HDD Performance Question

[Maximus1]

Pretty straightforward question...
I was wondering if there would be any problem with performance if you put a 5400rpm drive as a slave to a 7200rpm master on the same ide channel.
I have a BXMaster with the Promise chip on board so it would be a ATA66 IDE Channel. I'm trying to cut down on the amount of cables running in my system, so I was hoping that slaving my 5400rpm backup would not hurt the performance of my 7200rpm 75GXP. The second ATA66 channel is available so if there is a performance issue at stake here, I will just set up the 5400rpm as a master on that channel. Thanks for any advice.

 

[Electric Amish]

No it won't hurt the performance of your 7200 drive, unless you are transferring between the two drives a lot.

Having slaved devices on IDE channels does not hinder performance of either device. The system just won't allow you to access both devices on a channel at the same time.

amish

 

[Henry Kuo]

NO, there shouldn't be and performance degrade in the 7200 rpm drive. Putting a slave drive won't slow down the master, just that you can't access both drive at the same time.

 

[Maximus1]

Thanks for the quick replies.....
If I understand your posts correctly, would this mean I cannot transfer any files directly from the 7200rpm to the 5400rpm? Or would the transfer just be pretty slow? Sorry if I'm being a little thick headed here, it's been a long day....

 

[Ulysses]

Electric Amish has related the conventional wisdom on this topic.

Certainly the drive's individual performance is not hurt by its position on the channels. However, I have seen tests that showed that even drive to drive transfers involving drives on the same channel (like from master to slave or v/versa) are not hurt significantly in comparison to putting the drives on different channels. That is, any difference is negligible, probably because of the large on-board buffers nowadays.

And my own simple tests confirm this. Too bad I can't remember where I saw that article! I guess it's just safe to put drives that will be 'talking' to each other a lot on separate channels.

It would be nice to know what IBM says. I think I'll ask them.


P.S.
No. All E/Amish meant was that the transfers would be slower. What I'm saying is that any slowing might be negligible.

 

[arthurb1]

You can, it would just be slower drive to drive. If you have a CD-ROM as a slave to a hard drive and try to install software to that hard drive, you will see what the problem is. That is why I hate this local dealer known as Totally Awesome Computers (Amish, you seen the commercials?) They guy that owns the place makes computer users look like total idiots...they have to be seen to believed, anyway, he will put an HD and CD-ROM on one cable, just to save one dollar. All of his computers that I have worked on have this, and everyone that asks me why their 50x or greater CD-ROM performs really slow when installing software, the first thing I ask is who they bought it from...90% of the time it is this place that they have bought it from.

 

[Maximus1]

Thanks for the new take on things....
I think I will try the master/slave setup since I will not be transfering between the drives all that much. Thanks.

 

[Electric Amish]

You can still transfer files, it will just be a little slower. The computer will read the data into RAM, then write it out to the other drive. Whereas if the drives were on separate channels, the computer could pretty much read from one and write to the other at almost the same time.

It sounds slow, although I've never actually tried it, you probably won't notice that much difference.

I would just use the second drive for data storage and put all your applications on the main drive.

Hope that helps.

amish

 

[Electric Amish]

Yeah, arthurb1, I have, unfortunately, seen the commercials.

When he started up, I thought he sounded like a pretty good dealer, but the farther his business goes, the more I dislike him. I've heard nightmare stories about their "guaranteed" service.

What really burned me was when they, in a public radio ad no less, bad mouthed EBC. I know EBC's not the best business in the world, but you can't argue with the prices.

That's a pretty poor business practice to demean a competitor BY NAME IN A RADIO AD!!

amish

 

[Ulysses]

BTW:

If you're actually using the ATA/66 interface be sure everything is 'enabled' for both drives and that you're, of course, using an 80 wire cable.

Just for my own satisfaction I've asked IMB about the drive position vs. performance issue. They should answer in 48 hrs.

