Another Hard drive Question [Archive]

View Full Version : Another Hard drive Question

lifejogger

December 26th, 2008, 09:50

Butcherbird17

December 26th, 2008, 10:08

You can't move fsx, you will just get an error message (i've tried) and it will not load. This might work but have never tried it, but being you have a dedicated drive for fsx, you could get a bigger drive and you would need a program like Norton ghost. Then install the drive and format it then use Norton Ghost to ghost an image of the 80 gb drive to the new bigger drive. Then format the 80 gb or just take it out and keep as a backup. Other then that it would be a fresh install and start over.

Joe

Moparmike

December 26th, 2008, 10:10

Your best performance will be from a SATA port. I suppose that an external eSATA drive would work fine , I haven't used one yet so I don't know.
A USB drive will be slower than either of those two, so that would be my last resort...in fact, the only thing I use external USB drives for is for my backups.

As for a fresh vs copied install:
Here's how I've been doing it since I started packratting add-ons. I've only done it once with FSX and it seems to have worked okay for me.
1. Make a fresh install on your new drive in the location that you want it.
2. Rename the folder of that clean install. (I add a "_fresh" tag to the end of the folder name.)
3. Move your existing "loaded" install into the same location that you did the clean install. this will have all the registry entries pointed towards your loaded install.
4. Keep the clean install folder as a backup, or if space is limited you can delete it too. I always keep a copy of this as a backup in case I need to cut-n-paste default files after FS gets porked by an install.
Alternate method:
1. After making the fresh install on the new drive, just copy all of the old FS files into the new location. If it asks whether you want to overwrite existing files try "No" first. If that doesn't work, then do it again and overwrite all files.

There might be a few commercial or complex freeware add-ons that will need to have their installers run into your newly copied loaded FS install just to get their registry keys or hidden files set up correctly. If most of what you've got is simple add-ons, 99% of the time this step is unneccesary.

gera

December 26th, 2008, 11:05

I have two sets. One, the original in C drive. Two: In an external drive. Here I made a fresh install and copied the Addons, Gauges, Airplanes and other folders from C. Takes a little more to load but runs perfectly....................

Lionheart

December 26th, 2008, 11:23

An 80 Gig HD is a thing of antiquity. I would get a huge (huge) HD, like a Terabyte Drive (T-HD) and transfer files to that, then keep the 80 Gig on a bookshelf for safe keeping / storage.

I am running FS on external HD's from now on. It seems to run fine on mine with USB. I have options though, such as firewire. It 'may' run it faster. I have no idea, but for now, USB is running with little to no visible difference.

If you need to transfer sim files over, you can temporarily move them onto your main drive, then hook up your new drive, and shuffle them back onto that one, then delete the 'transfer bundle' that was on your main. You now have all your FS files on the new drive. Next go to FSTweaks.com and download the FSX Registry fixer, and FS9 Registry fixer, open those, log the new locations of FS, set up new Shortcuts, and you are good to go.

You may then wish to get another HD and set up a HD backup. This will enable you to keep everything on a secondary HD as a backup copy. Apple has something like that called Time Machine, where it writes your HD to a backup HD. This will keep you safe. You can then unplug your 'time machine' pod / HD and put it on your bookshelf till you need to backup again. (like perhaps every 2 weeks, etc).

80 Gigs... That was a while back. You will be amazed at a 750 Gig. No more worrying about space.

Oh, and they have unique new 'plug in' socket stands for your desk. Some look like stylish Apple things. You take a regular internal HD and plug that baby right in, and Voila, its running them as a backup drive on your computer, just like a thumbnail. That is what I have been doing. I have all my internal HD's linked (one at a time) to my new computer. Now the HD's have become more like cassettes or 8-tracks, lolol...

(Just dont unplug one and pick it up when its running. The intense gyroscopic forces of the disc spinning will attempt to pull that drive right out of your hand. dont want to drop one.... ).

Bill

Lionheart

December 27th, 2008, 00:07

Speaking of this.. I filled my new Apple up already.. one Pictures folder alone was 43 Gigs...

Going to see if I can get a 1.5 Terabyte drive installed....

mjrhealth

December 27th, 2008, 03:29

Actually you can move the fsx folder ive done it and doing it again. There is a path fix file on avsim, if you change drive letters, but if drive letter is same shouldnt be an issue. Of course if you change driveletters you may have to correct paths to some of your addons if any.

