Advice Needed - Want to add more Hard Drive space to my computer.

[craiganderson]

Here Is The Computer I have:

http://www.overstock.com/Electronics/CyberpowerPC-Gamer-Aqua-GLC2260-3.7GHz-Liquid-Cool-Gaming-Computer/8382388/product.html#more

 

Here are Current Specs:

Get legendary performance with the CYBERPOWERPC Gamer Aqua GLC2260 Desktop. This gaming powerhouse comes equipped with an Intel Ivy Bridge-E Core i7-4820K that is liquid cooled for maximum heat dissipation during intense gaming. It also features the lated NVIDIA GTX760 graphics card for stunning visuals. A 60GB SSD boot drive allows for lightning quick loading of Windows, and a 1TB HDD data drive provides plenty of storage. 
 

Operating system: Microsoft Windows 8.1 64-bit
Processor: 3.7GHz Intel Core i7 i7-4820K
Motherboard: Intel X79 Express
Memory: 16GB DDR3 SDRAM
Storage Controller: SATA III
Hard Drive I: 60GB - SATA III - SSD      <----------------
Hard Drive II: 1TB - SATA III - 7200 rpm  <--------------
Optical drive: 24x DVD±RW
Graphics Controller: NVIDIA GeForce GTX760 2GB Dedicated - PCI Express x 16
Digital Video Standard: 2 x DVI / HDMI / DisplayPort
Audio Output: Integrated  7.1 Channel High Definition Audio
Networking: Integrated - 10/100/1000 Ethernet
Expansion Bays (Total/Free): (5/4) External 5.25", (4/2) Internal 3.5"
Expansion Slots (Total/Free): (5/4) PCI Express x16, (1/1) PCI Express x1, (8/4) DIMM 240-pin
Interfaces: 2 x PS/2, 1 x Coaxial SPDIF-out, 1 x Optical SPDIF-out, 4 x USB 3.0 (2 Front, 2 Rear), 6 x USB 2.0 (6 Rear), 1 x Ethernet (RJ-45), 6 x Audio Jacks
Feature: Liquid Cooling System
Chassis: CYBERPOWERPC X-Saber Black / Red Mid-Tower Gaming Case
Power supply: 800 Watt - AC 120/230 V (50/60 Hz)
Included items: CyberpowerPC Gamer Aqua GLC2260, USB Gaming Keyboard, Mouse, Driver Discs, Power Cord
Dimensions: 17" x 7.6" x 19.75"
Weight: 35 lbs
Model: GLC2260

Question:

Any Recommendations?

(Money (within reason) is not really an issue (luckily))
(i am not a guy that messes with the inside of my computer very much...just fyi)

[ryuuji]

just get another sata3 hdd ... you most likely have a free power cable inside to connect it .. just need another sata cable (if does not come with the new hdd). It is pretty simple.

[craiganderson]

Thanks. If anybody has opinions on which drive give best bang for buck..please feel free to share. I have very little knowledge on this issue....but I know some folks keep "up to date" on quality/costs/deals etc. I do not expect anybody to go looking around for me...but if you happen to have an opinion already....I would love to hear it.

thanks

craig

[ryuuji]

Well as you know depending on the capacity of the drive price can got higher or lower ... WD Black series are considered one of the best for 2TB capacity

[relic]

just use the software that clones items and make it think its on that drive when clearly your just makeing it feel like its got shortcuts to the items you can use it on anything http://schinagl.priv.at/nt/hardlinkshellext/linkshellextension.html

[progets]

I agree with relic but personally use the command line to add symbolic links. This has many benefits but one of the best is that you can still use relative paths in HS and RL even though the files are really on a different hard drive.

 

mklink /d <link_name> <target_path>

[progets]

So it's easier to find, download, install and trust a program from the internet verses typing 20 characters? That's like saying it's easier to call AAA then to pop the trunk and change your flat tire. At the end of the day the same thing is getting done. In one case you were just too lazy to do it yourself and know it was done right.

 

I see your point based on the post. I also find that once someone uses an "easy" program for one thing they will do so again and again. This complicates their setup and troubleshooting. Also, a lot of programs constantly run in the background which can lead to slower performance.

[Undertow76]

As long as your Power supply is good, you can add as many as you want, i'd go Sata HDD it's much faster!

[progets]

To each their own but if you're building something for performance you don't add unnecessary things. The easy way is rarely the best way to do something. While you might strive for easy, I strive for performance.

[wesfranks]

I love hard drive questions. Most responses are so subjective that answers are usually all over the place. This thread appears to be following that trend but in a slightly confusing direction.

 

Responding to the "request for hard drive advice" portion of this post. Short answer is that I currently prefer HGST hard drives.

 

Long answer is that generally subjective hard drive recommendations are made in preference for the drives that have worked for you and hating the drive brands that have failed. Years ago (less than 500gb drive days) I preferred Western Digital. When I began to need multi-terabyte drives I switched to Seagate due to (TCO) total cost of ownership, also known as price per gigabyte. That approach worked great until after the tsunami hit the hard drive production plants in Thailand. The quality of Seagate drives seemed to drop off when they moved production to other countries and in my opinion have not recovered. That was also the time that I experienced my first hard drive failure. Luckily I had backups, but it led me to mistrust Seagate and to seek more objective reasoning for choosing a hard drive brand than simply TCO and a grudge due to the inevitability of a hard drive failure.