I use a 2nd HDD for backups also. I keep it disconnected between backups to avoid viruses. They make removable caddies too for added security.

 

[Sukhoi]

If your 5400 RPM drive is not ATA66 capable, you do NOT want it on the same cable as your ATA66 (really, ATA100) IBM 75GXP. This would slow the entire cable down to ATA33 speed which would be bad since your 75GXP has a sustained transfer speed of around 38 MB/sec. In this case, I would have your 75GXP as ATA66 IDE1 master, ATA66 IDE2 open, ATA33 IDE1 master as the 5400 RPM HDD, and ATA33 IDE2 with your CD-ROM and whatever other IDE device you might have.

 

[arthurb1]

badmouthing sucks, and his little "name" he had before/still uses...you know "superdell!" What a hack...much as dell sucks, all he was doing was cashing in on Dell's name with customers who did not know better, I would much rather have a dell than his crap...all I agree about with their products is that they use ASUS and all of the computers I have worked on have those cool casedge tooless cases. I love EBC, but I have to give it to ComputerTech for my fav store...I get treated more like a person there, and I like places where I am on a first name basis...they even set aside a SlotA tbird for me since they figured I would be in to buy one I like them...

 

[Pariah]

"probably because of the large on-board buffers nowadays."

Cache buffers on hard drives are probably the most overrated performance aspect of hard drives today. So long as there enough to cache one track (less than 512k), anything more will result in negligible speed increase, unless there is a significant increase in size.

You won't be crippling an IBM 75GXP too much by running it on an ATA33 connector. You will castrate the top STR a little bit, but keep in mind only a small portion of the drive can actually achieve that speed. If you have windows installed on the front of the drive, you'll never reach that speed anyway due to all the small files that need to be handled by windows. The most important hard drive performance stat today is access time, which the interface has no effect on.

 

[Sukhoi]

Pariah, true, but why slow the drive down for no reason by attaching an ATA33 drive to an ATA66 cable, if he has an additional IDE controller available?

 

[Pariah]

Normally I would agree sukhoi, but the original poster said he wanted to do it to minimize the number of cables in his system. My only point is that the minimal loss in performance should not sway his decision to use the setup he wants.

 

[Sukhoi]

True again but he could get a cheap ATA33 cable for the 5400 RPM drive, and it would solve all the problems.

Maximus1: Why do you want to minimize the number of cables in your system? IDE cables really aren't that big. If you are worrying about airflow, you can either get a short IDE cable for the 5400 RPM drive, or just use zip ties to roll up the extra length on a long cable.

 

[Maximus1]

Sorry I have been away for a little while, but to finally clarify the issue, both hard drives are ATA66 compatible. The 5400rpm is a Quantum lct10 15gig and the 7200rpm is indeed a IBM 75GXP 30gig. I think I will just go master/slave since both drives are ATA66 compatible using the proper 80pin cable. I have another 80pin cable that I could use for setting up the Quantum as a master on the second ATA66 channel, but I am trying to limit the amount of cables since I have a scsi cable with a cdrom and cdrw, a ide internal zip on one of the ATA33 channels and the floppy which all have to pass thru a single hole in my Antec KS188 full tower. Hope this clarifies the situation and my desire for less cables.

 

[Maximus1]

Thanks again for responding everyone, all the input has really helped. Ulysses...let me know when you hear back from IBM, I'm curious as to what they will have to say.

 

[Pete]

Hey Maximus, what's the difference in sound level between the two drives? Just curious.

 

[Maximus1]

Not too different from what I can tell.....
Only problem is my Antec has mounts at top of case and bottom. The IBM is up top, and the Quantum is down below. But after posting my question, I am moving both hard drives next to each other to help in my messy cabling nightmare. I will let you know if I notice much of a difference with them next to each other. So far, both are excellent buys and the editor's choice at storage review for 7200 and 5400rpm drives last time I checked.