-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Adding an IDE HD to a SCSI system
- Thread starter teejae
- Start date
PCResources
Banned
Yes it's true, but usually the SCSI LUN 0 will boot no matter what, however, installing an IDE drive can be quite problematic, so i suggest you go SCSI all the way.
I wonder why the heck you want to ruin a good setup by installing an IDE drive?? Even the worst kind of SCSI drive would be faster in this config.
Get another SCSI drive instead, avoid problems, get maximum speed out of your setup.
Patrick Palm
Am speaking for PC Resources
I wonder why the heck you want to ruin a good setup by installing an IDE drive?? Even the worst kind of SCSI drive would be faster in this config.
Get another SCSI drive instead, avoid problems, get maximum speed out of your setup.
Patrick Palm
Am speaking for PC Resources
PCResources
Banned
You already have a SCSI controller, surely you can get a low end SCSI disk for about the same price as a good IDE?? A low end SCSI disk would not slow down your system half as much as an IDE drive would.
I can only tell you that from my experience (a long and hard one) i would never recommend adding an IDE drive to a SCSI setup, but then again, if you are determined to do so, then why did you ask?
Patrick Palm
Am speaking for PC Resources
I can only tell you that from my experience (a long and hard one) i would never recommend adding an IDE drive to a SCSI setup, but then again, if you are determined to do so, then why did you ask?
Patrick Palm
Am speaking for PC Resources
The rearrangement of drive lettering in Windows 2000 is the only annoying but harmless problem I had with an IDE drive in a mostly SCSI system - Windows 98 was fine regarding drive lettering. Example: If there were just a SCSI and IDE drive, Windows 98 would assign a letter to the first SCSI drive (which the computer boots from) partition first, then the first IDE partition, then the remaining SCSI partitions, and the remaining IDE partitions. With Windows 2000, it would ignore the fact that the SCSI drive was the one booted with, and assign the first letters to the IDE drive, then the SCSI. I just found this to be annoying when trying to get Win2k and Win98 to share a single installation of a program (I ended up having to install them twice). I did try to use Windows 2000's drive re-lettering, but it refused to let me change the letters of certain partitions (one was the partition with Win2k on it, don't remember which others weren't allowed).
I have added IDE drives to SCSI systems & vice versa. I like what obenton said about making no primary partitions on the IDE that u wanna add. If u make a primary, IDE will drive letters b4 SCSI & may (will) change the drive letter of ur boot drive. Some prgms can have probs when they were installed to C: - think they're on C:, but become D:. If u make big extended part (can make multiple logical drives w/in that extended partition), that won't happen.
I have multiple IDE & SCSI drives - no probs. But can be prob whe adding drives that make drive letter of ur boot drive change .. have always had to reformat + re-install OS/apps.
I have multiple IDE & SCSI drives - no probs. But can be prob whe adding drives that make drive letter of ur boot drive change .. have always had to reformat + re-install OS/apps.
patrick- i asked because i wanted to know exactly what those conflicts YOU are referring to are...of course i am determined to add an IDE drive to my system...BUT that wasnt the point of this thread now is it....the POINT IS that i want to know what kind of CONFLICTS to expect and how to avoid them. SIMPLE AS THAT...i know that IDE degrades the performance of an all SCSI system...BUT this drive will ONLY be used as a storage drive....so price/capacity is more important to me than price/performance....since NO programs will have anything to do with this drive...performance WILL NOT degrade. i can't see how a program installed on the C drive can be affected by the performance of my IDE drive when that program is run totally through that SCSI C drive....
thanks to all the OTHER people who actually helped me....
BTW...maybe i shouldve put this from the start...but i got my IDE drive, installed it, and everything works fine...and just for you patrick...my performance is STILL THE SAME....its ONLY astorage drive...ok im done proving my point
thanks to all the OTHER people who actually helped me....
BTW...maybe i shouldve put this from the start...but i got my IDE drive, installed it, and everything works fine...and just for you patrick...my performance is STILL THE SAME....its ONLY astorage drive...ok im done proving my point
PCResources
Banned
<< BTW...maybe i shouldve put this from the start...but i got my IDE drive, installed it, and everything works fine...and just for you patrick...my performance is STILL THE SAME....its ONLY astorage drive...ok im done proving my point >>
Teejae, lighten up will you, i stated my opinion as a professional, i really do not care if you follow my advice or not, but my point WAS a valid ONE.
If you USE an IDE DRIVE for STORage, i would believe that you store your data on it. MAYBE you do not. BUT if YOU do so, then THERE will be some INTERACTION between THE drives in YOUR system, and IF the FILES you are STORING are BIG ones then an all SCSI interface would BE a better solution because you could open the files WITH less CPU interaction, this is NOT my OPINION, this is a FACT.
