Which Combination of hard disks will be faster?

ok if we have option of buying 1tb hard and two 500gb hards

then what shud we go for

According to my theory

if you have one hard disk then it takes more time to transfer big files with in that hard disk cuz that hard's head will have to read and write data at the same time

but if you have two hards

then the data transfer will be as fast as hell cuz at a time one hard's head will only be reading and the other's will only be writting and the data transfer will occur very much faster and i have observed it too.

so what do you think we should go for 1 tb or 2 500gb as their is not much difference in prices of both packages....

2 500 gb's are fast and i believe adding them in a raid configuration will be the best route but then their is also the issue of data loss due to electricity supply being cut (Loadshedding). In my opinion two would be better but there is added energy consumption and sata ports used as well. I guess somebody else with more HDD knowledge could answer this better then i can though.

I would prefer 1 tb as it sound better :)

If you have two 500 GB harddisks on two separate data channels and both are in-use in parallel then you'll get almost 80% increase in speed (or double speed) compare to single 1TB harddisk.

[quote=", post:, topic:"]

According to my theory

if you have one hard disk then it takes more time to transfer big files with in that hard disk cuz that hard’s head will have to read and write data at the same time

but if you have two hards

then the data transfer will be as fast as hell cuz at a time one hard’s head will only be reading and the other’s will only be writting and the data transfer will occur very much faster and i have observed it too.

[/quote]

According to my understanding… 1tb should be faster … bcz when we transfer/cut-paste teh data from one within drives … system would require to adjust teh file formatting tables only which could be done faster in single hdd as practaly there wud be not mobilization of data. it is just change of reference.

where as in two hrd disks it would take more time where u wud require to actually mobalize the data.

now discussing the copy-paste scenerio … single hdd would be slower then two for obvious reasons as u have already mentioned.

[quote=", post:, topic:"]
2 500 gb’s are fast and i believe adding them in a raid configuration will be the best route
[/quote]

raid is a good idea but i dont think if it is possible with two hdd, i thinkn it requires at least three hdds… nehow a more technical person cud give a better suggestion on that.

Anyhow, in order to minimise the risk it is better to have two HDDs becz if something bad hapens then there is low probability that both HDDs burns down due to some electric shok or things like that ;). in that way, at least half of the data wud be safe.

2 x 500GB is better. In case you lose one, you still have the other one to work with.

[quote=", post:, topic:"]

According to my understanding… 1tb should be faster … bcz when we transfer/cut-paste teh data from one within drives … system would require to adjust teh file formatting tables only which could be done faster in single hdd as practaly there wud be not mobilization of data. it is just change of reference.

where as in two hrd disks it would take more time where u wud require to actually mobalize the data.

now discussing the copy-paste scenerio … single hdd would be slower then two for obvious reasons as u have already mentioned.

[/quote]

the thing u r talking about is cut/PASTE

i am talking about copy paste means making a copy of the sectors…

what about 2*2TB hards??

[quote=", post:, topic:"]

what about 2*2TB hards??
[/quote]

4TB in total, that’s the real thing ;)

2*500 GB with DMA enabled. 1 for the OS and one for data.