Best configuration of drives?

GTS

Distinguished
Aug 24, 2003
520
0
18,980
0
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

At present I have an ATA133 on IDE 1 and two optical drives on IDE2.
Want to add a second ATA133, but I have always been led to believe it is
best for speed not to have anything sharing with a HDD. So what is the best
arrangement? HDD 1 & 2 on IDE1, or HDD as master on IDE 1 & 2 and the
opticals as slaves?
TIA
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

In article <Qt4nc.16$44.14@newsfe1-win>,
gts123NOSPAM@ntlworld.com says...
> At present I have an ATA133 on IDE 1 and two optical drives on IDE2.
> Want to add a second ATA133, but I have always been led to believe it is
> best for speed not to have anything sharing with a HDD. So what is the best
> arrangement? HDD 1 & 2 on IDE1, or HDD as master on IDE 1 & 2 and the
> opticals as slaves?
> TIA
>

Personally, I'd put the HDDs on seperate cables along
with an optical drive. Not sure if master/slave really
matters. Try to put your burner optical on the other
cable from where you place the files to be burned.

So:

Cable A: HDD + optical
Cable B: HDD + optical

I used to think that you shouldn't have two drives on a
single cable, but apparently that's no longer an issue
(according to those who have corrected me about that
here in the discussion group).
 

GTS

Distinguished
Aug 24, 2003
520
0
18,980
0
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Great, thanks for the info

"Toshi1873" <toshi1873@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b06d147410a648f9898b5@news-50.giganews.com...
> In article <Qt4nc.16$44.14@newsfe1-win>,
> gts123NOSPAM@ntlworld.com says...
> > At present I have an ATA133 on IDE 1 and two optical drives on IDE2.
> > Want to add a second ATA133, but I have always been led to believe it is
> > best for speed not to have anything sharing with a HDD. So what is the
best
> > arrangement? HDD 1 & 2 on IDE1, or HDD as master on IDE 1 & 2 and the
> > opticals as slaves?
> > TIA
> >
>
> Personally, I'd put the HDDs on seperate cables along
> with an optical drive. Not sure if master/slave really
> matters. Try to put your burner optical on the other
> cable from where you place the files to be burned.
>
> So:
>
> Cable A: HDD + optical
> Cable B: HDD + optical
>
> I used to think that you shouldn't have two drives on a
> single cable, but apparently that's no longer an issue
> (according to those who have corrected me about that
> here in the discussion group).
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"GTS" <gts123NOSPAM@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Qt4nc.16$44.14@newsfe1-win...
> At present I have an ATA133 on IDE 1 and two optical drives on IDE2.
> Want to add a second ATA133, but I have always been led to believe it is
> best for speed not to have anything sharing with a HDD. So what is the
best
> arrangement? HDD 1 & 2 on IDE1, or HDD as master on IDE 1 & 2 and the
> opticals as slaves?

The 2nd HDs as master and opticals as slaves unless one of the opticals is
illbehaved.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Toshi1873" <toshi1873@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b06d147410a648f9898b5@news-50.giganews.com...
> In article <Qt4nc.16$44.14@newsfe1-win>,
> gts123NOSPAM@ntlworld.com says...
> > At present I have an ATA133 on IDE 1 and two optical drives on IDE2.
> > Want to add a second ATA133, but I have always been led to believe it is
> > best for speed not to have anything sharing with a HDD. So what is the
best
> > arrangement? HDD 1 & 2 on IDE1, or HDD as master on IDE 1 & 2 and the
> > opticals as slaves?
> > TIA
> >
>
> Personally, I'd put the HDDs on seperate cables along
> with an optical drive. Not sure if master/slave really
> matters. Try to put your burner optical on the other
> cable from where you place the files to be burned.

That's probably not important.
 

Slug

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2004
115
0
18,680
0
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sat, 8 May 2004 12:13:50 -0400, Toshi1873 <toshi1873@nowhere.com>
wrote:


>Cable A: HDD + optical
>Cable B: HDD + optical

That would be a cabling nightmare. In fact it is practically
impossible to do due to the physical placement of the drives in the
case. HDD's usually go in the bottom of the case in 3 1/4" brackets
and cdrom drives in the top of the case in 51/2" brackets. How are you
going to cable all those drives using your configuration without
moving the HDD's to the top of the case? Personally, I put my two
HDD's on primary IDE as master and slave and then put my DVD and CDRW
drives on the secondary IDE as master/slave. I expect if there is a
perfromance hit, and I do emphasize "if", it is negligible. I have a
copy of MaximumPC that recommends your way too. But IMO it is not a
well thought out theory because of the complications I have pointed
out.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Slug" <no@email.here> wrote in message
news:e4vu90dks2r5js4jjr5lk2jfs2cbq0a7fm@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 8 May 2004 12:13:50 -0400, Toshi1873 <toshi1873@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Cable A: HDD + optical
> >Cable B: HDD + optical
>
> That would be a cabling nightmare. In fact it is practically
> impossible to do due to the physical placement of the drives in the
> case. HDD's usually go in the bottom of the case in 3 1/4" brackets
> and cdrom drives in the top of the case in 51/2" brackets. How are you
> going to cable all those drives using your configuration without
> moving the HDD's to the top of the case?

