How to setup: 2 hard drives, 1 dvdrom, 1 cdrw

[imported_DaveA]

I have:
1 120GB western digital 8MB cache IDE drive
1 60GB western digital 8mb cache IDE drive
1 ASUS E616P2 QT DVDROM 16X IDE
1 Plextor 12x10x32A CDRW IDE


What is the best way to set these drives up so that I can achieve fastest transfer between the two hard drives, transfering data from the DVDROM drive to the 2 hard drives, and Burning a CDROM from the DVDROM to CDRW?


I have a MSI K8N NEO2 PLATINUM motherboard. I can buy a PCI IDE Controller if necessary. If I have to buy one, what is recommended?

 

[Cook1]

Put the HDs on one IDE channel (channel 1), put the Optical drives on the other IDE channel (channel 2).

 

[imported_DaveA]

but wouldnt i suffer a performance loss from transfering data from the two hard drives if they are on the same cable?

 

[imverygifted]

Primary Master: 120GB
Primary Slave: 60GB
Secondary Master: Dvd-Rom
Secondary Slave: CD-Burner

 

[daniel49]

If it were me I would simply set up the 2 hard drives on the primary channel with the 120 gb as the master and the 60 gb as the slave.

Then on the secondary set up the dvd as the master and the cdrw as the slave. should work fine

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: DaveA
but wouldnt i suffer a performance loss from transfering data from the two hard drives if they are on the same cable?

Yes. This would be the worst possible setup for you.

I would put the hard drives as the two masters, and the opticals as the two slaves. This gives you the best performance going HD->HD and optical->optical. You'll lose a bit of performance copying from an optical to an HD on the same channel, but since optical drives are pretty slow to begin with (relative to hard disks), this is not really a big deal.

If you want to burn things from both hard drives on a regular basis, you could put the burner on its own IDE card. However, I doubt this will make a noticeable performance difference.

 

[imported_DaveA]

Ok sounds good to me. Now for a page file, i should create a 2GB partition at the begining of the second drive and have it there?

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: DaveA
Ok sounds good to me. Now for a page file, i should create a 2GB partition at the begining of the second drive and have it there?

I'd just leave it at the default settings. Tweaking your page file in WinXP/2K is unlikely to make big performance improvements, and the wrong settings can slow things down. Search in the Operating Systems forum for more information on this if you insist on taking matters into your own hands...

 

[imported_DaveA]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: DaveA
but wouldnt i suffer a performance loss from transfering data from the two hard drives if they are on the same cable?

Yes. This would be the worst possible setup for you.

I would put the hard drives as the two masters, and the opticals as the two slaves. This gives you the best performance going HD->HD and optical->optical. You'll lose a bit of performance copying from an optical to an HD on the same channel, but since optical drives are pretty slow to begin with (relative to hard disks), this is not really a big deal.

If you want to burn things from both hard drives on a regular basis, you could put the burner on its own IDE card. However, I doubt this will make a noticeable performance difference.

ah ok. i dont burn cdroms that often so i will just stick it as a slave to the primary drive. that way i can have the dvdrom on the secondary channel as a slave to the smaller hard drive while keeping transfer speeds high between the dvdrom and main hard drive.

guess i better get some big cables.

would these cables be long enough?

http://www.newegg.com/app/view...tion=12-104-404&DEPA=0

to give enough slack for this:

http://img95.exs.cx/img95/7633/cimg14329fk.jpg

 

[m4ch0dude]

Originally posted by: DaveA
but wouldnt i suffer a performance loss from transfering data from the two hard drives if they are on the same cable?

Actually, you would suffer a performance loss the other way around, because AFAIK the ide bus operates at the same speed as the slowest component on each channel, and optical devices operate at a lower speed (dma 4) than HD's (dma 5/6). So, I would definitely put the hard drives on tha same channel, and the optical drives on the other channel (that's the way my setup is).

Also, dont worry about the bus speed, because it still exceeds the transfer speed of the 2 HD's combined. Your HD's can do at most about 45 MB/s (and that's from the buffer only), and your bus should be capable of doing at least 100 MB/s.

 

[Jeff7]

I don't know that you'll need 36 inch cables. I use 10-12 inch cables for my hard drives, and maybe 18 inch for my optical drives. Easy way to guess - a ruler or tape measure from your IDE connectors to the drives, plus a little to allow for creative wiring methods.

Second - don't buy cheap things like cables at Newegg. I've read here that if you call them, they'll lower the shipping a bit, but not enough. I buy cables at SVC. They're much more reasonable with shipping on small items.

 

[imported_DaveA]

thanks for the suggestion of using SVC jeff7. i just ordered some cables and a power adaptor from them for like 9 bucks shipped. would of cost around 17 from the egg. thanks man.

 

[Steven the Leech]

I would put the hard drives as the two masters, and the opticals as the two slaves. This gives you the best performance going HD->HD and optical->optical. You'll lose a bit of performance copying from an optical to an HD on the same channel, but since optical drives are pretty slow to begin with (relative to hard disks), this is not really a big deal.

I agree on that setup too.

If you really want to get anal about it, get a pci controller card and set the two HD as master and the two opticals as master on your motherboard IDE channels

 

[elecrzy]

The speed of the IDE bus isn't set to the slowest drive on that channel. If you want evidence just check your device manager under primary/secondary IDE controller. Also, drives set as slave have to ask the 'master' for read/write.

 

[m4ch0dude]

Originally posted by: elecrzy
The speed of the IDE bus isn't set to the slowest drive on that channel. If you want evidence just check your device manager under primary/secondary IDE controller. Also, drives set as slave have to ask the 'master' for read/write.

Hey, good point. But how much speed improvement would the different arrangement really make? I really don't feel like reconnecting all those cables.:roll:

 

[membreya]

Originally posted by: elecrzy
The speed of the IDE bus isn't set to the slowest drive on that channel. If you want evidence just check your device manager under primary/secondary IDE controller. Also, drives set as slave have to ask the 'master' for read/write.

Sorry, but I always put my slower drives on the one chain and the faster harddrives on the other.

Got corroborating evidence

link #1

Link #2

Link #3

Link #4

Link #5

Nuff said

 

[DragonFire]

I have a better idea....

Throw the dvd-rom and cdrw drive out and get a NEC 3500A for $60 at newegg. Put one HD on the primary as the bootdisk and the other HD and dvd-rw on the 2nd channel. And unless your trying to copy from the dvd-rw to the 2nd hd or burn something that is on the 2nd HD you aren't going to notice a performance drop.

 

[elecrzy]

its not the speed of the drives...sigh. If both drives are try to access the IDE channel at the same time...they both slow each other down because they have to switch off with each other. Thats why there's SATA. With SATA, each drive gets its own channel.