5,5 gigs... well actually it's not my sierra folder... it's a hard-drive partition called DATACORE with all my HL stuff on it... HL+mods+blueshift+opfor+mymaps+mymods+mymodels+mytextures+everything else that's hl...
Actually I believe the default installation path is just C:\SIERRA\Half-Life at least that's where it installed it on my computer without me changing it.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
2.26 gigs...
But I want it to be less...
But I don't want to delete anything <!--emo&:(--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':('><!--endemo-->
1.5gig exactly booyah! >_< D:\Sierra\Halflife along with all my other software that isnt windows (2 gig windows c: partition 30 gig D: stuff partition and 7 gig E: backed up install files)
actually I have my own personal folder (C:\Tzarcon) where I keep all my stuff and half of my downloads (the other half on the other computer), excluding my games. That folder is about 3 gig
When will you ever discover the extreme advantages of having 4 partitions?
A:\=Floppy C:\=Boot Drive, Easily formatted if problems arise D:\=Backup+swap file, just in case E:\=Applications and Downloaded crap (I have 2.71 gigs of DL's, no porn and no warez!<!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo--> F:\Games, 30 Gigs of total space, with still 12 gigs free.... and I NEVER un-install anything! G:\=CD ROM
LMAO i got exactly the same thing legionnaired!!!!! but i got 50 gbs <!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo--> hl folder = 7,5 gb, i got a lot of mods......... i just see a mod and i dl it <!--emo&:p--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'><!--endemo--> and then i play it some, then i get another one and so on.......
Also, tomorrow I will give everyone my speech on putting their desktop icons on the quick-start bar, instead of the desktop, showing off their wallpaper w/o obstruction (and no, my wallpaper isn't porn), and keeping everything nice and neat.
<!--QuoteBegin--Legionnaired+July 17 2002,13:54--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (Legionnaired @ July 17 2002,13:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Pff, fools, all of you!
When will you ever discover the extreme advantages of having 4 partitions?
A:\=Floppy C:\=Boot Drive, Easily formatted if problems arise D:\=Backup+swap file, just in case E:\=Applications and Downloaded crap (I have 2.71 gigs of DL's, no porn and no warez!<!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo--> F:\Games, 30 Gigs of total space, with still 12 gigs free.... and I NEVER un-install anything! G:\=CD ROM
I love my 40 Gig.
My system must, just, like, own you all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I laff at your 40 gig.
lmao <!--emo&:p--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'><!--endemo--> if u got all pr0n videos.... mayb u could use like 60 gbs???..... well he has enough space for 64,864864864864 hl folders...... <!--emo&:p--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'><!--endemo--> or so.....
It's not size, it's speed. SHODAN only has 36GB, but they are 4x18GB SCSI disks in redundant stripe sets (RAID10) at 15,000 RPM's, with 128MB RAM on the disk controller. Your controller on the other hand likely has no RAM, uses a single disk, and runs (at best) around 7200 RPM's, all on low bandwidth IDE channels.
SCSI is overrated? How do <i>you</i> make your RAID-5 sets then? Or move massive data throughput over an external storage array with 100 disks in it? Don't say fiber, because that's out of the reach of everyone without a heavy duty pocket book.
Soon will buy new harddisk.. 60GB Makes a sum of 30 + 10 + 60 = 100GB w00t!
Thinking about putting up C: windows + system stuff D: apps E: games F: mp3s and personal folders (Yes I need a place to store mp3s as at the moment the taking off 2/3 of a 15GB partition. maybe a G: partition for backups
C and D is harddisk one E and F is harddisk two G harddisk three
*dreaming*
How much do you recommend for the windows partition?
as i said my windows partition is a gig, and i never isntall anything on it, empty my temp internet files/temp folder alot and my recycle bin is emptied whenever i put anything it..and yet it still keeps filling up despite only haveing a 500 meg windows install ~ so first of all any idea whats stealing my space? (i regain bits doing defrag but its still expanding) and should i have made it 2 gig?