 

For my current objective standard for choosing a hard drive brand, enter MTBF (Mean Time Before Failure) and AFR (Annual Failure Rate). Granted I can't do the studies myself, but prior studies by server and backup companies can provide information to consider before making a decision. Their business is contingent on making good choices in purchasing massive numbers of hard drives per year and provide a larger sampling for a more accurate study. An earlier study was done by Google. More currently 2014 and 2015 quarterly studies were done and posted by Backblaze.com (a backup company) for around 40000 drives in service. Google "backblaze hard drive study" and you can look at the results and dissenting opinions.

 

My decision to switch to HGST was due to these studies as well as my own experience with Seagate.

 

First, as is industry standard, the several week old Seagate drive that failed was replaced with a refurbished drive. That kinda pissed me off. But OK.

 

Second, in researching the reasons for failure I found the following Seagate support quote, "Desktop drives are engineered to be powered on for up to 8 hours per day for 5 days per week while enterprise drives are designed for 24x7x365 power-on." This was on the support page for desktop drives, which due to TCO most people would be most likely to purchase. This quote can still be seen on their site- http://consumer.media.seagate.com/business/can-i-use-a-desktop-hard-drive-in-my-storage-array/ and http://www.seagate.com/files/www-content/product-content/_cross-product/en-us/docs/7200rpm-drive-spec-mb578-7-1201us.pdf , as well as on their drive listings for Amazon as "Power On Hours" (8x5 = 8 hours/day x 5 days/wk) or 2400 hours per year. I personally don't feel it unlikely to easily exceed the engineered drive run time limit of up to 8 hours much less 5 days a week. Granted I was well beyond this limit due to trying to get a large torrent to 1:1 status, but that is probably not unusual for most here. And God forbid I leave my desktop running 24/7. With the 2400 Power On Hours allowance per year, about 3 months later Seagate suggests that a hard drive failure is normal.

 

Third, hinted at in the above Seagate page and as stated on http://knowledge.seagate.com/articles/en_US/FAQ/174791en?language=en_US , Seagate discounts MTBF as an industry standard and instead solely embraces AFR (Annual Failure Rate) but with drive usage temperatures as a qualifying factor. They use this as a reason for their arguments against industry standards, but I think it also points to their attempt to boost reliability. Rather than use higher quality (more expensive) parts that would better withstand temperatures that any hard drive would be subjected to, they just reduce the drive RPMs on their desktop drives to reduce drive temps. If you look at the preferred drives now sold on say newegg, try to find a "non-enterprise" Seagate drive that runs at 7200 RPM, an industry standard for other brands of desktop drives. Slower RPMs mean lower temps, but also mean slower seek times especially with multi terabyte/multi-platter drives. And they still have complaints of failures. There are a couple of Seagate 7200 RPM drives, but they tend to be either less than 3 terabytes or solid state (SSHD) hybrid drives. Oh, and don't forget that in 3 months you can expect that drive to die. Well, maybe. Most of the other Seagate drives appear to hide or omit the 5400/5900 RPM in their descriptions. Now you see usage qualifiers such as "Backup", "Archive" or "Surveillance" drives which for Seagate-speak means 5400/5900 RPMs and longer allowed Power On Hours.

 

Conversely, try to find a Western Digital or HGST drive that is not at least 7200 RPM. As for HGST try to find a desktop drive that is not NAS rated. HGST also states the drives expected MTBF more proudly than others. Now I realize that this is probably exaggerated, but with that, the drive studies, and my experiences till now, that is what I based my opinion on. Hey you have to start somewhere.

 

P.S.- I realize that HGST is now owned by Western Digital. It seems they liked them also. Drive quality has not suffered so far.

[Avar]

Personally, I find a cheap and effective way of upping my storage capacity with painless simplicity that doesn't noticeably degrade performance is with these babies: http://www.mediasonic.ca/product.php?id=1357290761

 

I know some people have had issues with them in the past but I've got two 8-bays (only one is full right now) and three 4-bays with well over 100TB of combined storage and I've never had any issues in all the years I've been using them. I especially like that I can hotswap my drives anytime I need to without having to open my case and dick around with cables. I use Crystal Disk Info to monitor the state of the drives and RMA them if they ever drop below 100%.

 

As far as storage HDDs go, if I know it's only going to be for Film/Television and that I'll rarely, if ever, be doing large file transfers that I'm concerned about, I'll get a high grade Seagate drive. If I suspect I might be running programs off it or the like I get a Western Digital Black. You likely won't notice a practical difference unless the drive will specifically be accessing files constantly during operation of whatever you've got on it, like if you're keeping your HS media on it, or trying to run a flight simulator off it. In the end you just have to balance the speed:cost:warranty:size relationship such that you're comfortable with it. Lately, I'll spend the few extra bucks to get the slightly better drives but I've personally never been burned or lost data.