Patrick Palm
Am speaking for PC Resources
I appreciated this thread since I have an IDE/SCSI setup as well. I never knew about that extended partition thing, is it possible to convert an existing primary partition to an extended partition?
My drive letters in Win2k are messed up. I have 2 SCSI drives and 3 IDE drives. I installed WinME on SCSI ID 0 and Win2k SCSI ID 1, but Win2k somehow made the WinME drive F: and Win2k partition G:. While I don't have any conflicts this is confusing as hell because I don't know where anything is now. Is there anyway I can fix this without reinstalling Win2k?
Also Patrick, I'm sure everyone is aware of the performance hit you take when you use IDE with SCSI. I use IDE simply because it is so much cheaper. To get a similarly sized SCSI drive would cost so much more and it's simply ridiculous. IDE is very good for storage and I haven't noticed the performance hit too much, except when I am moving data > 600MB.
My drive letters in Win2k are messed up. I have 2 SCSI drives and 3 IDE drives. I installed WinME on SCSI ID 0 and Win2k SCSI ID 1, but Win2k somehow made the WinME drive F: and Win2k partition G:. While I don't have any conflicts this is confusing as hell because I don't know where anything is now. Is there anyway I can fix this without reinstalling Win2k?
Also Patrick, I'm sure everyone is aware of the performance hit you take when you use IDE with SCSI. I use IDE simply because it is so much cheaper. To get a similarly sized SCSI drive would cost so much more and it's simply ridiculous. IDE is very good for storage and I haven't noticed the performance hit too much, except when I am moving data > 600MB.
PCResources, your opinion as a professional is only valid when applied
in the appropriate context. Your first answer came across as one of
those knee-jerk reactions of the "SCSI uber alles" crowd. Your second
answer is little better because your statement cannot be taken as fact
when you still have to consider what is being put into the system:
The type of ATA controller vs. the type of SCSI controller
The types of hard drives used (ATA-33/66/100 vs SCSI-1/2/3)
and the relative performance of those drives
The quality of busmatering, DMA, cache and whatever outside factors
can affect drive interaction with the OS.
And, as you stated, the type and usage of files that are placed on
those drives.
All of these factors should be taken into account before any blanket statement
that SCSI is perforce better than an IDE/ATA solution.
I will agree that if you can afford it, you can build a SCSI rig that is
second to none. But I can also slap together some second hand SCSI-1 parts
and call myself having a "SCSI rig"; which would get blown away by the
first ATA-33 drive off the shelf - so ultimately YMMV.
in the appropriate context. Your first answer came across as one of
those knee-jerk reactions of the "SCSI uber alles" crowd. Your second
answer is little better because your statement cannot be taken as fact
when you still have to consider what is being put into the system:
The type of ATA controller vs. the type of SCSI controller
The types of hard drives used (ATA-33/66/100 vs SCSI-1/2/3)
and the relative performance of those drives
The quality of busmatering, DMA, cache and whatever outside factors
can affect drive interaction with the OS.
And, as you stated, the type and usage of files that are placed on
those drives.
All of these factors should be taken into account before any blanket statement
that SCSI is perforce better than an IDE/ATA solution.
I will agree that if you can afford it, you can build a SCSI rig that is
second to none. But I can also slap together some second hand SCSI-1 parts
and call myself having a "SCSI rig"; which would get blown away by the
first ATA-33 drive off the shelf - so ultimately YMMV.
Superbaby:
I think that Partition Magic (5.01 or the new 6.0) can convert
primary <-> extended partitions.
You should be able to run Drive Manager in Win2k to re-label the drives
as you please. I have not tried it on the actual partition that Win2k was
running from, so take that advice with a grain of salt.
In the Administrative Tools folder, select Computer Management -> Storage
-> Disk Management.
I think that Partition Magic (5.01 or the new 6.0) can convert
primary <-> extended partitions.
You should be able to run Drive Manager in Win2k to re-label the drives
as you please. I have not tried it on the actual partition that Win2k was
running from, so take that advice with a grain of salt.
In the Administrative Tools folder, select Computer Management -> Storage
-> Disk Management.
PCResources
Banned
<< PCResources, your opinion as a professional is only valid when applied in the appropriate context. Your first answer came across as one of those knee-jerk reactions of the "SCSI uber alles" crowd. Your second answer is little better because your statement cannot be taken as fact when you still have to consider what is being put into the system: >>
It doesnt't matter what setup you use, the fact i stated was: adding an IDE drive to an all SCSI system will cause more CPU interaction with HDD reads and writes as soon as you use the IDE drive, even if you only store your data on it. This will not change, even if you compare the worst SCSI parts availiable for sale to the best IDE parts the IDE setup will ALWAYS use more CPU power than an all SCSI setup.
For HDD performance, well, old SCSI setups might be slower than new IDE ones (at least the transfer rates), but such a comparison would be useless.
Patrick Palm
Am speaking for PC Resources
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