So you're gonna pack the HDs next to each other where they'll burn each
other up???
The cabling problem is tractable.

> Personally, I put my two
> HDD's on primary IDE as master and slave and then put my DVD and CDRW
> drives on the secondary IDE as master/slave. I expect if there is a
> perfromance hit, and I do emphasize "if", it is negligible.

That is likely true for most cases.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@att.net> wrote in message news:paBnc.37622$Ut1.1083709@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Toshi1873" <toshi1873@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1b06d147410a648f9898b5@news-50.giganews.com...
> > In article <Qt4nc.16$44.14@newsfe1-win>, gts123NOSPAM@ntlworld.com says...
> >
> > > At present I have an ATA133 on IDE 1 and two optical drives on IDE2.
> > > Want to add a second ATA133, but I have always been led to believe it is
> > > best for speed not to have anything sharing with a HDD. So what is the best
> > > arrangement? HDD 1 & 2 on IDE1, or HDD as master on IDE 1 & 2 and the
> > > opticals as slaves?
> > > TIA
> > >
> >
> > Personally, I'd put the HDDs on seperate cables along
> > with an optical drive. Not sure if master/slave really
> > matters. Try to put your burner optical on the other
> > cable from where you place the files to be burned.
>
> That's probably not important.

Actually, it can be problematic when you access the opt. drive
that is on the same cable with the source drive while burning.

>
>
 

Bob

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
3,414
0
20,780
0
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Mon, 10 May 2004 20:59:15 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra"
<see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:

>Actually, it can be problematic when you access the opt. drive
>that is on the same cable with the source drive while burning.

Why?

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"You can all go to hell, and I will go to Texas."
--David Crockett
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message
news:2gah0tFks4mU1@uni-berlin.de...
> "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@att.net> wrote in message
news:paBnc.37622$Ut1.1083709@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > "Toshi1873" <toshi1873@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b06d147410a648f9898b5@news-50.giganews.com...
> > > In article <Qt4nc.16$44.14@newsfe1-win>, gts123NOSPAM@ntlworld.com
says...
> > >
> > > > At present I have an ATA133 on IDE 1 and two optical drives on IDE2.
> > > > Want to add a second ATA133, but I have always been led to believe
it is
> > > > best for speed not to have anything sharing with a HDD. So what is
the best
> > > > arrangement? HDD 1 & 2 on IDE1, or HDD as master on IDE 1 & 2 and
the
> > > > opticals as slaves?
> > > > TIA
> > > >
> > >
> > > Personally, I'd put the HDDs on seperate cables along
> > > with an optical drive. Not sure if master/slave really
> > > matters. Try to put your burner optical on the other
> > > cable from where you place the files to be burned.
> >
> > That's probably not important.
>
> Actually, it can be problematic when you access the opt. drive
> that is on the same cable with the source drive while burning.

Nope, generally that works with no difficulty as the bandwidth usage is
minimal.
I suppose that there could be a special compatibility case but in general it
works fine.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:40a01f7b.10534277@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 20:59:15 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
>
> > Actually, it can be problematic when you access the opt. drive
> > that is on the same cable with the source drive while burning.
>
> Why?

Because it may block the source drive for several seconds, spinning-up
the motor/disk to speed and seeking to the desired data and transfer.

>
 

Bob

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
3,414
0
20,780
0
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Tue, 11 May 2004 15:36:20 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra"
<see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:

>> > Actually, it can be problematic when you access the opt. drive
>> > that is on the same cable with the source drive while burning.

>> Why?

>Because it may block the source drive for several seconds, spinning-up
>the motor/disk to speed and seeking to the desired data and transfer.

Hmmm... Doesn't sound like a very intelligent way to implement an
optical drive. I would have assumed they could issue a spin-up
instruction and wait for a "ready" interrupt while they do other
things. Holding the IDE channel up while waiting for the disk to spin
up is idiotic.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"You can all go to hell, and I will go to Texas."
--David Crockett
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

In article <40a0eb32.62686268@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
Bob <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 May 2004 15:36:20 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra"
><see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
>
>>> > Actually, it can be problematic when you access the opt. drive
>>> > that is on the same cable with the source drive while burning.
>
>>> Why?
>
>>Because it may block the source drive for several seconds, spinning-up
>>the motor/disk to speed and seeking to the desired data and transfer.
>
>Hmmm... Doesn't sound like a very intelligent way to implement an
>optical drive. I would have assumed they could issue a spin-up
>instruction and wait for a "ready" interrupt while they do other
>things. Holding the IDE channel up while waiting for the disk to spin
>up is idiotic.
>
>

You're dealing with hardware made to be just good enough for the mass
market, and an OS that is lagging behind what the best hardware can
do. 99% of the PCs have one HD and one CD. That's the target for
"good enough".