TimA

December 27th, 2008, 03:56

My external eSATA drive (where I have FSX) runs faster than my internal, so you should have no trouble on that score. I've also directly copied my FS install to a new drive with no problem (the new drive kept the same drive letter as the old one - it's a simple procedure to swap drive letters when you add in a new drive)

GT182

December 27th, 2008, 06:20

Lionheart

December 27th, 2008, 10:14

I'm running 2 SATAII internal HDDs. You don't have to format the second one and no pin to move to make it a "slave drive". I use the 2nd one for storage and added a Program Files folder for my games. Works fine, no problems. At least if something goes wrong with the #1 Windows drive I think you can still run the 2nd drive after a reformat of the 1st.

In my last rig, I had 3 internal SATA's, and a backup slide in 500 Gig Media Drive.

(When you have had alot of crashes like me, you learn to have backups... :d)

Bill

SimSamurai

March 3rd, 2009, 02:17

This is a very interesting question guys and one I would really like to debate with some people. I am actually finishing up a 200 page book on advanced flight simulation and this subject is one of the final things I am wrapping up in regards to multi-monitor simulation and achieving extreme frame rates. I have personally been using RAID 0 with two hard drives for two years now with windows XP x64 / a Pentium D 3.4 /and 4 gigs DDR-2 ram. I have 3 video cards and run 5 outputs (4 monitors for cockpit instrumentation only and an overhead projector for the main view) I used to hit over 100 fps with all display hardware sliders about 75% full and it would then eat about 15 fps per window I undock hence flying with all screens yields about 20-30fps.

All my cockpit panels are custom made at a full monitor size of 1680x1040. I have the OS, the sim, and about 60 gigs of scenery on the C drive (really two HDDs). After running like this for a long time now I'm really wanting to separate out my scenery to a dedicated drive (as it takes about 12+ hours for the C drive to defrag) and am wondering if it would be better to have all the scenery on a dedicated RAID 0 set-up too or just have it on a fast drive say a single raptor 10,000 rpm and leave the O.S. and sim on the RAID 0 set-up (or do both and have 2 RAID 0's - 4 hard drives / 2 for the OS and sim and 2 for the scenery) I would also maintain a 5th slow single drive such as an external for my personal storage library, i.e. sim zip library, pictures, other zip files, music, personal docs, etc..(that is what I'm doing now)

The three biggest things that eat FPS (IMO) are Hi-res scenery, dense weather, and a dense cockpit with alot of payware gauges which is what I have and or like to operate with in all three cases. So a big thing I really want to resolve first is if the sim just loads up in ram and doesn't really re-access the HDD much during a flight except to pull / draw scenery and weather and if this is the case maybe it is much smarter to run the O.S. and sim on a single fast drive and then place all the scenery on a dedicated RAID 0 set up of say two 75gb raptor drives for a 150gb scenery capacity. (Im sure I'd never exceed that anyway.)

As I have dived more into this research I am dubbing it the "Engine / Fuel tanks / Baggage Compartment theorum" as I feel that is the best case scenario for setting up a monster machine for multi-monitor simulation.

I am going to build a new i7 core machine this summer and am trying to decide which way to go with the hard drives set-up and formatting. My gut says do a RAID 0 for the just scenery. Two heads are faster than one and if done with two small raptor drives it may just blow my frame rates completely out of the park. Since it's all software anyway a corruption wouldn't matter as it would all still be on disc... same goes for the OS and the sim. (they are ALL currently on my one RAID 0 now and I back up all my aircraft and gauges, etc.)

In short..some folks are afraid of RAID 0 but I am here to say...after using it...I swear by it! RAID 0 and a 64 bit OS is the true way to frame rate freedom!

PS. - Lionheart... I love your F136! ..quite the kick in the pants.

Lionheart

March 3rd, 2009, 03:07

Thanks Sim Samurai,

And I hope your book does really well.

I had brought this up on another post that I believe that spreading the load over several HD's (at least 2) lessens the effort on the HD's and speeds up the sim.

I am running FSX and FS9 on a seperate drive on a new iMac.

I am toying with an experiment, if its feasable, to put the aircraft folder on one HD, the FS on another HD, all seperate from the primary HD, and see how it runs then.

Some aircraft have up to 70 or 80 textures, from 512 pixels square, up to 2048 pixels square. That is a hurrendous amount of graphics on a object set, and not including the terrain textures of FSX.

Might be interesting.. I think it could be done cheaply too. Obtaining a couple of pocket drives of about 100 to 300 gigs each for about $50.00 to $70 each and plugging them into the USB ports, loading one up with FSX and the aircraft on the second.. I compare it to the same thing as having multiple chips. You are running multiple drives as well... Quantum flux! :d

Bill

harleyman

March 3rd, 2009, 03:11

You can do 50 different set up options for FSX..

The bottom line always comes down to CPU speed...:friday:

All the other stuff will show you next to nothing noticable and just drive you nuts..

FSX on any rig of todays standards has no problem with read times and access times no matter what your set up is.....

My duo can outperform some new i7 core ....:faint:

Oh yea...JM Humble Opinion....

ITS CPU and Hit or Miss luck..

There is no *Proven FSX Set -Up * Unfortuniately.....

Bone

March 3rd, 2009, 04:10

Cazzie

March 3rd, 2009, 04:13

harleyman

March 3rd, 2009, 04:40

I have two 150 gig raptors in a RAID-0 config. Last summer I reformatted and dropped the RAID-0, and after two weeks reformatted and set the RAID back up. The difference in speed between a standard config and RAID-0 is very noticeable, especially when using FSX.

I respect that opinion...But all the reading and grafts I've seen show little to no gain using raid..Expecially with onboard raid controller...

Point being...For the inexperienced , that knows nothing about raid , setting it up or maintaining it, there is just not enough there to warrent doing it.....

JMO..tooo..But thanks for posting that you DID have better results with raid..Its good to know....:applause:

Lionheart

March 3rd, 2009, 10:33

I have a 1 TB external, but it is FAT32 and only for media and executable downloads. I am into doing videos and anyone that has done so knows how much space on one's HD that can take up. Plus it eases defragmentation on my internal HD.

But no, I doubt one could install FSX or any operable program on an external HD.

LJ, 80 GB wouldn't hardly hold the files I have for all my paint kits and repaints with all those .psd textures in them. LOL

Caz

Hey Caz,

I run a 1TB external drive that houses FSX. Runs smoothly. And thats with a USB link, believe it or not, however, it could explain why my runways turn bright designer pink for moments at a time? :d

I have a small HD tower and a secondary HD (SATA internal 'slot' drive plugin center) for a third drive. I was thinking of running the planes folder out of that one to see if it improves the performance.

Bill

Bone

March 3rd, 2009, 10:52

I respect that opinion...But all the reading and grafts I've seen show little to no gain using raid..Expecially with onboard raid controller...

I have read some of the same tech data that down plays the RAID-0. I even read one where the guru said anyone who is dumb enough to use a RAID-0 on a desk top PC deserves all of the trouble they will end up having. Tech reviews cover the gamut on a variety of games, but oddly, a good many tend to leave FSX out of the process.

Anyway, from a user perspective the RAID-0 has worked faster for me. But we all know that when it comes to FSX, what works for one person may not be valid for another.

harleyman

March 3rd, 2009, 11:12

I have read some of the same tech data that down plays the RAID-0. I even read one where the guru said anyone who is dumb enough to use a RAID-0 on a desk top PC deserves all of the trouble they will end up having. Tech specs cover the gamut on a variety of games, but oddly, a good many tend to leave FSX out of the process.

Anyway, from a user perspective the RAID-0 has worked faster for me. But we all know that when it comes to FSX, what works for one person may not be valid for another.

All so true...Thanks for your feedback..I find it all intresting too.....:rapture:

I don't know about troubles..If its maintained well it should be trouble free, and you know what you're doing in the first place...

Lionheart

March 3rd, 2009, 13:18

Bone

March 3rd, 2009, 13:35

Ok, this is one of those dumb questions... ( I know about FSX and FS9, but not that much about computers...)

What does Raid-0 mean? I know only that RAID is a dual 'mirror' drive (if thats correct). Not much more then that.

Bill

A RAID-0 config is when you use two hard drives as a virtual single drive. The data you want to store is boken into data blocks, where half is stored on one drive and half is stored on the other, simultaneously. It is retrieved simultaneously, also.

Think of the data as a four letter word such as, well, "four". It is broken into two data blocks, ie "fo" and "ur". "fo" is written (or retrieved) on one drive, and at the same instant "ur" is written (or retrieved) on the other. It's like splitting a job between two people at once, and it gets done faster.

