Got the new hard drive...

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Butch, Aug 28, 2003.

  1. Butch

    Butch Guest

    Hello Group,
    Well, I got the new hard drive last night
    AND went ahead and got a CD burner.
    I've just tried to install the burner, with no luck.
    I guess my HD is bad enough that it won't take installing anything else.
    Is it okay to set the CD player as master & the burner as slave?
    I figured I'd just leave the CD player on the IDE cable like
    it is and hook the burner up to the (secondary?) one in the middle.


    BTW... got an 80 G Western Digital for $87.99 @ Circuit City.

    I guess I'll do the HD install in the morning.
    Any last minute tips or thoughts on that?
    Thanks,
    Butch
     
    Butch, Aug 28, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Butch

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    "Butch" <> wrote in news::

    > I guess my HD is bad enough that it won't take installing anything else.


    Nonsense, a hard drive on a different channel (should) not have anything to
    do with this at all, no matter how bad it is.

    > Is it okay to set the CD player as master & the burner as slave?


    Yes. On my system here, a DVDROM is the master and the burner is the
    slave.

    > I figured I'd just leave the CD player on the IDE cable like
    > it is and hook the burner up to the (secondary?) one in the middle.


    The important thing is that you have the jumpers correct. One master and
    one slave per channel. Check your CD player is jumpered as a master if you
    are installing the burner as a slave. A lot of PC makers jumper the CD as
    a secondary slave with no master, and then you go and jumper a new drive as
    a slave and you have two slaves on the same channel.
     
    DeMoN LaG, Aug 28, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Butch

    Butch Guest

    DeMoN LaG wrote in message ...
    >"Butch" <> wrote in news::
    >
    >> I guess my HD is bad enough that it won't take installing anything else.

    >
    >Nonsense, a hard drive on a different channel (should) not have anything to
    >do with this at all, no matter how bad it is.


    What do you mean "a different channel"?
    My HD is failing... I posted the following here last week.

    Greetings to the group!
    I'm a new comer, needing help.
    Here's a bit on my computer ;
    Windows 98 (I'm probably going to install W-2000 on the new one)
    450 MHz
    256 mem
    20 gig HD (the new one is an 80 G)

    Lately, my computer has been running scan disc w/ surface scan every time I
    start it.
    On surface scan last time, it says I have around 200 bad sectors.
    As of yesterday, every time I try to open Netscape,
    I get a box that says "This program has performed an illegal operation and
    will be shut down..."

    It did this once before and a friend was able to fix it.
    My question is; When he fixed it before, I remember him getting a
    screen (not the same screen as in scan disc, I don't think, seems it was
    blue??) that asked him if he wanted to fix the files.
    He just kept hitting "fix" until it got to the end.
    My computer was fine after that.
    Can anyone tell me how to get there, or have any other suggestions,
    other than I need to up grade (I can't afford to at the moment).
    I know a lot of people say, you need to operate thru outlook/explorer, but
    Netscape has a few features that I like, and am use to.
    Any help would be much appreciated!
    Limping along,
    Butch


    >> Is it okay to set the CD player as master & the burner as slave?

    >
    >Yes. On my system here, a DVDROM is the master and the burner is the
    >slave.
    >
    >> I figured I'd just leave the CD player on the IDE cable like
    >> it is and hook the burner up to the (secondary?) one in the middle.

    >
    >The important thing is that you have the jumpers correct. One master and
    >one slave per channel. Check your CD player is jumpered as a master if you
    >are installing the burner as a slave. A lot of PC makers jumper the CD as
    >a secondary slave with no master, and then you go and jumper a new drive as
    >a slave and you have two slaves on the same channel.


    So I can just set both as slaves and connect them both on the same IDE
    cable?
    Thanks,
    Butch
     
    Butch, Aug 28, 2003
    #3
  4. Butch

    Peter D Guest

    Butch wrote in message <>...
    >Hello Group,
    >Well, I got the new hard drive last night
    >AND went ahead and got a CD burner.
    >I've just tried to install the burner, with no luck.
    >I guess my HD is bad enough that it won't take installing anything

    else.

    If you mean "it won't take installing anything else" _on the same (bad)
    HD_ then my repsonse would be (a) something more than just a bad HD is
    the problem, or (b) that HD must be really pooched!

    If you mean it wouldn't allow you to install the CD software on the new
    HD, then I disagree. The old HD has squat to do with allowing anything.
    Unless it contains the boot partition, it has no control over whatever
    else is on the system. If you copied the old HD to the new HD properly
    and exactly and the new HD boots bout doesn't allow you to install, then
    I suspect the copy is bad or the copy is good but the copied data is
    bad, or a myriad of possibilities.

    So, what do you mean? :)

    >Is it okay to set the CD player as master & the burner as slave?
    >I figured I'd just leave the CD player on the IDE cable like
    >it is and hook the burner up to the (secondary?) one in the middle.


    Yes, perfectly fine. It's preferable to keep similar devices on the same
    IDE cable, so two CD or DVD drives/burners is just right. Just don't mix
    HD and CD/DVD/Burner on the same cable.

    >BTW... got an 80 G Western Digital for $87.99 @ Circuit City.


    Sweet. :)

    >I guess I'll do the HD install in the morning.
    >Any last minute tips or thoughts on that?


    Ah, I should read all the way to the bottom before answering. :)

    So what you meant was it (the old HD) wouldn't allow the install of the
    burner software, yes?

    What exactly was the error you received?
     
    Peter D, Aug 28, 2003
    #4
  5. Butch

    Peter D Guest

    DeMoN LaG wrote in message ...
    >"Butch" <> wrote in

    news::
    >
    >> I guess my HD is bad enough that it won't take installing anything

    else.
    >
    >Nonsense, a hard drive on a different channel (should) not have

    anything to
    >do with this at all, no matter how bad it is.


    You made the same mistake I did. He hasn't installed the new HD yet.
    He's talking about the burner software AFAICT. Not very clear though.

    >> Is it okay to set the CD player as master & the burner as slave?

    >
    >Yes. On my system here, a DVDROM is the master and the burner is the
    >slave.
    >
    >> I figured I'd just leave the CD player on the IDE cable like
    >> it is and hook the burner up to the (secondary?) one in the middle.

    >
    >The important thing is that you have the jumpers correct. One master

    and
    >one slave per channel.


    Good advice so far.

    >Check your CD player is jumpered as a master if you are installing the

    burner as a slave.

    If it's already on the cable and it's the only device (and it's not
    using CSEL) then it is jumpered as Master. More important that he jumper
    the new (burner) as Slave. Checking the existing CD player is jumpered
    as Master wouldn't hurt though.

    >A lot of PC makers jumper the CD as
    >a secondary slave with no master, and then you go and jumper a new

    drive as
    >a slave and you have two slaves on the same channel.


    Huh? Which PC manufacturers do this? Never heard of it or seen it -- but
    I'm willing to learn.
     
    Peter D, Aug 28, 2003
    #5
  6. Butch

    Night_Seer Guest

    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.

    --
    Night_Seer

    "Butch" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello Group,
    > Well, I got the new hard drive last night
    > AND went ahead and got a CD burner.
    > I've just tried to install the burner, with no luck.
    > I guess my HD is bad enough that it won't take installing anything else.
    > Is it okay to set the CD player as master & the burner as slave?
    > I figured I'd just leave the CD player on the IDE cable like
    > it is and hook the burner up to the (secondary?) one in the middle.
    >
    >
    > BTW... got an 80 G Western Digital for $87.99 @ Circuit City.
    >
    > I guess I'll do the HD install in the morning.
    > Any last minute tips or thoughts on that?
    > Thanks,
    > Butch
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    Night_Seer, Aug 28, 2003
    #6
  7. Butch

    Peter D Guest

    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
     
    Peter D, Aug 28, 2003
    #7
  8. Peter D wrote:
    > DeMoN LaG wrote in message ...
    >
    >>A lot of PC makers jumper the CD as
    >>a secondary slave with no master, and then you go and jumper a new drive as
    >>a slave and you have two slaves on the same channel.

