Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Information > Got the new hard drive...

Reply
Thread Tools

Got the new hard drive...

 
 
DeMoN LaG
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-28-2003
"Peter D" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:Vrp3b.857232$ro6.17046486
@news2.calgary.shaw.ca:

> THe HD's performance would be significantly impacted by
> pairing it with a player or burner, so it goes by itself.


This is not true at all for any motherboard chipset made in the past 5 or 6
years.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Peter D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-28-2003
Night_Seer > wrote in message ...
>I usually put the HD with the player, and put the burner as master on

the
>second IDE, then put any extra hd on the slave of ide 2.


Not really a good idea. Unless the HDs are really slow and the
CD/Burners are really fast, you're paying a significant performance
penalty to cover off the occasional CD duplication at slightly faster
speeds.

> But right now I
>have a RAID config, so I have no worries about IDE 1 or 2...


>"Peter D" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:Vrp3b.857232$(E-Mail Removed) .ca...
>> Night_Seer > wrote in message ...
>> >You get slower performance (or none at all) for burning from cd to

cd
>> if you
>> >have them ont he same IDE. The best set-up would be to have them on
>> >separate IDE channels, but sometimes this isn't possible. You can

do
>> it
>> >that way, but keep in mind that your CD to CD burning will be

hampered.
>>
>> Not on most faster systems. While it's true that CD to CD copying is
>> impacted by using two drives on the same cable, on a decently tunes
>> system properly configured to anticipate such an eventuality, it

doesn't
>> really matter. For example, I use a 128M Win98 Duron 800 with a 40X
>> burner and a 16X DVD to copy from DVD to Burner at up to 24X without

a
>> problem, 8X when doing other things on it.
>>
>> It's all a trade-off. If you have two IDE cables each with two
>> connectors and you have a CD or DVD player and a CD Burner and a Hard
>> Drive, you have to put two devices on one cable. The only quesiton is
>> which two. THe HD's performance would be significantly impacted by
>> pairing it with a player or burner, so it goes by itself. Therefore

the
>> player and the burner must go together.
>> HTH
>>
>>

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Peter D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-28-2003
DeMoN LaG wrote in message ...
>"Peter D" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:Vrp3b.857232$ro6.17046486
>@news2.calgary.shaw.ca:
>
>> THe HD's performance would be significantly impacted by
>> pairing it with a player or burner, so it goes by itself.

>
>This is not true at all for any motherboard chipset made in the past 5

or 6
>years.


It is absolutely true of any system, newer chipset or not!

The performance hit is caused by the IDE channel (Primary or Secondary,
doesn't matter) running at the speed fo the slowest device. CD/DVD
players/burners are most often slower than HDs. Therefore an IDE channel
with a fast HD will run same faster if no slower device is on the other
port. If you mix a fast HD and a slow CD player, the HD's performance
will be significantly impacted by the resulting slowdown in speed of the
channel.

This ain't Rocket Science, you know.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Night_Seer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-28-2003
I use that CD drive often enough to make it a master, where as the hard
drive is rarely used...mostly for documents, where performance isn't a
factor (actually its a DVD burner, where performance is very necessary.)

--
Night_Seer
"Peter D" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:kOv3b.858712$(E-Mail Removed). ca...
> Night_Seer > wrote in message ...
> >I usually put the HD with the player, and put the burner as master on

> the
> >second IDE, then put any extra hd on the slave of ide 2.

>
> Not really a good idea. Unless the HDs are really slow and the
> CD/Burners are really fast, you're paying a significant performance
> penalty to cover off the occasional CD duplication at slightly faster
> speeds.
>
> > But right now I
> >have a RAID config, so I have no worries about IDE 1 or 2...

>
> >"Peter D" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >news:Vrp3b.857232$(E-Mail Removed) .ca...
> >> Night_Seer > wrote in message ...
> >> >You get slower performance (or none at all) for burning from cd to

> cd
> >> if you
> >> >have them ont he same IDE. The best set-up would be to have them on
> >> >separate IDE channels, but sometimes this isn't possible. You can

> do
> >> it
> >> >that way, but keep in mind that your CD to CD burning will be

> hampered.
> >>
> >> Not on most faster systems. While it's true that CD to CD copying is
> >> impacted by using two drives on the same cable, on a decently tunes
> >> system properly configured to anticipate such an eventuality, it

> doesn't
> >> really matter. For example, I use a 128M Win98 Duron 800 with a 40X
> >> burner and a 16X DVD to copy from DVD to Burner at up to 24X without

> a
> >> problem, 8X when doing other things on it.
> >>
> >> It's all a trade-off. If you have two IDE cables each with two
> >> connectors and you have a CD or DVD player and a CD Burner and a Hard
> >> Drive, you have to put two devices on one cable. The only quesiton is
> >> which two. THe HD's performance would be significantly impacted by
> >> pairing it with a player or burner, so it goes by itself. Therefore

> the
> >> player and the burner must go together.
> >> HTH
> >>
> >>

> >
> >

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Night_Seer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-28-2003
"Peter D" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:RSv3b.54311$(E-Mail Removed). ..
> DeMoN LaG wrote in message ...
> >"Peter D" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:Vrp3b.857232$ro6.17046486
> >@news2.calgary.shaw.ca:
> >
> >> THe HD's performance would be significantly impacted by
> >> pairing it with a player or burner, so it goes by itself.

> >
> >This is not true at all for any motherboard chipset made in the past 5

> or 6
> >years.

>
> It is absolutely true of any system, newer chipset or not!
>
> The performance hit is caused by the IDE channel (Primary or Secondary,
> doesn't matter) running at the speed fo the slowest device. CD/DVD
> players/burners are most often slower than HDs. Therefore an IDE channel
> with a fast HD will run same faster if no slower device is on the other
> port. If you mix a fast HD and a slow CD player, the HD's performance
> will be significantly impacted by the resulting slowdown in speed of the
> channel.
>
> This ain't Rocket Science, you know.
>
>

I don't really think that's true, but I'm not really sure. The only time
either is affected is when you use both at once...then there is a
performance hit...but I could be wrong...show me some web pages or something
to explain.

--
Night_Seer


 
Reply With Quote
 
Walter Roberson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2003
In article <RSv3b.54311$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Peter D <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:The performance hit is caused by the IDE channel (Primary or Secondary,
:doesn't matter) running at the speed fo the slowest device. CD/DVD
layers/burners are most often slower than HDs. Therefore an IDE channel
:with a fast HD will run same faster if no slower device is on the other
ort. If you mix a fast HD and a slow CD player, the HD's performance
:will be significantly impacted by the resulting slowdown in speed of the
:channel.

I am unfamiliar with the details of IDE, so I do not know the accuracy
of this information with respect to IDE.

There is, though, a long-standing myth exactly along these lines having
to do with SCSI, which was often trotted out to "prove" that IDE was
better than SCSI. In SCSI, certain bus arbitration phases run at a
fixed speed, but once the bus arbitration is past, all the data phases
run at the highest speed shared between the controller and the active
device. The bus arbitratation time for SCSI is not long compared to
even the shortest SCSI command, and is more or less negligable compared
to a data sector transfer.

The main effect of running at different rates on a SCSI bus is due to
the fact that the slowest device just takes proportionally more time to
transfer data. If you alternate reading blocks between a device and
another device that is N times as fast, your average performance is
just 2N/(N+1) times faster. If you had a very old 5 Mbit SCSI 1 narrow
device, and a new 160 Mbit SCSI III Wide Fast device and you were
alternating sectors, your performance is only going to be 64/33 times
as fast as the slow device... about 9.7 Mbit/s. And that's just due to
bus hold times, with the faster device giving the full performance it
is capable of.

--
"No one has the right to destroy another person's belief by
demanding empirical evidence." -- Ann Landers
 
Reply With Quote
 
jackfish
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2003

> >
> >> THe HD's performance would be significantly impacted by
> >> pairing it with a player or burner, so it goes by itself.

> >
> >This is not true at all for any motherboard chipset made in the past 5

> or 6
> >years.

>
> It is absolutely true of any system, newer chipset or not!
>
> The performance hit is caused by the IDE channel (Primary or Secondary,
> doesn't matter) running at the speed fo the slowest device. CD/DVD
> players/burners are most often slower than HDs. Therefore an IDE channel
> with a fast HD will run same faster if no slower device is on the other
> port. If you mix a fast HD and a slow CD player, the HD's performance
> will be significantly impacted by the resulting slowdown in speed of the
> channel.
>
> This ain't Rocket Science, you know.
>
>


Since there's some folks who know what they're talking about on this
thread, I have a question.

