os on smallest drive?

F

funkysnair

VIP Member
just wondering if it is better to put your operating system on the smallest size hard disk?

40gig master (20gig free)
200gig slave (76gig free)

would this speed up the computers running?
 
It depends on the operating system and the reason for more then one drive. With a large drive many select the option to create a second storage partition leaving enough room on the primary for the OS and softwares installed.

The drive size can easily vary with the differences seen between Windows and LInux. Most Linux distros run on small drives and relatively small partitions depending how large the distro is. Windows(XP in mind there) on the other hand prefers a larger drive space to operate on while swap space usually depends on how much memory is installed.

Most will use a smaller of two drives as the host for the OS with the second for storage purposes if not simply for backing up the primary. Here dual OSing two drives is nothing new. The small primary on the second drive host the second OS with a large storage partition using up the remaining space as a primary means of backing up the host drive.
 
funkysnair said:
just wondering if it is better to put your operating system on the smallest size hard disk?

40gig master (20gig free)
200gig slave (76gig free)

would this speed up the computers running?
Click to expand...

If the drives are the same speed the smaller one might be a little faster, less search time!!
 
yeh they are both same speed...

ive been using smallest as master just a friend says it doesnt really matter, i thought if i kept the master free of all music and film files there would be less clutter on master disk making it faster search time for my os and programs
 
I would put it on the smallest drive and instal games & other applications to the biggest drive.

But thats just me :D
 
AMD said:
I would put it on the smallest drive and instal games & other applications to the biggest drive.

But thats just me :D
Click to expand...

For the most part you would install games and apps on the drive with the OS. The files that take up drive space like videos, mp3s, game saves, etc. would go onto a second storage drive for backup and to free up drive space on the primary. The host drive then sees less fragmentation and faster loading.
 
In a sense, yes.

See, putting your files on the smaller drive would yield less search time, defragment time, virus scan time, et cetera (I now go to Latin class!)...

Even though the actual puniness of the drive wont add performance, practicality will.
 
On the second drive here the Second OS sits on a smaller 55gb primary partition while the bulk of the files are on the much larger second partition. The host drive runs far smoother with less data taking up drive space allowing Windows to manage the swap files easier.

The host drive has the edge over the second with far more free space available. Both are able to run as stand alone masters. Even with the second partition being used for storage the load and access time is increased to some degree. Your problem there is that the 40gb drive has slightly over 50% of space already used. The 200gb has less then 33% and would serve better as the host drive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top