New Secondary Hard Drive

Wow hard drives are cheaper than i expected.

Is a cheap £30 160g 7,200 RPM hard drive worth buying compared to a more expensive 80gig 5,200 RPM.

I am only going to use this drive for extra storage, and running a secondary OS (Linux), and i won't be doing anything extensive.

So is a cheapy £30 hard drive ok for this, or would a more expensive one be better?

Thanks!

(Note: Both are SATA).

You don`t give us much to go on. If they are both just bare drives and both the same physical size (2.5 or 3.5 inch), the 80gig is probably just old stock that`s still marked at the old price. The price of hard drives seems to always hover around the same area, but the size is constantly going up.

At any rate, I can get a Western Digital 160g (OEM, bare drive) locally for $50 Canadian (distributer price), so your price seems normal.

Well, without knowing the brands involved etc, it's hard to say much about the value difference between the two. In my exp. Seagate and Hitachi make fairly inexpensive hard drives that are reliable for everyday use. I do not recommend Fujitsu.

I would doubt that you really need a 7200 RPM hard drive for storage alone, if you aren't planning on "anything extensive". You could save a little bit of cash if you went with a 5400 RPM, but it's not going to be a large amount.

Yeah sorry for being poor or info, when i posted hadn't seen any particualary amazing ones.

Looking at this: http://www.shop.bt.com/productview.a...54,11,42240000

Single platter 320GB Seagate. 'nuff said

well, actually, the 750gb/1tb samsung spinpoints F1's have been praised for incredible performance. I read a review in which the only hdd better than the spinpoint is actually a 150gb raptor, but in some benchmarks it beat it, like in transferrate. Here's the link: http://tweakers.net/productreview/6106.
It is in dutch though, so I'll just tell you what the benchies are for, in the order that they are in the review:sequential transferrate, start; sequential transferrate, end; average read service time; the last four don't need translating. The review and benchmarks are done by somebody who has a homeserver.
Just thought of the fact that it's a 100 euros, 77 pounds at the store you're looking at, so I dunno if you'd want that. If your choice is between the two you'd mentioned, I'd go for the 7200rpm. It's faster, and bigger. But the samsung is just a little more than twice the price, but a lot more storage, so maybe you should look into it.

Seagate HDDs have gotten much louder than what they used to be. When I upgraded my hard drive from a 160GB 8MB cache 7200RPM drive, I went to a Western Digital 320GB 16MB cache 7200 RPM drive and it's whisper quiet.

While working as a PC technician I've seen a LOT of hard drives and had to replace too many to count. The top two I'd ever recommend are Western Digital and Seagate. With the one I recently acquired I've been more than happy with it and highly recommend it.

Here's the link:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822136074

I second the WD.

It, like the Seagate counterpart, are also single platter drives.
Low noise, vibration, heat, etc etc.

The Seagate is a bit more expensive than the WD, but it's essentially faster as well.
5 year warranty from Seagate? How can I lose!?

Seagate 320GB:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822148215

I bought a 160G 5400 RPM HD just a few months ago to supplement my old computer's outdated and very small original HD. Mainly it's just being used to store songs and stuff. If you plan on using it for just extra storage, then yeah go with the cheepy.

Hmmm... is it possible to RAID disks if they are diffrent (not in RPM, but in storage capacity etc).

Also can you raid if one disk is partitioned?

I am guessing the answer to either or both are no, however i thought it might be best to ask.

I know if you try to mirror raid two drives of different capacities, the raid drive will only give you the capacity of the lowest drive.

So one 320GB drive and one 500GB drive in raid 1 will yield 320GB + redundancy (so it's not all lost cause, riiight? )

Hmmm well its not that bad then, one would be 320 the other 250.

If i could partition one, and shave off that 70gig, would A the RAID work, and B, the partition work?