I have a Gigabyte GA-VAX7P board with additional ide channels 3 and 4.
Can I put one device on each channel, all as masters? Four devices, one
per cable? Say a hd and three cds. Or are the other channels only for
raid use?

jf
 
Reply With Quote
 
DeMoN LaG
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2003
jackfish <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:jackfish-4EB69E.22553328082003
@news.mts.net:

> I have a Gigabyte GA-VAX7P board with additional ide channels 3 and 4.
> Can I put one device on each channel, all as masters? Four devices, one
> per cable? Say a hd and three cds. Or are the other channels only for
> raid use?
>


The RAID channels should only be used for hard drives. At least, that was
the case two years ago when I got an Abit K7T RAID motherboard. The manual
explicitly states "Do not use IDE3 or IDE4 for devices other than hard disk
drives". Theoretically though, it should work fine. I don't see why you'd
want to do that though. You'd need 4 cables instead of 2, and gain nothing
over having 2 masters and two slaves.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Hoser
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2003
"Ingme" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:ZEx3b.54667$(E-Mail Removed):

>
> The newer chipsets (well actually the newer IDE controllers) come with
> "Independent Device Timing" which will allow two devices of different
> transfer modes on one channel without "running at the speed of the slower
> device". Certain optical drives still suffer from non-DMA modes which could
> cause a performance hit, but not like it used to be with older
> chipsets/controllers.
>
> start here...
> http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/if/ide/conf_Timing.htm
>


He he, and they contradict that here :
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/if/id...erformance.htm

Hard Disk and ATAPI Device Channel Sharing: There are several reasons why
optical drives (or other ATAPI devices) should not be shared on the same
channel as a fast hard disk. ATAPI allows the use of the same physical
channels as IDE/ATA, but it is not the same protocol; ATAPI uses a much more
complicated command structure. Opticals are also generally much slower
devices than hard disks, so they can slow a hard disk down when sharing a
channel. Finally, some ATAPI devices cannot deal with DMA bus mastering
drivers, and will cause a problem if you try to enable bus mastering for a
hard disk on a channel they are using.

See here for PCguides recommendations on installing more than one drive:
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/if/id...mendations.htm
 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2003
Walter Roberson wrote in message ...
>In article <RSv3b.54311$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>Peter D <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>:The performance hit is caused by the IDE channel (Primary or

Secondary,
>:doesn't matter) running at the speed fo the slowest device. CD/DVD
>layers/burners are most often slower than HDs. Therefore an IDE

channel
>:with a fast HD will run same faster if no slower device is on the

other
>ort. If you mix a fast HD and a slow CD player, the HD's performance
>:will be significantly impacted by the resulting slowdown in speed of

the
>:channel.
>
>I am unfamiliar with the details of IDE, so I do not know the accuracy
>of this information with respect to IDE.
>
>There is, though, a long-standing myth exactly along these lines having
>to do with SCSI, which was often trotted out to "prove" that IDE was
>better than SCSI. In SCSI, certain bus arbitration phases run at a
>fixed speed, but once the bus arbitration is past, all the data phases
>run at the highest speed shared between the controller and the active
>device. The bus arbitratation time for SCSI is not long compared to
>even the shortest SCSI command, and is more or less negligable compared
>to a data sector transfer.


Yes, I've heard that myth about SCSI. It's false. Well, maybe better,
true only in the sense that it's academic and doesn't actually make any
difference in the real world

>The main effect of running at different rates on a SCSI bus is due to
>the fact that the slowest device just takes proportionally more time to
>transfer data. If you alternate reading blocks between a device and
>another device that is N times as fast, your average performance is
>just 2N/(N+1) times faster. If you had a very old 5 Mbit SCSI 1 narrow
>device, and a new 160 Mbit SCSI III Wide Fast device and you were
>alternating sectors, your performance is only going to be 64/33 times
>as fast as the slow device... about 9.7 Mbit/s. And that's just due to
>bus hold times, with the faster device giving the full performance it
>is capable of.
>
>--
> "No one has the right to destroy another person's belief by
> demanding empirical evidence." -- Ann Landers



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
XP Install Issues. Install on old hard drive & new hard drive keepson looping. Hated Computer Support 8 10-08-2010 05:34 PM
Got a virus, can't get rid of it, cant format hard-drive! Adam Chapman Computer Support 7 07-10-2007 11:04 AM
If you Got Questions? I bet We got Answers Leisure.201@gmail.com Javascript 1 04-28-2007 11:04 PM
Panasonic New FZ20-Anyone got it yet? How do you like it? Looking hard at getting one!<<<TIA>>> blkphlover2001@yahoo.com Digital Photography 4 09-20-2004 09:27 PM
Moving Mozilla files from old hard drive to new hard drive Nate Firefox 1 02-21-2004 09:09 PM



Advertisments