You can buy a PCI IDE card with 2 channels and put your optical disks
to that.

--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m
 

Bob

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
3,414
0
20,780
0
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On 11 May 2004 11:22:14 -0400, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:

>You can buy a PCI IDE card with 2 channels and put your optical disks
>to that.

I thought modern computers came with 2 IDE channels on the mainboard.
That's 4 devices.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"You can all go to hell, and I will go to Texas."
--David Crockett
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

In article <40a1053f.69354816@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
Bob <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>On 11 May 2004 11:22:14 -0400, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>
>>You can buy a PCI IDE card with 2 channels and put your optical disks
>>to that.
>
>I thought modern computers came with 2 IDE channels on the mainboard.
>That's 4 devices.
>
>

yea, but it's not 4 channels, and if you mix a fast and a slow
device on a channel it slows down to the speed of the slower one.

A PCI IDE card is only a few bucks.

Contention between two disks on a channel might be a bottleneck for
your application, but the only way to tell for sure is to use a tool
like perfmon.exe (part of NT) to see what your system is
doing. There's no way to tell, otherwise.
--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:40a0eb32.62686268@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 15:36:20 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
>
> >> > Actually, it can be problematic when you access the opt. drive
> >> > that is on the same cable with the source drive while burning.
>
> >> Why?
>
> >Because it may block the source drive for several seconds, spinning-up
> >the motor/disk to speed and seeking to the desired data and transfer.
>
> Hmmm... Doesn't sound like a very intelligent way to implement an
> optical drive.

Welcome to the wonderful world of IDE.

> I would have assumed they could issue a spin-up instruction
> and wait for a "ready" interrupt while they do other things.

No such command, I'm afraid (AFAICT).

> Holding the IDE channel up while waiting for the disk to spin up is idiotic.

Well, IDE has known overlapped commands for a while now but it is hardly
implemented by any devices and also needs driver support for it to work.

>
>
 

Bob

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
3,414
0
20,780
0
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Tue, 11 May 2004 22:42:01 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra"
<see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:

>> Hmmm... Doesn't sound like a very intelligent way to implement an
>> optical drive.

>Welcome to the wonderful world of IDE.

>> I would have assumed they could issue a spin-up instruction
>> and wait for a "ready" interrupt while they do other things.

>No such command, I'm afraid (AFAICT).

>> Holding the IDE channel up while waiting for the disk to spin up is idiotic.

>Well, IDE has known overlapped commands for a while now but it is hardly
>implemented by any devices and also needs driver support for it to work.

Even Microsoft did a better job of implementing the floppy drive than
that.

What you have just said explains why optical disk makers insist you
use the master channel and nothing on the slave - they take over the
entire channel. Dumb and dumber.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"You can all go to hell, and I will go to Texas."
--David Crockett
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message news:c7r1hq$df6$1@panix3.panix.com...
> In article <40a1053f.69354816@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
> Bob <spam@spam.com> wrote:
> > On 11 May 2004 11:22:14 -0400, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
> >
> >> You can buy a PCI IDE card with 2 channels and put your optical disks
> >> to that.
> >
> > I thought modern computers came with 2 IDE channels on the mainboard.
> > That's 4 devices.
> >
> >
>
> yea, but it's not 4 channels, and if you mix a fast and a slow
> device on a channel it slows down to the speed of the slower one.

Obviously not.
When the slow drive has the bus the other drive isn't doing anything, obviously.

If and how much slowdown is experienced is decided by the duty cycle of the 2
devices, the bandwidth that they actually need and at what busspeed they run.

>
> A PCI IDE card is only a few bucks.
>
> Contention between two disks on a channel might be a bottleneck for
> your application, but the only way to tell for sure is to use a tool
> like perfmon.exe (part of NT) to see what your system is doing.

And what will that tell you?

> There's no way to tell, otherwise.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

In article <2gd2g1F1e6vmU2@uni-berlin.de>,
Folkert Rienstra <folkertdotrienstra@freeler.nl> wrote:
>
>"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message news:c7r1hq$df6$1@panix3.panix.com...
>> In article <40a1053f.69354816@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
>> Bob <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>> > On 11 May 2004 11:22:14 -0400, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>> >
>> >> You can buy a PCI IDE card with 2 channels and put your optical disks
>> >> to that.
>> >
>> > I thought modern computers came with 2 IDE channels on the mainboard.
>> > That's 4 devices.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> yea, but it's not 4 channels, and if you mix a fast and a slow
>> device on a channel it slows down to the speed of the slower one.
>
>Obviously not.
>When the slow drive has the bus the other drive isn't doing anything, obviously.