Ok then I maybe would aim for a c: 1-2gig (windows) d: 18 gig (apps) e: 30 gig (games) f: 30 gig (mp3) g: 10 gig (backup)
only problem is I would have to install everything again. <!--emo&:(--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':('><!--endemo--> Not sure if I want to make so. Maybe in some time. But that layout sounds quite 1337.
How in unholy hell are you ever going to use up 120 gigs of harddrive space?
Just how much porn do you have exactly, cyonpro?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Full-length DiVX movies take up a lot of space, and I have lots of em <!--emo&:D--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'><!--endemo-->
MY HL directory ( D:\Half-Life) Sits in at a mediocre 3.67 gigs which is a little less than 10% of my misc HD
the XP Hard drive is an entire physical HD of 15 gigs at 7200 RPM then there's my applications HD which has everything else and sits at 40 gigs @7200 RPM (I've only got 3 gigs free!!!!<!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo--> I'm thinking of getting a 3rd 40 gig HD (7200 RPM) for my MP3z (D:\MP3z is 9.81 gigs!!!!!<!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo--> and the allmighty pr0n (sad... 10 times more files in there than my mp3z, yet it's only 3.2 gigs...)
Quick question though, MonsE, you happen to know the cable speed of a SCSI, like... 100 megs/sec, 133, what?
The last I heard about the whole SCSI v. IDE debate was that SCSI was a good alternative in the days of ATA-33 cables, but because of the new wave of ATA-100's is just a waste of money...
I'm not making any statements just yet, i'm just repeating what I heard last, but... yeah.
Oh, and how much cash did that whole RAID-5 array cost you?
EDIT: Oh, and SONO, make it look something like this...
C:\1 gig windows D:\500 meg fix size swap file (make sure it's on a different hard drive, not just a logical partition, it'll run faster) E:\18.5 gig apps F&G:\30 gigs each
Oh man, you guys are going to cost me my lunch hour on this:
There are a huge number of reasons to go SCSI if you can afford it; (as you will see, the only real downside is price).
Controller - SCSI controllers are similar to 3D cards, in that they offload processing from the main PC CPU to a local processor on the controller. They also include usually between 8 and 128MB of RAM on the controller. An IDE controller gets most of it's processing from the PC's CPU. This means that an IDE rig is sucking time away from the CPU, rather than doing the work itself, which slows down I/O.
Bus Speed - ATA100 sends data at 100MB/s, on a 16bit bus width. SCSI sends anywhere from 160 to 320MB a channel, on 32bit bus width. This means (on a PC system, at least), there is really no way to bottelneck your I/O with SCSI.
Seek Times - (The bigee for performance nuts). This is where SCSI does it's best tap-dance on IDE; the amount of time spent between requesting data and getting it returned. I will steal a small chart from IBM for this:
Disk Characteristics Model - RPM - Capacity - Seek - Transfer Rate - Buffer IDE Disk - IBM 75 GXP - 7200 - 75GB - 8.5ms - 444Mbit/s - 2MB SCSI Disk - IBM 73LZX - 10000 - 73GB - 4.9ms - 690Mbit/s - 4MB SCSI Disk - Seagate 36LP - 15000 - 36GB - 3.6ms - 700Mbit/s - 8MB
What this shows is, a SCSI disk can return data (true I/O) about twice as fast. Since the disks spin faster, there are buffers for writes, and the hardware is generally higher quality, you end up with dramatically improved performance. Disk I/O is <b>the number one thing slowing down your PC, not CPU!</b>. I cannot emphasize this enough. Due to OS architecture (on both Windows and Linux), even high RAM systems still spend a large amount of time writing to the local swapfile. This grossly drops your performance.
Reliability: MTBF (mean time between failure) on SCSI hardware is much higher than IDE. According to IBM, almost exactly double. This means it's only half as likely to fail as an IDE drive.
RAID Options - Some specialty IDE controller allow you to do a limited amount of RAID (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks). This means you can mirror your drives or (for risky speed) stripe data across both disks. SCSI allows you to mirror (RAID1), stripe (RAID0), stripe with parity (RAID5) for total fault tolerance, or stripe with mirrors (RAID10) for fast performance and high fault tolerance). You can also chain together hundreds of drives, where as IDE controllers only allow 2.
There. Huge geek session over. The only reason to ever use IDE is <b><i>price</i></b> - it is definitely much cheaper per MB than SCSI drives. Anyone telling you IDE is better is an IDE manufacturer. This is why server hardware uses SCSI exclusively (although fiber is making some headway). The cost to IDE is that you are more likely to have a catastrophic failure, you will have much lower performance, and you will not be able to expand or replace equipment easily.
I don't want to provoke MonsE any further i'd just like to say that you can do RAID with IDE, i've seen the ads.
I hear FireWire is pretty good for external drives too.
My dissing of SCSI comes from my small business / home computer background, where money is the limiting factor.
Sure in MonsE's business SCSI is king. Then again most of us don't admin server clusters soo...
[gloat] On a more pleasant note, i've just recieved my new Flatscreen monitor, GeForce 4 graphics card and IDE hard drive <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo--> [/gloat]
my HL folder is 7 gigs, but I've cleaned it up a lot already, it used to be about 10 gigs (lots of maps/screens and quite a few mods). /me deletes 11 mods... ahh 6 gigs now.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->RAID Options - Some specialty IDE controllers allow you to do a limited amount of RAID (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
/me quotes his own self from above.
Actually, you can find much more reasonable SCSI prices these days. A quick search at CNET showed me PC-class SCSI controllers for about $125. That combined with 10K RPM SCSI drives in the 18-36GB range, which were going for $100-200 dollars means that you won't have to pay a fortune (not like the old days, for sure). Just more than IDE. It's quality versus quantity, basically. I think that the amount of time saved, combined with the lack of data loss makes SCSI a better investment. You pay a little more, but it's a one time deal and you are more productive. Time is money to me, and buying a new IDE drive every year seems to be the wasteful route.
I didn't mean to sound like I was mad, as I wasn't. I just thought the 'SCSI is overrated' comment was pretty silly and rather wrong. IDE is the overrated architecture.
A: FLOPPY (deactivated if I don't need it) C: SYSTEM 7,8gig (windows+programs and stuff) D: DATACORE 5,8gig (halflife and all stuff that's related to it also my own hl dedicated works) E: DOWNLOAD 15,6gig (speaks for itself doesn't it? also used for my website works) F: GAMES 9,0gig (my first games partition) G: GAMES II 11,7gig (my second games partition on my second 40gig) H: STORAGE 26,6gig (misc stuff... a few downloaded things too, movies, mp3s and so on...)
Comments
at least that's where it installed it on my computer without me changing it.
But I want it to be less...
But I don't want to delete anything <!--emo&:(--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':('><!--endemo-->
D:\Sierra\Halflife along with all my other software that isnt windows (2 gig windows c: partition 30 gig D: stuff partition and 7 gig E: backed up install files)
Got it installed in C:\Games\SIERRA\HL\ (I put all my games in "Games", seems to make sense, no?)
When will you ever discover the extreme advantages of having 4 partitions?
A:\=Floppy
C:\=Boot Drive, Easily formatted if problems arise
D:\=Backup+swap file, just in case
E:\=Applications and Downloaded crap (I have 2.71 gigs of DL's, no porn and no warez!<!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo-->
F:\Games, 30 Gigs of total space, with still 12 gigs free.... and I NEVER un-install anything!
G:\=CD ROM
I love my 40 Gig.
My system must, just, like, own you all.
but i got 50 gbs <!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo-->
hl folder = 7,5 gb, i got a lot of mods......... i just see a mod and i dl it <!--emo&:p--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'><!--endemo--> and then i play it some, then i get another one and so on.......
Also, tomorrow I will give everyone my speech on putting their desktop icons on the quick-start bar, instead of the desktop, showing off their wallpaper w/o obstruction (and no, my wallpaper isn't porn), and keeping everything nice and neat.
When will you ever discover the extreme advantages of having 4 partitions?
