If you put a Ultra 133 hard drive on the same IDE cable as a slower hard drive, would the slower hard drive affect the performance of the faster one?
Thanks.
Thanks.
Fast hard drive and slow hard drive on same IDE connection.
- Thread starter sswany
- Start date
Nope, you can mix different ata speed drives, but in general you do not want two hard drives on the same channel because only one drive can be accessed at a time, and two hard drives makes for a busy channel.
You should always configure a Faster drive on an EIDE channel as the MASTER, and the Slower as the SLAVE.
(example: a 5400-rpm hard drive and 7200-rpm drive, set the 7200 rpm drive jumpers to make it the master).
When running a CD-RW or rewritable-DVD drive on a secondary channel with a read-only optical drive,
the rewritable drive should be set to Master to be able to create disks reliably.
Its also a good idea to avoid installing a hard drive on the same channel with a slower optical drive,
because it will limit the hard drive's performance.
(example: a 5400-rpm hard drive and 7200-rpm drive, set the 7200 rpm drive jumpers to make it the master).
When running a CD-RW or rewritable-DVD drive on a secondary channel with a read-only optical drive,
the rewritable drive should be set to Master to be able to create disks reliably.
Its also a good idea to avoid installing a hard drive on the same channel with a slower optical drive,
because it will limit the hard drive's performance.
I hope you don't mind me butting into the thread, but this is a continuation of the same subject. You all don't seem to leave many options. I have two HD's on IDE 1, both Ultra 133, 7200 RPM. On IDE 2 I have a DVD/CDROM. Although only one drive can be accessed at a time, are you saying that IDE one is busier because of the second HD? Is it better to move my slave to IDE 2? How would it be jumpered? Thanks.
Helpmeout, since you have three drives, it would be best to set it up this way
Primary IDE master, main hard drive (with os and such)
primary ide slave (nothing)
Secondary ide master, other hard drive
secondary ide master, dvd
basically, you want your os drive (the one that is used the most) to be all by itself.
Primary IDE master, main hard drive (with os and such)
primary ide slave (nothing)
Secondary ide master, other hard drive
secondary ide master, dvd
basically, you want your os drive (the one that is used the most) to be all by itself.
On Secondary IDE channel, you have listed both the HD and DVD as master. I think you meant the DVd should be slave.
Okay, so in THIS sceanrio, what would you go with? 2 hard drives (My faster is the master), CD/RW drive and DVD-Rom drive on secondary IDE channel.
Would you just not run dual hard drives? Why? (I'm gonna leave what I have as it is, but I'm curious as to your reasonings for your recommendations)
It really depends current setup and how you are using the drives.
If you are doing a lot of I/O intensive work on the hard drives
(ie. copying files to each other, open shared files), it is better
to have the drives on seperate IDE channels.
Generally the optical drive is placed on the secondary channel to
help with I/O function. Having the hard drive and optical on the
same channel and trying to copy a file to the hard drive from the
optical requires;
1) the optical reads the data into its buffer
2) requests the I/O to write to the hard drive buffer
3) writes to the buffer
4) empty its buffer
5) waits until hard drive empties its buffer
6) repeats process once hard drive I/O completes
which slows down hard drive performance.
on seperate channels
step 5 is eliminated as the slower optical will always lag behind the hard drive.
With hard drives on the same channel, provided they are the same speed/buffer size,
it would be hard to saturate the IDE channels bandwidth.
If you are doing a lot of I/O intensive work on the hard drives
(ie. copying files to each other, open shared files), it is better
to have the drives on seperate IDE channels.
Generally the optical drive is placed on the secondary channel to
help with I/O function. Having the hard drive and optical on the
same channel and trying to copy a file to the hard drive from the
optical requires;
1) the optical reads the data into its buffer
2) requests the I/O to write to the hard drive buffer
3) writes to the buffer
4) empty its buffer
5) waits until hard drive empties its buffer
6) repeats process once hard drive I/O completes
which slows down hard drive performance.
on seperate channels
step 5 is eliminated as the slower optical will always lag behind the hard drive.
With hard drives on the same channel, provided they are the same speed/buffer size,
it would be hard to saturate the IDE channels bandwidth.
My recent experience on this topic - I had a system with an hd and a CDRW and DVDRW drive. I wanted to add a spare 40 gb hd and I put it on the same channel as the original hd and it really slowed stuff down. I then switched it to a hd/optical drive on each channel and now everything flies. Even when burning from the hd to the optical drive on the same channel, it doesn't really seem to be a problem.
This was from the advice I got on this forum - http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=27&threadid=1272672&FTVAR_MSGDBTABLE=
Matt
This was from the advice I got on this forum - http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=27&threadid=1272672&FTVAR_MSGDBTABLE=
Matt
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter