Hard drive/CD drive setups...which is best?

[stuman74]

Hello,

I have a question. Currently, I have a 27GB Hard drive as the primary on IDE1 and two CD drives (DVD and CDRW) as primary and secondary (respectively) on IDE2. My 27GB drive is broken up into four partitions so it looks liek I have 4 hard drives and 2 CD drives (C, D, E, F, G, H).

I want more hard drive space. Is it more efficient to replace my 27GB drive with a larger one (45GB desired) and have basically the same kind of setup OR get a second hard drive (15GB desired)?

If I get a second hard drive, which of the two configurations is better?

Config A:
IDE1 Primary - 27GB
IDE1 Secondary - 15GB
IDE2 Primary - DVD
IDE2 Secondary - CDRW

Config B:
IDE1 Primary - 27GB
IDE1 Secondary - DVD
IDE2 Primary - 15GB
IDE2 Secondary - CDRW

It jsut seems that sometimes in my current setup that sicne I have all 4 partitioned drives on the same IDE channel, it is pretty slow copying files drive to drive. Is that expected?

Please let me know which of the three configs is best or any other suggestions.

Thanks!
Dan

 

[Angrymarshmello]

Config A - thats pretty much what I use now - I dont really feel any transfer problem slowdowns (especially considering one drive is only 5400 RPM) with 4 partitions on one ide channel

 

[Henry Kuo]

I would say get another hdd. You still have one IDE channel available. there is no need to throw that 27G again (well, if you do throw it away, i can give you an address )

And whether configuration A or B depends on what you do. Config B is actually good if you do a lot of hdd to hdd transfer. I am not saying copying files within the 27G hdd. If you put the 27G as master in IDE0, and the other drive in IDE1, transferring files will actually be faster.

On the other hand if you don't do that often, might be a good idea to leave all the hdd on IDE0.

 

[Ulysses]

The principle Rominil was getting at is the traditional view. You want to put drives that will be 'talking' to each other a lot on different channels (it doesn't matter in this respect whether they're master or slave). Then the 'talk' will be faster.

I have seen some tests (I can't find where ) that show it makes no significant difference, though. And my own simple tests show the same. Do your own tests if you have the time or go the traditional route to be conservative.

As far as drives go I'd say get a 45 GB, since it looks like you want a lot of space. The new IBM Deskstar 75GXP's with 15 GD platters look sexy.

 

[Dug]

If I remember correctly, doesn't putting a hd on as a slave slow it down? I have a Maxtor 30g as my master. When I put on my 18g WD as a slave, it seemed like it slowed down my Maxtor. I didn't run any tests, but it seemed slower.

 

[stuman74]

Lots of good responses in here! I think I had heard that a drive may slow down if the other drive that it is chained to on the same channed is a slower speed, though I am not positive about this.

I should have called the first scenario of the three (swapping for a 45GB drive) Config C.

As far as what I do most often, I probably do drive to drive file transfer as often as I burn CD's. When I burn a disc, since IDE, I never go straight from DVD drive to CDRW drive. I always copy it to the HDD and then to the CDRW. Maybe then if I go to a FOUR drive system, I should do:

Config D:
IDE1 Primary - 15GB
IDE1 Secondary - CDRW
IDE2 Primary - 27GB
IDE2 Secondary - DVD

The DVD drive is the one that I primarily use for installing software or playing games or listening to music. Under this setup, provided that my temp directory when copying to the CDRW drive is on the 27GB drive (IDE2 Primary), my CD creating goes through separate IDE channels, program installation goes through separate channels, and HDD to HDD copying is separate too.

But if performance takes a hit when you have a slower (CD) drive tied to a HDD, then this woul not be optimal.

Please carry on with your suggestions.
Thanks!

 

[stuman74]

ttt

 

[Kjazlaw]

i had the setup you are referring to (D) for a while - pretty good performance, i would recommend that setup over the hassle of selling your old drive and getting a larger one. you would have to reinstall, reconfigure, yadda yadda yadda. not worth it in my book. and i didn't notice any performance hits, either. (i think i would notice if my hd was running in pio mode!)

 

[Sir Fredrick]

The problem with having two drives on the same channel is that the bandwidth available for each is cut in half - whether or not the other drive is using it. That's an advantage of SCSI over IDE. You should see the best performance from a drive when it's the only device on a channel.

 

[pdo]

Dou you really need more space right now? If I were you I would save up some buck get a another identical drive and a PromiseUltra66 modded to a Fastrak66 and you have 54 gig to play with. It'll probably run you about $200. So eat some Ramen for a month.

 

[stuman74]

How much faster is it really with a RAID controller like that?

 

[LXi]

I think configuration B, not only does it allow your hard drives to have the performance priority, it also allows you to directly make CD copies DVD to CD-RW(its not very good if they're both on the same channel).

 

[stuman74]

Hmmm...this IDE RAID is interesting too. Let's say I also get a Fasttrak66 controller. From what I understand, the two RAIDed drives must be identical. I would then hook the two hard drives to the fasttrak66 and then the two CD drives to my mobo on separate IDE channels each as a primary?

Maybe then I should get another identical WD273BA drive (though that is a TON of space) or sell it and get two 15GB IBM 75GXP drives.

 

[stuman74]

Can a 15GB and a 30GB drive be RAIDed together?

 

[pdo]

here's a good read on RAID setup for you. All your answer will be answered.

http://www.emscomputing.com/news/news03292000.html

 

[stuman74]

Well, Thanks for the info. I ordered two IBM Deskstar 75gxp 15.3 gb drives and the Promise Fasttrak100 controller. Can't wait to get it and test it out!