Can a three drive setup (non-raid) increase performance?

[Danny101]

I have a new build in the works. A 500 GB SSD, 500 GB Western Digital Velocirapter 10000 RPM, and a 250GB Western Digital Velocirapter 10000 RPM. The idea is and without complicating it with raid is to use the SSD for OS, 250 GB WD Velocirapter for programs and data, and the 500 WD Velocirapter for virtual memory and backups. I'm trying to setup a type of parallel processing in hopes of boosting performance.

 

[DelJo63]

*1 to use the SSD for OS,
*2 250 GB WD Velocirapter for programs and data,
*3 and the 500 WD Velocirapter for virtual memory and backups.

on (3): if by virtual memory you mean the pagefile, this is ineffective, as the PF always appears on the Boot Disk (1). You can extend that file across DLAs, but IMO, one contiguous file would do as welll

on (2): the system as installed will also plant Program Files, Program Files (x86) and Program Data on the C:\. It's a nightmare to edit the registry to alter this. User installed programs can be directed to a NON-C drive most of the time.

c:\Users can be reloated with some effort to a non-c drive for backup control; aka C:\ is the OS and D:\User holds all users.

 

[Danny101]

*1 to use the SSD for OS,
*2 250 GB WD Velocirapter for programs and data,
*3 and the 500 WD Velocirapter for virtual memory and backups.

on (3): if by virtual memory you mean the pagefile, this is ineffective, as the PF always appears on the Boot Disk (1). You can extend that file across DLAs, but IMO, one contiguous file would do as welll

on (2): the system as installed will also plant Program Files, Program Files (x86) and Program Data on the C:\. It's a nightmare to edit the registry to alter this. User installed programs can be directed to a NON-C drive most of the time.

c:\Users can be reloated with some effort to a non-c drive for backup control; aka C:\ is the OS and D:\User holds all users.

Appreciate your thoughts. I have been able to shut off the page file on all Windows systems so it doesn't have to run. My concern is with it on the ssd and shortening it's life. Another option I think is to add as much memory as possible and disable the pagefile altogether. I can add up to 64 GB of memory. My last build was in 2009, so a lot has changed since then.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Another option I think is to add as much memory as possible and disable the pagefile altogether. I can add up to 64 GB of memory.

This is a topic I agree with. There are those that will disagree. I ran with pagefile disabled for a long time. I currently have it set at 512MB in a range of 512 to 2048. Setting a range allows Windows to increase the size should you ever need more virtual memory. As you suspect; if you have enough memory to run your applications (and those applications are not dependent on virtual memory), there is no need in virtual memory.

I'm not going to advise running with or without virtual memory. That is your decision to make. I will advise it is possible either way, which is something many will not do. It is my opinion that those suggesting not to attempt running without virtual memory is operating with Microsoft Blinders.

 

[MaikuTech]

It is my opinion that those suggesting not to attempt running without virtual memory is operating with Microsoft Blinders.

I agree with that I learned that the hard way with xp professional back in the day no virtual memory to utilize for the os.
Means you will run out of system memory when the ram is stocked full of tasks from other programs doing jobs.
@danny I am curious why did you settle on 250gb's for the data and programs for the os ?
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=9SIABS64SS5366
Reason why I ask alot of programs these days take up a whole lot more space compared to 7 years ago.
Personally I would settle with 500gb, one drive dedicated to the os programs, the other solely for file/program back ups.
Just something I might share with you before you decide on what you want to do soon.

 

[DelJo63]

I ran with pagefile disabled for a long time. I currently have it set at 512MB in a range of 512 to 2048. Setting a range allows Windows to increase the size should you ever need more virtual memory.

*IF* you go this route and set ANY NONZERO value, at least make the min=max. This STOPS expansion, which has multiple negative effects:

1. the pagefile gets terriblly fragmented and of all files, this is one that should never be fragment due to the heavy access.
2. the act of fragmenting consumes the IO channel bandwidth such that the entire system suffers

 

[Athlonite]

Why such a large SSD for just the OS if your going to use the SSD then install all your stuff on it OS/Programs/Games use the HDD's for backups and storing your Docs/music/videos/game saves/etc etc etc on
set a min/max size the same for the page file on the SSD as I highly doubt you'll kill it with writes anytime soon

 

[Danny101]

I settled on 250GB SSD because I was considering installing multiple OS's on it. A 250 GB hd is plenty for programs and games as I don't play that many. A 500GB hd for backup. At this point, I ruled out multiple OS's as I can just use a USB hard drive for those. Although, this may make this setup irrelevant if it works.

 

[captaincranky]

I settled on 250GB SSD because I was considering installing multiple OS's on it. A 250 GB hd is plenty for programs and games as I don't play that many. A 500GB hd for backup. At this point, I ruled out multiple OS's as I can just use a USB hard drive for those. Although, this may make this setup irrelevant if it works.

Smart move. The Velociraptor's time is effectively past. I have 2, one 600 GB & another 500 GB. Newegg pretty much closed them out a few years back, and I grabbed them at about 100 bucks a pop.

Today's extreme high density HDDs, (@7200 RPM), always seem to equal or surpass the Raptors data transfer rates, if only by virtue of data blocks covering a smaller area of the drive. The drive's read/write heads move a shorter distance, which equals more data transfered.

The Velociraptor can't even truly saturate thje SATA 2 interface (300 MBS), let alone SATA 3 @ 600 MBS

I'd be really curious to find out if 15,000 RPM SCSI drives are still in use anywhere. Anybody?

 

[Danny101]

(Smart move. The Velociraptor's time is effectively past. I have 2, one 600 GB & another 500 GB. Newegg pretty much closed them out a few years back, and I grabbed them at about 100 bucks a pop.)

Yeah, I'm kicking myself because I bought 2 Velocirapters and 2 WD Blacks (I had several project PC's I was working on) thinking the Velocirapters we're faster than the Blacks. I average 7 yrs. between builds and I have to do months of research before I settle on the equipment. From now on, all my builds will be based on storage speeds (system drives and USB speeds) to determine generational improvements. For they are slowest components. I also try to keep capacities as low as usably possible, because I can't stand the endless hours of maintenance scans. I'm more into building and making the machines work (for other people) than actually using them. Even though Intel is blanketly Bette (questionable nowadays) I always stick with AMD, because of lower costs and I am more familiar with it's baseline in performance.