    >
    >
    > Huh? Which PC manufacturers do this? Never heard of it or seen it -- but
    > I'm willing to learn.
    >
    >

    Don't remember which manufacturers, but I used to see it before it
    became common for PC's to boot from CD. Naturally they won't boot from a
    CD jumpered as slave so once that became common the CD drives started
    being jumpered as Master. Before that I did see them jumpered as slave.
    Not sure why-if there's only one device on the cable & it's not a boot
    device then I don't believe it matters how it's jumpered. (At least IIRC
    it didn't used to matter-things change constantly & it's been several
    years since I last saw this jumper setup.)
     
    Calvin Crumrine, Aug 28, 2003
    #8
  9. Butch

    Night_Seer Guest

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

    --
    Night_Seer
    "Peter D" <> wrote in message
    news:Vrp3b.857232$...
    > 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
    >
    >
     
    Night_Seer, Aug 28, 2003
    #9
  10. Butch

    Butch Guest

    Peter D - Got the new hard drive...

    Greetings Peter D,
    Please email me at
    I'll give you the details on the HD and would like to ask a few ???s.
    Thanks,
    Butch

    Peter D wrote in message ...
    >Butch wrote in message <>...
    >
    >>BTW... got an 80 G Western Digital for $87.99 @ Circuit City.

    >
    >What model HD was it? Seems like a good deal and I'd like to check it
    >out.
    >THanks.
    >
    >
     
    Butch, Aug 28, 2003
    #10
  11. Butch

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    "Peter D" <> 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.
     
    DeMoN LaG, Aug 28, 2003
    #11
  12. Butch

    Peter D Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    >news:Vrp3b.857232$...
    >> 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
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Peter D, Aug 28, 2003
    #12
  13. Butch

    Peter D Guest

    DeMoN LaG wrote in message ...
    >"Peter D" <> 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. :)
     
    Peter D, Aug 29, 2003
    #13
  14. Butch

    Night_Seer Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:kOv3b.858712$...
    > 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" <> wrote in message
    > >news:Vrp3b.857232$...
    > >> 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
    > >>
    > >>

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Night_Seer, Aug 29, 2003
    #14
  15. Butch

    Night_Seer Guest

    "Peter D" <> wrote in message
    news:RSv3b.54311$...
    > DeMoN LaG wrote in message ...
    > >"Peter D" <> wrote in news:Vrp3b.857232$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
     
    Night_Seer, Aug 29, 2003
    #15
  16. In article <RSv3b.54311$>,
    Peter D <> 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
    :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.

    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
     
    Walter Roberson, Aug 29, 2003
    #16
  17. Butch

    jackfish Guest


    > >
    > >> 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
     
    jackfish, Aug 29, 2003
    #17
  18. Butch

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    jackfish <> 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.
     
    DeMoN LaG, Aug 29, 2003
    #18
  19. Butch

    Hoser Guest

    "Ingme" <> wrote in
    news:ZEx3b.54667$:

    >
    > 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/ide/conf_Performance.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/ide/conf_Recommendations.htm
     
    Hoser, Aug 29, 2003
    #19
  20. Butch

    Peter D Guest

    Walter Roberson wrote in message ...
    >In article <RSv3b.54311$>,
    >Peter D <> 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
    >: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.
    >
    >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
     
    Peter D, Aug 29, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Nate
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,176
    Ed Mullen
    Feb 21, 2004
  2. Anthropy
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,167
    Anthropy
    Feb 24, 2004
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,297
  4. hi2u
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,047
    philo
    Jul 30, 2007
  5. Hated
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    684
    G. Morgan
    Oct 8, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page