[G4] HD size vs. performance

[John Baltutis]

On 09/14/06, jim carbone <dictator at rebargraphics.com> wrote:
>
> I have a MDD Dual 1.25 2/ 2GB RAM running 10.4.7. I have a full boat
> of HDs in the case of various sizes. (2 160GB, a 120GB, and a 60GB--
> all 7200rpm) as well as several firewire 400 and 800 HDs that I add
> and remove as needed depending on the task. Up until yesterday, I had
> my OS running on the original 60GB that came with the machine, but
> every now and then I get into the office in the morning to hear the
> machine doing a little "click-click-squeak click-click-squeak" dance.
> So, in fear of losing the drive, I shuffled things around and cloned
> it to the 160GB, which is now my startup.
>
> I notice that it's a huge speed difference now. Apps like Word and
> Photoshop which used to open slowly, now pop open super-fast.  My
> question is: Is this a function of the fact that it was cloned to a
> new drive (almost like a major defrag) or is it because of the
> massive amount of free space on the drive? I feel like 160GB is gross
> overkill for the 28GB my OS drive uses (I have my iTunes and iPhoto
> libraries on other HDs).
>
> Naturally, this is a question of curiosity. If it's running so much
> faster, I'm not rushing to change anything. But if I could get the
> same oh-so-fresh feeling from cloning it to one of the smaller HDs,
> the 160GB would be better used as backup/scratch disk space.

More than likely, the 60 GB HD is failing/failed. Replace it, partition the new
one (40-50 GB for the boot volume), clone the 160 GB boot volume to it, boot
into it, partition the 160 GB, and reclone back. This gives you multiple
volumes and a bootable backup.