# External hardrive.



## Wreth (May 27, 2010)

Can an external hardrive be used for the hard drive requirements of software?


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (May 27, 2010)

Yes, just install the programme on it. You can't split it though, the required space must be all on one drive.


----------



## Nollix (May 27, 2010)

Why not?


----------



## Smelge (May 27, 2010)

Same reason you can't have two HDD's and split an installation over them. All the installations folders call from one base file location, for example - C:/program files/adobe/adobe crotchfuckerCS4

Every part of the Crotchfucker CS4 will be installed in that directory, which is on one HDD.


----------



## Nollix (May 27, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Same reason you can't have two HDD's and split an installation over them. All the installations folders call from one base file location, for example - C:/program files/adobe/adobe crotchfuckerCS4
> 
> Every part of the Crotchfucker CS4 will be installed in that directory, which is on one HDD.



I was responding to OP.


----------



## Runefox (May 27, 2010)

Tell the installer where to install and it'll take care of the rest. If you're thinking about carting the software around between computers, chances are that's not going to work without some modification (Windows Registry and profile-related stuff) - However, it'll certainly work for the computer you install it with. Do be sure that the drive letter for your external drive remains consistent, though.

As above, you can't split the install across multiple hard drives without NTFS junction points/etc on Windows or symlinks on *NIX.


----------



## carlodalid1 (May 29, 2010)

Do you mean can an external hard drive be used for exactly the same purposes as if it as installed internally in your tower? Yeah, its pretty much exactly the same thing, only the way its connected to your computer is different. As long as the drive is big enough you shouldn't have any problems. I've had encountered the same problem before and considered asking the experts. So the answer I'm giving you now much probably is coming from an expert.


----------



## Nollix (May 30, 2010)

Runefox said:


> As above, you can't split the install across multiple hard drives without NTFS junction points/etc on Windows or symlinks on *NIX.


RAID 1, even though it's not exactly the same.


----------



## Aden (May 30, 2010)

carlodalid1 said:


> Do you mean can an external hard drive be used for exactly the same purposes as if it as installed internally in your tower ?
> 
> Yea, its pretty much exactly the same thing, only the way its connected to your computer is different.
> 
> As long as the drive is big enough you shouldn't have any problems.



You don't want to use a drive connected via USB for your boot disk, though. Sloowwwwww. Get something with eSATA.


----------



## Runefox (May 30, 2010)

Nollix said:


> RAID 1, even though it's not exactly the same.



Well, yeah, but in that case (for the benefit of those unfamiliar) it's a perfect copy between two or more drives rather than splitting it between. RAID 0 or RAID 5 would both technically do something like that, but RAID 0 is suicidal for data longevity and RAID 5 is pretty intense on the other drives (and the chipset/CPU) if the array needs rebuilding, which could mean a cascade of failures, especially with larger (<750GB) drives.

Actually, there's precious few cases where RAID is really warranted nowadays... More trouble than it's worth except in the extreme such as in professional workstation or server usage, especially where dedicated RAID controllers exist. Motherboard-bound RAID is more or less a joke.


----------



## Nollix (May 31, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Well, yeah, but in that case (for the benefit of those unfamiliar) it's a perfect copy between two or more drives rather than splitting it between. RAID 0 or RAID 5 would both technically do something like that, but RAID 0 is suicidal for data longevity and RAID 5 is pretty intense on the other drives (and the chipset/CPU) if the array needs rebuilding, which could mean a cascade of failures, especially with larger (<750GB) drives.
> 
> Actually, there's precious few cases where RAID is really warranted nowadays... More trouble than it's worth except in the extreme such as in professional workstation or server usage, especially where dedicated RAID controllers exist. Motherboard-bound RAID is more or less a joke.



I don't get what he was saying. Did he want two drives to act as one contiguous drive? 
I disagree though that RAID isn't useful. Try setting up some SSDs in RAID 0, and see how fast games load. You're obviously right in saying the probability of all your data getting lost in RAID 0 is much higher, which is why you use an external drive to backup.


----------



## Runefox (Jun 1, 2010)

I'm not really saying it's not useful, I'm more saying that it's more trouble than it's worth.

As for what he was saying, I imagine it was more along the lines of installing a piece of software to another hard drive than Windows resides on.


----------