A RAID-1 config is when all of the data is written on both drives. Each drive has all the data, so in essence you are just making a backup copy when you save something.

My two 150 gig raptor HD's in a RAID-0 give me a single 279 gig virtual HD. Don't ask me where the other 21 gigs disappeared to.

Lionheart

March 3rd, 2009, 14:36

A RAID-0 config is when you use two hard drives as a virtual single drive. The data you want to store is boken into data blocks, where half is stored on one drive and half is stored on the other, simultaneously. It is retrieved simultaneously, also.

Think of the data as a four letter word such as, well, "four". It is broken into two data blocks, ie "fo" and "ur". "fo" is written (or retrieved) on one drive, and at the same instant "ur" is written (or retrieved) on the other. It's like splitting a job between two people at once, and it gets done faster.

A RAID-1 config is when all of the data is written on both drives. Each drive has all the data, so in essence you are just making a backup copy when you save something.

My two 150 gig raptor HD's in a RAID-0 give me a single 279 gig virtual HD. Don't ask me where the other 21 gigs disappeared to.

Thanks for the mini tutorial on that Bone.

:ernae:

By the way, from what I found out, because of totals in Binary being slightly different, the amount of actual 'useable' data area on a HD is less then what is advertised. My 1TB drives only had like 970,000 gigs on them (or less, cant remember).

Bill

Bone

March 3rd, 2009, 15:03

Thanks for the mini tutorial on that Bone.

:ernae:

By the way, from what I found out, because of totals in Binary being slightly different, the amount of actual 'useable' data area on a HD is less then what is advertised. My 1TB drives only had like 970,000 gigs on them (or less, cant remember).

Bill

Thanks. Everything gets rounded up these days, except wages.

kilo delta

March 4th, 2009, 06:22

For what it's worth...when I was building my last rig I went with SSD drives. One for the OS, an identical SSD for photoscenery, FSX installed on it's own dedicated 1TB drive with another 1TB drive and 2x500GB for storage.

harleyman

March 4th, 2009, 06:30

kilo delta

March 4th, 2009, 07:49

I wish, Harleyman :costumes:

At the time, SSD was brand new technology and ,as I already had the 10k Raptor drives, I REALLY wanted the new hdd's. In retrospect, paying ~€700 for a single 64GB hard drive does sound a little ....extreme...but I managed to get a good deal on purchasing 3 of them :faint:

In fairness........they've performed brilliantly. Boot up to Desktop takes around 20secs (Vista Ultimate 64bit with all the bloatware still enabled) and using the second SSD for Photoscenery results in fantastic texture load rates.
The best hdd for FSX at the moment for price and performance is the WD 300GB Velociraptor. :)

harleyman

March 4th, 2009, 07:56

Maybe so about the V-Raptor...I have one..

But I do like the SSD ones too......:applause:

Lionheart

March 4th, 2009, 16:35

Awesoe, Kilo Delta!

I am hearing SSD is the way to go. You dont even have to defrag them. No moving parts.... Amazing technology.

Bill

kilo delta

March 5th, 2009, 00:35

Awesoe, Kilo Delta!

I am hearing SSD is the way to go. You dont even have to defrag them. No moving parts.... Amazing technology.

Bill

Yep...ssd is the future. No moving parts,reliable,silent, they run cool and extremely fast (i'm running the 2.5" Samsung 64gb ssd with ~100mb/sec read/write). Only downside is that it'd be impossible to retrieve data should the drive fail.

Chris Sykes

March 5th, 2009, 01:03

My system i built last year is based around 2x V-Raptors and one Raptor drives! Its load times are brillient and have no problems with loading games or programs!

Also you dont need Norton Ghost to copy a HDD to another HDD, you should be able to backup that HDD and then install the new one and then restore the old HDD to that new one!

Lionheart

March 5th, 2009, 09:33

Kiwikat

March 5th, 2009, 09:39

The Raptor is an old 10,000 RPM Hard drive offered by Western Digital. The Velociraptor is its successor, offering faster timings and more capacity.

harleyman

March 5th, 2009, 10:18

Is a Raptor a brand name or a concept for a HD, like Raid?

Bill

Bill...Its a type from Western Digital

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136322

Lionheart

March 5th, 2009, 12:37

Thanks guys...

Wasnt sure.

I have learned so much about computers from this website.. Trying to take in as much as possible...

Bill