I've started collecting parts for building a new computer, and I am curious about whether to use two things than one.

For example, instead of having one 90gb harddrive, I thought that it would be better to have 3 30gb ones. Because they would be able to read 3 files at the same time. It is also less expensive to buy several smaller ones. Is this true?

For processors too: wouldnt it be better to have 2 2.0ghtz processors (for a combined total of 4.0ghtz) instead of a single 4ghtz processor? This would let the computer handle two processes at the same time, right? And it is also $300 cheaper.

I know that linux can handle the complexity of such an operation, I would just like to know if the performance would be better.

Thank you in advance,
LInuxblackbox

"For example, instead of having one 90gb harddrive, I thought that it would be better to have 3 30gb ones. Because they would be able to read 3 files at the same time. It is also less expensive to buy several smaller ones. Is this true?"

Yes. I run with three drives. You also need 3 independent IDE paths to the drives. /dev/hda and /dev/hdb cannot be accessed simultaneously because they are on the same cable. However /dev/hda and /dev/hdc can be accessed simultaneously. I bought a HighPoint secondary controller and set my disks up this way:
/dev/hda - hard drive
/dev/hdc - CD-RW
/dev/hde - hard drive
/dev/hdg - hard drive

Also organize your hard drives so that the busiest files are in the middle of the drive. This speeds up access by minimizing arm movement.

Another consideration is the speed of the hard drives and whether the hard drives have a built in memory cache. Speed measurements are given as both the data transfer rate and the average seek time. Since a disk access is about 90% arm movement and 10% data transfer, the average seek time is the more important number. A built in memory cache is far, far faster for whatever percentage of reads happen to be satisfied in the cache rather than by a disk read.

"For processors too: wouldnt it be better to have 2 2.0ghtz processors (for a combined total of 4.0ghtz) instead of a single 4ghtz processor? This would let the computer handle two processes at the same time, right? And it is also $300 cheaper."

Yes and no. There is a little overhead in dual processor systems so the two 2.0 processors will do the same work as a 3.9 processor. Also the task mix that you run is very important in how a dual processor behaves versus a single processor. If you are only running one task at a time then the 4.0 processor will run that task twice as fast as two 2.0 processors. If you always have several tasks running simultaneously then the 4.0 processor will run a hair faster than the two 2.0 processor. However if your task load is reasonable for a two processor system then that system will run your workload for $300 cheaper.


___________________________________
Be prepared. Create a LifeBoat CD.
http://users.rcn.com/srstites/LifeBo...home.page.html

Steve Stites

Great, thank you for your help.
I was looking at this motherboard:

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...pa=1&section=2

and the detailed specs for 'IDE/SCSI' says

- Dual-channel master mode
- Supports up to four enhanced IDE devices
- Support for ATA-100/66/33 IDE and ATAPI compliant devices

Because it says it 'supports up to four..' does that mean that I wont need a secondary conroller? (My harddrive is a 'Ultra ATA / 133')

I wanted to use the application for 3D game testing and design, so it would be using one processor. However, my 3D application allows me to render using both processors, I believe, so I think I wont notice much of a difference.

hmm, it would seem that you are really shooting for top of the line here. even positioning the optimal data on your hard drive. have you looked at the new SATA hds, theyre faster, but i dont think you can boot from them, yet.

"Because it says it 'supports up to four..' does that mean that I wont need a secondary conroller?

It supports two cables with two drives per cable. You can only access one drive on a cable at a time. So you can access two drives simultaneously.

If you add a secondary controller then you can have up to eight drives and access four of them simultaneously.

"My harddrive is a 'Ultra ATA / 133'
- Support for ATA-100/66/33 IDE and ATAPI compliant devices"

This ATA controller will not run your hard drive at full speed. The data transfer will run at 100 instead of 133. Since data transfer time is 10% of hard drive access time then this controller will run your hard drive at 97.5% of the speed that an ATA 133 controller will.

___________________________________
Be prepared. Create a LifeBoat CD.
http://users.rcn.com/srstites/LifeBo...home.page.html

Steve Stites

Thanks for that tip, BIlly Bob. By SATA, you mean Serial ATA, right? Yeah, I will try to do that. I already have a 30gb Ultra ATA, so I will use that for windows and for my linux boot drive, and then have the linux OS installed on one 20 gb SATA harddrive, and have my /home/ directories on the second SATA drive.

I guess I will not buy a secondary controller (unless you really reccomend it). I dont think I will need to read from all 3 hard drives at the same time, so two will do.

Thank you also for that tip about the ATA controller. I looked into it, but the only boards that are Dual AMD socket A are all 100/66/33. Oh well, 97.5% isnt so bad.

It isnt possible with dual processors to have two different speeds, is it? It would be nice to be able to have a 2.4ghtz for the primary, and then a 1.8ghtz to handle video/music/email clients.