Best configuration of drives?

[Guest]

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

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40a1598a.7089394@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> 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.

Not that I could ever tell<g>.

> 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.

They do no so insist. Cite a reference.

 

[Slug]

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:


>The cabling problem is tractable.

Not when the cable has only about six inches of space between master
and slave and your HDD's and optical drives are 12" apart.

 

[Guest]

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

"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:c7rmig$81q$1@panix3.panix.com...
> In article <2gd2g1F1e6vmU2@uni-berlin.de>,
> Folkert Rienstra <folkertdotrienstra@freeler.nl> wrote:
> >
> >"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:c7r1hq$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.

Generally no. There are almost no non-DMA devices around anymore anyway.
If they won't do UDMA then they likely'll do DMA2.

 

[Bob]

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

On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:18:19 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@att.net>
wrote:

>> 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.

>They do no so insist. Cite a reference.

Here's direct correspondence with Mitsumi tech support:

+++++
The CDR usually works best alone as master on the 2nd IDE port.

If this doesn't help, please call in to technical support for
additional trouble shooting at 800-648-7864.

--

Thank you for contacting Mitsumi Technical Support!

LeAnn
Mitsumi Technical Support

Tech Support Voice (800)648-7864
Tech Support Fax (712)653-3047
Web Site http://www.mitsumi.com
Email mailto:support@mitsumi.com
+++++


--

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

 

[Slug]

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

On Wed, 12 May 2004 02:55:22 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote:


>Here's direct correspondence with Mitsumi tech support:
>
>+++++
>The CDR usually works best alone as master on the 2nd IDE port.
>
>If this doesn't help, please call in to technical support for
>additional trouble shooting at 800-648-7864.
>
>--
>
>Thank you for contacting Mitsumi Technical Support!
>
>LeAnn
>Mitsumi Technical Support
>
>Tech Support Voice (800)648-7864
>Tech Support Fax (712)653-3047
>Web Site http://www.mitsumi.com
>Email mailto:support@mitsumi.com
>+++++

I use cdrw as master and DVD as slave on same channel. No problems -
ever.

 

[Guest]

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

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40a1909b.21186184@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:18:19 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> >They do no so insist. Cite a reference.
>
> Here's direct correspondence with Mitsumi tech support:
>
> +++++
> The CDR usually works best alone as master on the 2nd IDE port.

That's far short of "insists". That is the appropriate place to attach a
CD[R[W]] in a system with just a single HD.

 

[Bob]

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

On Wed, 12 May 2004 03:15:27 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@att.net>
wrote:

>> Here's direct correspondence with Mitsumi tech support:

>> The CDR usually works best alone as master on the 2nd IDE port.

>That's far short of "insists".

Picky, picky. In later correspondence, they insisted I have only their
CDR on the second IDE channel.

>That is the appropriate place to attach a
>CD[R[W]] in a system with just a single HD.

I had a tape drive attached on the same channel. That was the problem
we were trying to debug - the system would lock up when using the CDR
after having used the tape. I did not have a place for the tape on Ch
0 because I had a Zip drive.

I replaced the tape with a second hard disk which I put on Ch 1 master
and the CDR on the slave, and it all works fine. The tape, it turns
out, had buggy drivers.

--

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

 

[Guest]

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

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:40a1973a.422537@news-
> The tape, it turns out, had buggy drivers.

Tape is just another word for bug in any case in my opinion<g>.

 

[Guest]

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

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> 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.
>
> 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?

Beep beep. Warning: Socratic dialog from Folkert now lined up.

If the OP replies to this then Folkert will weight in sarcasm and
hostility.

Isn't this what trolls do?


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

 

[Bob]

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

On Wed, 12 May 2004 04:05:53 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@att.net>
wrote:

>
>"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:40a1973a.422537@news-
>> The tape, it turns out, had buggy drivers.
>
>Tape is just another word for bug in any case in my opinion<g>.

The small ones are pretty much obsolete now. Hard disks are cheaper to
implement as archive devices - and a lot more friendly.

It took 1/2 hour to thrash thru that Travan drive to restore one file
in a 4 GB layoff.



--

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

 

[Bob]

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

On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:15:51 -0700, Slug <slug@no_email.here> wrote:

>I use cdrw as master and DVD as slave on same channel. No problems -
>ever.

The problem I described was on an NT4 installation in the days when
NT4 was considered too new to write bug-free drivers for.