If you put a DMA and a non-DMA capable device on an interface the drivers
dumbs down to the lower one, right ? That's what I'm refering to.

>
>If and how much slowdown is experienced is decided by the duty cycle of the 2
>devices, the bandwidth that they actually need and at what busspeed they run.
>

An optimal system/application configuration wuld spread disk activity
across both disks. One way to do this is to set them uup as RAID0
(striping).

>>
>> A PCI IDE card is only a few bucks.
>>
>> Contention between two disks on a channel might be a bottleneck for
>> your application, but the only way to tell for sure is to use a tool
>> like perfmon.exe (part of NT) to see what your system is doing.
>
>And what will that tell you?
>

Perfom will allow you to determine where the bottleneck is in your
system when you are running your application and wishing it would go
faster. It may be that you need a faster CPU, more memory, or
faster disk I/O. If you have more than one disk it will show you
which disk is working hardest.




--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m
 

Slug

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2004
115
0
18,680
0
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Mon, 10 May 2004 01:47:14 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@att.net>
wrote:


>So you're gonna pack the HDs next to each other where they'll burn each
>other up???

No, my case has space for three HDD's so there is space between the
two. I have a full tower and there is no way I could use your
suggested method. Best way really is to use one channel per device
which you can do with a four port sata setup or 2 IDE and 2 sata. I
could do the latter on this mb but I'm too lazy.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message
news:2gc3btF11nq6U1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40a01f7b.10534277@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> > On Mon, 10 May 2004 20:59:15 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra"
<see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, it can be problematic when you access the opt. drive
> > > that is on the same cable with the source drive while burning.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because it may block the source drive for several seconds,

That's not relevant if the burner hasn't spun up yet. What makes you think
anything is blocked during spin-up?

>spinning-up
> the motor/disk to speed and seeking to the desired data and transfer.

Only after that does the HD have to UDMA burst data to the host's buffers to
maintain an unbroken stream of maybe a paltry 4-8 MB/sec. Nevermind
burn-proof technology.
 

Slug

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2004
115
0
18,680
0
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On 11 May 2004 13:12:26 -0400, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:


>yea, but it's not 4 channels, and if you mix a fast and a slow
>device on a channel it slows down to the speed of the slower one.

You sure about that? I read that issue is solved on today's mb's.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40a0eb32.62686268@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 15:36:20 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra"
> <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
>
> >> > Actually, it can be problematic when you access the opt. drive
> >> > that is on the same cable with the source drive while burning.
>
> >> Why?
>
> >Because it may block the source drive for several seconds, spinning-up
> >the motor/disk to speed and seeking to the desired data and transfer.
>
> Hmmm... Doesn't sound like a very intelligent way to implement an
> optical drive. I would have assumed they could issue a spin-up
> instruction and wait for a "ready" interrupt while they do other
> things. Holding the IDE channel up while waiting for the disk to spin
> up is idiotic.

And therefore likely isn't happening.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:c7r1hq$df6$1@panix3.panix.com...
> In article <40a1053f.69354816@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
> Bob <spam@spam.com> wrote:
> >On 11 May 2004 11:22:14 -0400, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
> >
> >>You can buy a PCI IDE card with 2 channels and put your optical disks
> >>to that.
> >
> >I thought modern computers came with 2 IDE channels on the mainboard.
> >That's 4 devices.
> >
> >
>
> yea, but it's not 4 channels, and if you mix a fast and a slow
> device on a channel it slows down to the speed of the slower one.

That's false. Each runs at its own speed generally.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message
news:2gd2g0F1e6vmU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40a0eb32.62686268@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> > On Tue, 11 May 2004 15:36:20 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra"
<see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
> >
> > >> > Actually, it can be problematic when you access the opt. drive
> > >> > that is on the same cable with the source drive while burning.
> >
> > >> Why?
> >
> > >Because it may block the source drive for several seconds, spinning-up
> > >the motor/disk to speed and seeking to the desired data and transfer.
> >
> > Hmmm... Doesn't sound like a very intelligent way to implement an
> > optical drive.
>
> Welcome to the wonderful world of IDE.
>
> > I would have assumed they could issue a spin-up instruction
> > and wait for a "ready" interrupt while they do other things.
>
> No such command, I'm afraid (AFAICT).
>
> > Holding the IDE channel up while waiting for the disk to spin up is
idiotic.
>
> Well, IDE has known overlapped commands for a while now but it is hardly
> implemented by any devices and also needs driver support for it to work.

Don't confuse command queuing and disconnect/reconnect with the spin-up
issue.
 

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY