For my Solo DAW build I've ordered a AAKS model 500GB WD Caviar Blue and just picked up a 2.5" 500GB WD Scorpio Blue. Based on research over at Gearslutz (recording forum) it's recommended to put the OS on one disk and applications on the other.
So, any suggestions on which drive should be the OS drive? Should I partion either of these in any particular manner? I have a NAS for backup, so I don't need to use either of these drives for that purpose.
Also, with the current Newegg sale, I can always buy another for raid puposes if that makes a difference.
HDD Choice and Format
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
The 2.5" will typically be slightly slower but also quieter, especially if you are imaginative with its installation. If low noise is your priority, use the 2.5 as the OS drive and set the drives to shut down after 10-15 minutes of inactivity. For performance, use the 3.5" for OS.
Personally I prefer to use a 2.5" drive for OS and applications, and a switchable 2.5" external drive for files/backups. That is me prioritising noise over performance however. I did recording on this machine at a time and aside from slightly higher multitrack load times it went fine even using the one drive for everything. Nor do I partition the drives in any particular way.
Cheers.
Personally I prefer to use a 2.5" drive for OS and applications, and a switchable 2.5" external drive for files/backups. That is me prioritising noise over performance however. I did recording on this machine at a time and aside from slightly higher multitrack load times it went fine even using the one drive for everything. Nor do I partition the drives in any particular way.
Cheers.
My suggestion is to forget general recommendations and to beware of snake oil. The research that could be useful is to determine what the bottlenecks are in YOUR usage. If you don't want to do that research, then my suggestion is to heed to KISS principle and keep your OS and applications on a single drive (presumably your 2.5'' drive).
For your OS an applications files, having enough RAM is critical. There's no mechanical drive (or combination of drives) that's fast enough so you really want the stuff you're using to be loaded in RAM. Not having to access OS and applications files all over your drive(s) lets your drive(s) work on your data files (which I assume are too large to hold in RAM) without interruption.
I would generally avoid partitioning (KISS) but, if you know what's critical for your usage, there are some things you could do such as setting up (a) relatively small dedicated partition(s) for the data you're working on located on the fastest part of your drive(s). Dedicated partitions also help avoid fragmentation of the files you're working on. Is it worth the trouble though? Only you can tell...
Yes, RAID can make a difference. But nobody can tell you if it would be useful for you until you determine exactly the nature of the performance issues you're having.
For your OS an applications files, having enough RAM is critical. There's no mechanical drive (or combination of drives) that's fast enough so you really want the stuff you're using to be loaded in RAM. Not having to access OS and applications files all over your drive(s) lets your drive(s) work on your data files (which I assume are too large to hold in RAM) without interruption.
I would generally avoid partitioning (KISS) but, if you know what's critical for your usage, there are some things you could do such as setting up (a) relatively small dedicated partition(s) for the data you're working on located on the fastest part of your drive(s). Dedicated partitions also help avoid fragmentation of the files you're working on. Is it worth the trouble though? Only you can tell...
Yes, RAID can make a difference. But nobody can tell you if it would be useful for you until you determine exactly the nature of the performance issues you're having.