--

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

 

[Bob]

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

On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:19:42 -0700, Slug <slug@no_email.here> wrote:

>On Mon, 10 May 2004 01:47:14 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@att.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>>The cabling problem is tractable.
>
>Not when the cable has only about six inches of space between master
>and slave and your HDD's and optical drives are 12" apart.

There are cables available to deal with that problem - and they are
very inexpensive. The latest thing is round cables so here's an excuse
to upgrade.

--

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

 

[Guest]

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

Bob wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:19:42 -0700, Slug <slug@no_email.here> wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 10 May 2004 01:47:14 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@att.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>The cabling problem is tractable.
>>
>>Not when the cable has only about six inches of space between master
>>and slave and your HDD's and optical drives are 12" apart.
>
>
> There are cables available to deal with that problem - and they are
> very inexpensive. The latest thing is round cables so here's an excuse
> to upgrade.

"Upgrading" to round cables is not going to help you with any cable
length issue. In fact, it will do just the opposite due to the
decreased signal quality associated with round cables.


-WD


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

[Slug]

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

On Wed, 12 May 2004 15:20:45 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote:


>There are cables available to deal with that problem - and they are
>very inexpensive. The latest thing is round cables so here's an excuse
>to upgrade.

I have rounded cables and there is still only about six inches between
master and slave connectors. I'll just stick with my current
configuration, thx.

 

[Guest]

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

Try and read my original unsnipped message.

"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@att.net> wrote in message news:_Zdoc.80106$Xj6.1337229@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> "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:
[unsnip]
> > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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.

 

[Guest]

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

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:40a1598a.7089394@news-server.houston.rr.com
> 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.

Floppy drives a Microsoft invention, are they?

>
> 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.

So do all IDE devices that do not support command overlap or lack driver-
support for it.

> Dumb and dumber.

Whatever you say.

 

[Bob]

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

On Wed, 12 May 2004 15:32:20 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra"
<see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:

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

>Floppy drives a Microsoft invention, are they?

Uh, the drivers are.


--

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

 

[Guest]

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

In article <2gentaF21vbkU2@uni-berlin.de>,
Folkert Rienstra <folkertdotrienstra@freeler.nl> wrote:
>"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:40a1598a.7089394@news-server.houston.rr.com
>> 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.
>
>Floppy drives a Microsoft invention, are they?
>

Oh Young One. Invented by Alan Shugart while at IBM in 1971. At the
time they were 8 inches dia. First used as the boot media on 70's
vintage IBM mainframes (million dollar machines). They also were the
way IBM distributed new CPU microcode (think of flashing a new BIOS on a
PC). I had a drawer full on them. They shortly were also used to
eliminate punch cards as data-entry media. These held about 100KB.

Early microcomputers used 8 inch disks, and 5.25 disks took
over after 1976. None of this has anything to do with IDE.


>>
>> 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.
>
>So do all IDE devices that do not support command overlap or lack driver-
>support for it.
>

The problem is there is some huge specification for something like IDE
and a company that developes an IDE device gets to pick what optional
parts of the specification to implement and for the mandatory parts
gets to decide what functions are in the driver and what's in
hardware. If it's a performance feature it becoms a cost/benefit
issue. The comsumer doesn't care, as long as it works. There's
relativility little incentive for "high performance" IDE since the
people that buy high-performance systems pick SCSI, for good reasons.
Low cost rules for IDE.


If the manufacturer of some gadget that needs a driver submits the
driver to Microsoft and it gets put in the next Windows setup the user
might not even know there's a driver.

The Linux folks that reverse-engineered the drivers for the "thumb
drive" devices found that what was in hardware and what was in
software was all over the map. It made it a real pain to make
something universal. The same goes for WiFI cards, soft modems, and
software-based printers.

Toshiba (I think) has just shown a tiny hard drive, the size of yoru
thumbnail that's going to cost under a hundred bucks. It's got NO
controller on it, just the electronics for the heads. All of the
controller functionality will be in the drivers. For cell phones and
PDAs that's fine. They'll be too slow for cameras, at least for a
while.











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

 

[Guest]

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

"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@att.net> wrote in message news:h%doc.80113$Xj6.1341630@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> "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.

Or in other words, you 'likely' have no clue at all, just speculation.

 

[Guest]

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

"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message news:c7rmig$81q$1@panix3.panix.com
> In article 2gd2g1F1e6vmU2@uni-berlin.de, Folkert Rienstra <xxxxx> wrote:

Please, setup you newsreader correctly.
You are posting reply addresses all over the net.

