Best configuration of drives?

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
116 answers Last reply
More about best configuration drives
  1. 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).
  2. 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).
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.

    >
    >
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.

    >
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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.

    >
    >
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. 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
  32. 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>.
  33. 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.
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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! =-----
  38. 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.
  39. 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.
  40. 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.
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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.
  44. 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.
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. 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.
  48. 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
  49. 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! =-----
Ask a new question

Read More

Configuration Hard Drives Storage