, each as master on one of the two IDE channels.)

    Don't know whether you have IDE/PATA drives or SATA drives? Look at the
    cables and connectors, especially the data cables. IDE uses the wide (well
    over 1") flat ribbon cables with 40 or 88 wires. SATA has a narrow (about
    1/2") data cable with only 7 wires. And most SATA drives also have a new
    power cable connector, different from the familiar 4-wire connector still
    used by most optical drives.

    RC
    --
    R. C. White, CPA
    San Marcos, TX

    Microsoft Windows MVP
    (Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64)

    "vovan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > How about this part of my question:
    > I've heared from somebody that the system works with the speed of the
    > slowest HD. Is it true?
    >
    > vovan
    >
    >
    > "vovan" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>I have 64bit XP Pro with 2 HD - 80GB, 7200 RPM. RAM - 16GB.
    >> I'd like to replace my drives.
    >> If I replace the first one with 150GB, 10000 RPM, and the second one with
    >> 1TB, 7200 RPM, will I get a better speed?
    >> I've heared from somebody that the system works with the speed of the
    >> slowest HD. Is it true?
    >> If so, I need to replace the second HD with 10000 RPM too, but all of
    >> them I saw have sizes not big enough for me.
    >>
    >> Thank you
    >> vovan
    R. C. White, Dec 14, 2007
    #6
  7. Hi,
    the talk about "slowest HD" means the interface / controller / (U)DMA mode.
    Both the drives you suggest will offer UDMA 4 /5 /6 so the the lowest will
    be set by your BIOS if both HDs are connected to one channel.
    You are not bad consulted if you can connect each of the drives to a
    seperate channel ( you then have two channels working)
    You should avoid connecting the drive with your os on together with a cd dvd
    drive (these often do only support UDMA 3 , so it will be "slowed"
    jk
    Juergen Kluth, Dec 14, 2007
    #7
  8. vovan

    vovan Guest

    Thanks a lot for such a detailed response.
    My system is refurbished DELL Percision 490. Looks like a new PC.
    Botyh existing HDs are Seagate Barracuda 7200.9, 80 GB. They are SATA, but I
    do not know SATA I or SATA II.
    In Device Manager I see 7 ATA Channels marked as ATA Channel 0, ATA Channel
    0, ATA Channel 1, ATA Channel 1, ATA Channel 2, ATA Channel 3, ATA Channel 4
    There are also Standard AHCI 1.0 Serial ATA Controller and Standard Dual
    Channel PCI IDE Controller.

    So, what can I expect from the replacement with for instance Western Digital
    Raptor SATA 10000, 150 GB ?
    And as I understood from your answer I can replace the second drive with
    some 7200 RPM but with bigger size without affecting the speed of the first
    drive. Right?

    Thanks again

    vovan


    "R. C. White" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi, Vovan.
    >
    > There are two speed factors to consider. The first is the speed of the
    > drive itself. You've already tackled that; your 10,000 RPM disk should
    > serve up reads and perform writes much faster than the 7200 RPM. Of
    > course, there are other specs to consider, but usually bigger and newer
    > drives are faster, too.
    >
    > The other factor is getting the data to/from the drive - and that's where
    > the cabling matters.
    >
    > For years, the standard PC configuration had 2 IDE (also known as ATA or
    > PATA - for parallel) channels, each with two connectors (dubbed Master and
    > Slave). If one channel had a fast drive and a slow drive on its
    > connectors, the speed of that channel might be limited to the slowest
    > device on it. This was most noticeable when a relatively slow optical (CD
    > or DVD) drive was added to the same channel as a fast hard drive. I'm not
    > sure if that restriction still applies.
    >
    > Nowadays, most motherboards have multiple SATA (S for Serial) connectors,
    > and each connector serves only a single drive. So one SATA channel is not
    > affected by the speed of other channels. The first SATA channels could
    > handle 150 MB per second but nearly all SATA today is SATA II, which
    > handles 300 MB/s. Your drives are probably both SATA II. But, even if it
    > is SATA I, it won't slow down your big, fast drive on the other SATA
    > channel.
    >
    > (My system now has 4 SATA II drives, each on its own dedicated cable, plus
    > 2 DVD burners, each as master on one of the two IDE channels.)
    >
    > Don't know whether you have IDE/PATA drives or SATA drives? Look at the
    > cables and connectors, especially the data cables. IDE uses the wide
    > (well over 1") flat ribbon cables with 40 or 88 wires. SATA has a narrow
    > (about 1/2") data cable with only 7 wires. And most SATA drives also have
    > a new power cable connector, different from the familiar 4-wire connector
    > still used by most optical drives.
    >
    > RC
    > --
    > R. C. White, CPA
    > San Marcos, TX
    >
    > Microsoft Windows MVP
    > (Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64)
    >
    > "vovan" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> How about this part of my question:
    >> I've heared from somebody that the system works with the speed of the
    >> slowest HD. Is it true?
    >>
    >> vovan
    >>
    >>
    >> "vovan" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>I have 64bit XP Pro with 2 HD - 80GB, 7200 RPM. RAM - 16GB.
    >>> I'd like to replace my drives.
    >>> If I replace the first one with 150GB, 10000 RPM, and the second one
    >>> with 1TB, 7200 RPM, will I get a better speed?
    >>> I've heared from somebody that the system works with the speed of the
    >>> slowest HD. Is it true?
    >>> If so, I need to replace the second HD with 10000 RPM too, but all of
    >>> them I saw have sizes not big enough for me.
    >>>
    >>> Thank you
    >>> vovan

    >
    vovan, Dec 14, 2007
    #8
  9. vovan

    Carlos Guest

    vovan,
    Best place to check for the HD's is the manufacturer's site.
    www.seagate.com
    www.westerndigital.com
    From what I read quickly (please do it by yourself) the Seagate unit is SATA
    II and the Western Digital is SATA I
    The Dell PC
    (http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/precn_490?c=us&cs=555&l=en&s=biz) supports SATA II and also RAID, for ultimate speed experience.

    Carlos

    "vovan" wrote:

    > Thanks a lot for such a detailed response.
    > My system is refurbished DELL Percision 490. Looks like a new PC.
    > Botyh existing HDs are Seagate Barracuda 7200.9, 80 GB. They are SATA, but I
    > do not know SATA I or SATA II.
    > In Device Manager I see 7 ATA Channels marked as ATA Channel 0, ATA Channel
    > 0, ATA Channel 1, ATA Channel 1, ATA Channel 2, ATA Channel 3, ATA Channel 4
    > There are also Standard AHCI 1.0 Serial ATA Controller and Standard Dual
    > Channel PCI IDE Controller.
    >
    > So, what can I expect from the replacement with for instance Western Digital
    > Raptor SATA 10000, 150 GB ?
    > And as I understood from your answer I can replace the second drive with
    > some 7200 RPM but with bigger size without affecting the speed of the first
    > drive. Right?
    >
    > Thanks again
    >
    > vovan
    >
    >
    > "R. C. White" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Hi, Vovan.
    > >
    > > There are two speed factors to consider. The first is the speed of the
    > > drive itself. You've already tackled that; your 10,000 RPM disk should
    > > serve up reads and perform writes much faster than the 7200 RPM. Of
    > > course, there are other specs to consider, but usually bigger and newer
    > > drives are faster, too.
    > >
    > > The other factor is getting the data to/from the drive - and that's where
    > > the cabling matters.
    > >
    > > For years, the standard PC configuration had 2 IDE (also known as ATA or
    > > PATA - for parallel) channels, each with two connectors (dubbed Master and
    > > Slave). If one channel had a fast drive and a slow drive on its
    > > connectors, the speed of that channel might be limited to the slowest
    > > device on it. This was most noticeable when a relatively slow optical (CD
    > > or DVD) drive was added to the same channel as a fast hard drive. I'm not
    > > sure if that restriction still applies.
    > >
    > > Nowadays, most motherboards have multiple SATA (S for Serial) connectors,
    > > and each connector serves only a single drive. So one SATA channel is not
    > > affected by the speed of other channels. The first SATA channels could
    > > handle 150 MB per second but nearly all SATA today is SATA II, which
    > > handles 300 MB/s. Your drives are probably both SATA II. But, even if it
    > > is SATA I, it won't slow down your big, fast drive on the other SATA
    > > channel.
    > >
    > > (My system now has 4 SATA II drives, each on its own dedicated cable, plus
    > > 2 DVD burners, each as master on one of the two IDE channels.)
    > >
    > > Don't know whether you have IDE/PATA drives or SATA drives? Look at the
    > > cables and connectors, especially the data cables. IDE uses the wide
    > > (well over 1") flat ribbon cables with 40 or 88 wires. SATA has a narrow
    > > (about 1/2") data cable with only 7 wires. And most SATA drives also have
    > > a new power cable connector, different from the familiar 4-wire connector
    > > still used by most optical drives.
    > >
    > > RC
    > > --
    > > R. C. White, CPA
    > > San Marcos, TX
    > >
    > > Microsoft Windows MVP
    > > (Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64)
    > >
    > > "vovan" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> How about this part of my question:
    > >> I've heared from somebody that the system works with the speed of the
    > >> slowest HD. Is it true?
    > >>
    > >> vovan
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> "vovan" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:...
    > >>>I have 64bit XP Pro with 2 HD - 80GB, 7200 RPM. RAM - 16GB.
    > >>> I'd like to replace my drives.
    > >>> If I replace the first one with 150GB, 10000 RPM, and the second one
    > >>> with 1TB, 7200 RPM, will I get a better speed?
    > >>> I've heared from somebody that the system works with the speed of the
    > >>> slowest HD. Is it true?
    > >>> If so, I need to replace the second HD with 10000 RPM too, but all of
    > >>> them I saw have sizes not big enough for me.
    > >>>
    > >>> Thank you
    > >>> vovan

    > >

    >
    >
    >
    Carlos, Dec 14, 2007
    #9
  10. vovan

    R. C. White Guest

    Hi, Vovan.

    I'm an accountant (and retired), not a techie of any kind. My comments are
    based just on my own experience and a lot of reading, especially here in
    these newsgroups. I've never had a Dell, so I'm not familiar with the 490's
    specs.

    My Device Manager shows 6 items under IDE ATA/ATAPI controllers. Also,
    under Storage controllers it lists the Microsoft iSCSI Initiator (whatever
    that is), an NVIDIA nForce RAID Controller and 3 nForce Serial ATA
    Controllers (the 3rd one supports my 2-drive RAID).

    It seems that ALL your hard disk drives are SATA, so each would be on a
    separate cable and none of them should slow down the others at all. Carlos
    thinks (both he and I urge you to read the specs for yourself) that the new
    WD is SATA I, so it would be only half the potential speed of your SATA II
    drives - but it would not slow down the SATA II drives because they are each
    on their own connectors.

    My understanding is that no hard drive today can read/write fast enough to
    "overflow" even a SATA I connection, so the extra advertised speed is, for
    now, "future-proofing" rather than a current advantage.

    I would just be sure that all SATA II drives are on SATA II channels; no
    need to risk a bottleneck if you don't have to. And that each optical drive
    is on a separate IDE/ATA channel if available; again, no need to create a
    bottleneck in transferring data from one to the other.

    RC
    --
    R. C. White, CPA
    San Marcos, TX

    Microsoft Windows MVP
    (Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64)

    "vovan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Thanks a lot for such a detailed response.
    > My system is refurbished DELL Percision 490. Looks like a new PC.
    > Botyh existing HDs are Seagate Barracuda 7200.9, 80 GB. They are SATA, but
    > I do not know SATA I or SATA II.
    > In Device Manager I see 7 ATA Channels marked as ATA Channel 0, ATA
    > Channel 0, ATA Channel 1, ATA Channel 1, ATA Channel 2, ATA Channel 3, ATA
    > Channel 4
    > There are also Standard AHCI 1.0 Serial ATA Controller and Standard Dual
    > Channel PCI IDE Controller.
    >
    > So, what can I expect from the replacement with for instance Western
    > Digital Raptor SATA 10000, 150 GB ?
    > And as I understood from your answer I can replace the second drive with
    > some 7200 RPM but with bigger size without affecting the speed of the
    > first drive. Right?
    >
    > Thanks again
    >
    > vovan
    >
    >
    > "R. C. White" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Hi, Vovan.
    >>
    >> There are two speed factors to consider. The first is the speed of the
    >> drive itself. You've already tackled that; your 10,000 RPM disk should
    >> serve up reads and perform writes much faster than the 7200 RPM. Of
    >> course, there are other specs to consider, but usually bigger and newer
    >> drives are faster, too.
    >>
    >> The other factor is getting the data to/from the drive - and that's where
    >> the cabling matters.
    >>
    >> For years, the standard PC configuration had 2 IDE (also known as ATA or
    >> PATA - for parallel) channels, each with two connectors (dubbed Master
    >> and Slave). If one channel had a fast drive and a slow drive on its
    >> connectors, the speed of that channel might be limited to the slowest
    >> device on it. This was most noticeable when a relatively slow optical (CD
    >> or DVD) drive was added to the same channel as a fast hard drive. I'm
    >> not sure if that restriction still applies.
    >>
    >> Nowadays, most motherboards have multiple SATA (S for Serial) connectors,
    >> and each connector serves only a single drive. So one SATA channel is
    >> not affected by the speed of other channels. The first SATA channels
    >> could handle 150 MB per second but nearly all SATA today is SATA II,
    >> which handles 300 MB/s. Your drives are probably both SATA II. But,
    >> even if it is SATA I, it won't slow down your big, fast drive on the
    >> other SATA channel.
    >>
    >> (My system now has 4 SATA II drives, each on its own dedicated cable,
    >> plus 2 DVD burners, each as master on one of the two IDE channels.)
    >>
    >> Don't know whether you have IDE/PATA drives or SATA drives? Look at the
    >> cables and connectors, especially the data cables. IDE uses the wide
    >> (well over 1") flat ribbon cables with 40 or 88 wires. SATA has a narrow
    >> (about 1/2") data cable with only 7 wires. And most SATA drives also
    >> have a new power cable connector, different from the familiar 4-wire
    >> connector still used by most optical drives.
    >>
    >> RC
    >>
    >> "vovan" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> How about this part of my question:
    >>> I've heared from somebody that the system works with the speed of the
    >>> slowest HD. Is it true?
    >>>
    >>> vovan
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "vovan" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>>I have 64bit XP Pro with 2 HD - 80GB, 7200 RPM. RAM - 16GB.
    >>>> I'd like to replace my drives.
    >>>> If I replace the first one with 150GB, 10000 RPM, and the second one
    >>>> with 1TB, 7200 RPM, will I get a better speed?
    >>>> I've heared from somebody that the system works with the speed of the
    >>>> slowest HD. Is it true?
    >>>> If so, I need to replace the second HD with 10000 RPM too, but all of
    >>>> them I saw have sizes not big enough for me.
    >>>>
    >>>> Thank you
    >>>> vovan
    R. C. White, Dec 14, 2007
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. KS

    Replacement For Access Point

    KS, Jun 24, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,919
  2. Edward W. Thompson

    Replacement PSU for an ADSL Router

    Edward W. Thompson, Sep 6, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    581
    Edward W. Thompson
    Sep 6, 2005
  3. William W. Plummer

    Calendar replacement

    William W. Plummer, Jul 2, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    375
  4. EJGroth
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    552
    EJGroth
    Feb 8, 2005
  5. Dan
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    461
Loading...

Share This Page