> >
> > "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.
> > >
> > > yeah, 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 ?

Nope.

> That's what I'm referring 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 up as RAID0 (striping).

A bit hard to do with opticals, wouldn't you agree?
Or in other words: *what the hell has that got to do with opticals* ?

> > > 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?
> >
> Perfmon will allow you to determine where the bottleneck is in your system
> when you are running your application and wishing it would go faster.

And what has that got to do with establishing available or lacking bandwidth
on the IDE channels?

> 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.

Doesn't tell whether combined bandwidth is sufficient or not.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <2gentfF21vbkU4@uni-berlin.de>,
Folkert Rienstra <folkertdotrienstra@freeler.nl> wrote:
>"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message news:c7rmig$81q$1@panix3.panix.com
>> In article 2gd2g1F1e6vmU2@uni-berlin.de, Folkert Rienstra <xxxxx> wrote:
>
>Please, setup you newsreader correctly.
>You are posting reply addresses all over the net.
>
>> >
>> > "Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message news:c7r1hq$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.
>> > >
>> > > yeah, 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 ?
>
>Nope.
>
>> That's what I'm referring 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 up as RAID0 (striping).
>
>A bit hard to do with opticals, wouldn't you agree?
>Or in other words: *what the hell has that got to do with opticals* ?
>
>> > > 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?
>> >
>> Perfmon will allow you to determine where the bottleneck is in your system
>> when you are running your application and wishing it would go faster.
>
>And what has that got to do with establishing available or lacking bandwidth
>on the IDE channels?


perfmon will tell you if you are bandwith-limited, or not.

>

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

 

[Bob]

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

On Wed, 12 May 2004 11:49:11 -0400, Will Dormann
<wdormann@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

>"Upgrading" to round cables is not going to help you with any cable
>length issue.

The round cables that I have seen have the connectors well spaced. But
so do some ribbon cables I have seen. IOW, there are cables available
to solve your problem, which is not at all unique in custom box
builds. www.directron.com has lots of cables and other goodies for the
box builder.

>In fact, it will do just the opposite due to the
>decreased signal quality associated with round cables.

I haven't heard that one. Can you provide some reliable vendor
information to support that. If it were a real problem then I would
imagine vendors would not be able to sell it.

I prefer ribbon anyway.

--

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

 

[Slug]

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

On Wed, 12 May 2004 16:44:12 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote:


>I haven't heard that one. Can you provide some reliable vendor
>information to support that. If it were a real problem then I would
>imagine vendors would not be able to sell it.

The theory is that because the wires are closer together in rounded
cables that it can impede signal quality. I think with the shielding
they use now though on better quality cables it is no longer an
issue.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <fmp4a0h6j1s66g09b9482juk77nmrtgins@4ax.com>,
Slug <slug@no_email.here> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 May 2004 16:44:12 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote:
>
>
>>I haven't heard that one. Can you provide some reliable vendor
>>information to support that. If it were a real problem then I would
>>imagine vendors would not be able to sell it.
>
>The theory is that because the wires are closer together in rounded
>cables that it can impede signal quality. I think with the shielding
>they use now though on better quality cables it is no longer an
>issue.


Cables only have to be "good enough". Gold-plating (litterally
or figurativly) doesn't speed up the data transfer or make it
more reliable.

The round cables help airflow in packed PC cabinets. Serail
ATA will be even better. SATA cables can be up to 4 ft long, or
something like that.




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

 

[Guest]

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

Slug wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 16:44:12 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote:
>
>
>
>>I haven't heard that one. Can you provide some reliable vendor
>>information to support that. If it were a real problem then I would
>>imagine vendors would not be able to sell it.
>
>
> The theory is that because the wires are closer together in rounded
> cables that it can impede signal quality. I think with the shielding
> they use now though on better quality cables it is no longer an
> issue.

Although shielding helps prevent against external EMI, the important
thing is that the wires are twisted pair internally. The 80-conductor
cables that ATA-66 and higher devices use have 40 ground cables
interspersed among the 40 signal cables. This helps prevent crosstalk.
If the rounded cables have 80 individual wires bunched together in a
round sheath, that's just about undoing any advantage of having the
extra wires. On the other hand, if the wires are twisted pair
internally, then the crosstalk will be reduced.

Either way you go, the maximum in-spec length cable will be 18".


-WD


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----