A:\=Floppy
C:\=Boot Drive, Easily formatted if problems arise
D:\=Backup+swap file, just in case
E:\=Applications and Downloaded crap (I have 2.71 gigs of DL's, no porn and no warez!<!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo-->
F:\Games, 30 Gigs of total space, with still 12 gigs free.... and I NEVER un-install anything!
G:\=CD ROM
I love my 40 Gig.
My system must, just, like, own you all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I laff at your 40 gig.
/me pets dual 60 gigs.
<!--emo&:D--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'><!--endemo-->
How in unholy hell are you ever going to use up 120 gigs of harddrive space?
Just how much porn do you have exactly, cyonpro?
64,864864864864 hl folders...... <!--emo&:p--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'><!--endemo--> or so.....
5.77 gigs
It's not size, it's speed. SHODAN only has 36GB, but they are 4x18GB SCSI disks in redundant stripe sets (RAID10) at 15,000 RPM's, with 128MB RAM on the disk controller. Your controller on the other hand likely has no RAM, uses a single disk, and runs (at best) around 7200 RPM's, all on low bandwidth IDE channels.
Fear meh.
<img src="http://www.readyroom.org/downloads/shodan_drives.jpg" border="0">
<!--EDIT|MonsieurEvil|July 18 2002,02:08-->
<!--EDIT|MonsieurEvil|July 18 2002,02:12-->
Soon will buy new harddisk.. 60GB
Makes a sum of 30 + 10 + 60 = 100GB w00t!
Thinking about putting up
C: windows + system stuff
D: apps
E: games
F: mp3s and personal folders (Yes I need a place to store mp3s as at the moment the taking off 2/3 of a 15GB partition.
maybe a G: partition for backups
C and D is harddisk one
E and F is harddisk two
G harddisk three
*dreaming*
How much do you recommend for the windows partition?
c: 1-2gig (windows)
d: 18 gig (apps)
e: 30 gig (games)
f: 30 gig (mp3)
g: 10 gig (backup)
only problem is I would have to install everything again. <!--emo&:(--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':('><!--endemo-->
Not sure if I want to make so. Maybe in some time. But that layout sounds quite 1337.
How in unholy hell are you ever going to use up 120 gigs of harddrive space?
Just how much porn do you have exactly, cyonpro?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Full-length DiVX movies take up a lot of space, and I have lots of em <!--emo&:D--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'><!--endemo-->
the XP Hard drive is an entire physical HD of 15 gigs at 7200 RPM
then there's my applications HD which has everything else and sits at 40 gigs @7200 RPM (I've only got 3 gigs free!!!!<!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo--> I'm thinking of getting a 3rd 40 gig HD (7200 RPM) for my MP3z (D:\MP3z is 9.81 gigs!!!!!<!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo--> and the allmighty pr0n (sad... 10 times more files in there than my mp3z, yet it's only 3.2 gigs...)
Quick question though, MonsE, you happen to know the cable speed of a SCSI, like... 100 megs/sec, 133, what?
The last I heard about the whole SCSI v. IDE debate was that SCSI was a good alternative in the days of ATA-33 cables, but because of the new wave of ATA-100's is just a waste of money...
I'm not making any statements just yet, i'm just repeating what I heard last, but... yeah.
Oh, and how much cash did that whole RAID-5 array cost you?
EDIT: Oh, and SONO, make it look something like this...
C:\1 gig windows
D:\500 meg fix size swap file (make sure it's on a different hard drive, not just a logical partition, it'll run faster)
E:\18.5 gig apps
F&G:\30 gigs each
There are a huge number of reasons to go SCSI if you can afford it; (as you will see, the only real downside is price).
Controller - SCSI controllers are similar to 3D cards, in that they offload processing from the main PC CPU to a local processor on the controller. They also include usually between 8 and 128MB of RAM on the controller. An IDE controller gets most of it's processing from the PC's CPU. This means that an IDE rig is sucking time away from the CPU, rather than doing the work itself, which slows down I/O.
Bus Speed - ATA100 sends data at 100MB/s, on a 16bit bus width. SCSI sends anywhere from 160 to 320MB a channel, on 32bit bus width. This means (on a PC system, at least), there is really no way to bottelneck your I/O with SCSI.
Seek Times - (The bigee for performance nuts). This is where SCSI does it's best tap-dance on IDE; the amount of time spent between requesting data and getting it returned. I will steal a small chart from IBM for this:
Disk Characteristics
Model - RPM - Capacity - Seek - Transfer Rate - Buffer
IDE Disk - IBM 75 GXP - 7200 - 75GB - 8.5ms - 444Mbit/s - 2MB
SCSI Disk - IBM 73LZX - 10000 - 73GB - 4.9ms - 690Mbit/s - 4MB
SCSI Disk - Seagate 36LP - 15000 - 36GB - 3.6ms - 700Mbit/s - 8MB
What this shows is, a SCSI disk can return data (true I/O) about twice as fast. Since the disks spin faster, there are buffers for writes, and the hardware is generally higher quality, you end up with dramatically improved performance. Disk I/O is <b>the number one thing slowing down your PC, not CPU!</b>. I cannot emphasize this enough. Due to OS architecture (on both Windows and Linux), even high RAM systems still spend a large amount of time writing to the local swapfile. This grossly drops your performance.
Reliability:
MTBF (mean time between failure) on SCSI hardware is much higher than IDE. According to IBM, almost exactly double. This means it's only half as likely to fail as an IDE drive.
RAID Options - Some specialty IDE controller allow you to do a limited amount of RAID (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks). This means you can mirror your drives or (for risky speed) stripe data across both disks. SCSI allows you to mirror (RAID1), stripe (RAID0), stripe with parity (RAID5) for total fault tolerance, or stripe with mirrors (RAID10) for fast performance and high fault tolerance). You can also chain together hundreds of drives, where as IDE controllers only allow 2.
There. Huge geek session over. The only reason to ever use IDE is <b><i>price</i></b> - it is definitely much cheaper per MB than SCSI drives. Anyone telling you IDE is better is an IDE manufacturer. This is why server hardware uses SCSI exclusively (although fiber is making some headway). The cost to IDE is that you are more likely to have a catastrophic failure, you will have much lower performance, and you will not be able to expand or replace equipment easily.
Toodles.
<!--EDIT|MonsieurEvil|July 18 2002,13:05-->
I hear FireWire is pretty good for external drives too.
My dissing of SCSI comes from my small business / home computer background, where money is the limiting factor.
Sure in MonsE's business SCSI is king. Then again most of us don't admin server clusters soo...
[gloat]
On a more pleasant note, i've just recieved my new Flatscreen monitor, GeForce 4 graphics card and IDE hard drive <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo-->
[/gloat]
/me quotes his own self from above.
Actually, you can find much more reasonable SCSI prices these days. A quick search at CNET showed me PC-class SCSI controllers for about $125. That combined with 10K RPM SCSI drives in the 18-36GB range, which were going for $100-200 dollars means that you won't have to pay a fortune (not like the old days, for sure). Just more than IDE. It's quality versus quantity, basically. I think that the amount of time saved, combined with the lack of data loss makes SCSI a better investment. You pay a little more, but it's a one time deal and you are more productive. Time is money to me, and buying a new IDE drive every year seems to be the wasteful route.
I didn't mean to sound like I was mad, as I wasn't. I just thought the 'SCSI is overrated' comment was pretty silly and rather wrong. IDE is the overrated architecture.
<!--EDIT|MonsieurEvil|July 18 2002,17:31-->
A: FLOPPY (deactivated if I don't need it)
C: SYSTEM 7,8gig (windows+programs and stuff)
D: DATACORE 5,8gig (halflife and all stuff that's related to it also my own hl dedicated works)
E: DOWNLOAD 15,6gig (speaks for itself doesn't it? also used for my website works)
F: GAMES 9,0gig (my first games partition)
G: GAMES II 11,7gig (my second games partition on my second 40gig)
H: STORAGE 26,6gig (misc stuff... a few downloaded things too, movies, mp3s and so on...)
free space...
C:1,9gig D:291MB E:7,6gig F:228MB G:488MB H:1,2gig