Question about transfer speeds between HDs, and DMA mode

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I have a Maxtor 200GB (6Y200P0) and a Western Digital 250GB WD2500JB in a
AMD 2500 / Abit NF7-S - 1GB RAM. I am running Windows XP Pro.

I was wondering how long it should take to copy large files between the
drives.

I have some TV captures that are about 8-12GB. It just seems like it takes
a long time to copy from drive to drive....about 6-8 minutes. Is this
normal?

Also, do I have to do anything special to turn on DMA mode? I think I was
using Pinnacle Studio, and it popped up a window saying DMA mode was not
enabled on the Maxtor.

Thanks
25 answers Last reply
More about question transfer speeds mode
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:33:29 -0400, ZigZag Master wrote:

    > I have a Maxtor 200GB (6Y200P0) and a Western Digital 250GB WD2500JB in a
    > AMD 2500 / Abit NF7-S - 1GB RAM. I am running Windows XP Pro.
    >
    > I was wondering how long it should take to copy large files between the
    > drives.
    >
    > I have some TV captures that are about 8-12GB. It just seems like it takes
    > a long time to copy from drive to drive....about 6-8 minutes. Is this
    > normal?
    >
    > Also, do I have to do anything special to turn on DMA mode? I think I was
    > using Pinnacle Studio, and it popped up a window saying DMA mode was not
    > enabled on the Maxtor.
    >
    For best performance, make sure the 2 drives are not on the same channel
    (cable). If they are on the same channel, this will be a major
    slowdown, as each channel can only perform 1 IO fubction at a time. So
    it will have to read to ram, then write back out to the same channel.
    Using 2 channels (cables), both will happen at the same time. Then make
    sure you have them set to the fastest settings they support. I use hdparm
    to check/set mine, but I run linux. Not sure where you set/check drive
    modes in win.

    --
    Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
    http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    OK, I also have 1 DVD writer and 1 DVD reader, so if I understand you
    correctly, I should put one HD and one DVD on each channel???

    thanks


    "Wes Newell" <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote in message
    news:pan.2004.07.20.21.10.40.749665@TAKEOUTverizon.net...
    > On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:33:29 -0400, ZigZag Master wrote:
    >
    > > I have a Maxtor 200GB (6Y200P0) and a Western Digital 250GB WD2500JB in
    a
    > > AMD 2500 / Abit NF7-S - 1GB RAM. I am running Windows XP Pro.
    > >
    > > I was wondering how long it should take to copy large files between the
    > > drives.
    > >
    > > I have some TV captures that are about 8-12GB. It just seems like it
    takes
    > > a long time to copy from drive to drive....about 6-8 minutes. Is this
    > > normal?
    > >
    > > Also, do I have to do anything special to turn on DMA mode? I think I
    was
    > > using Pinnacle Studio, and it popped up a window saying DMA mode was not
    > > enabled on the Maxtor.
    > >
    > For best performance, make sure the 2 drives are not on the same channel
    > (cable). If they are on the same channel, this will be a major
    > slowdown, as each channel can only perform 1 IO fubction at a time. So
    > it will have to read to ram, then write back out to the same channel.
    > Using 2 channels (cables), both will happen at the same time. Then make
    > sure you have them set to the fastest settings they support. I use hdparm
    > to check/set mine, but I run linux. Not sure where you set/check drive
    > modes in win.
    >
    > --
    > Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
    > http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "ZigZag Master" <zigSPAMMYzagmaster@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:2m5h7rFjd86lU1@uni-berlin.de...
    > OK, I also have 1 DVD writer and 1 DVD reader, so if I understand you
    > correctly, I should put one HD and one DVD on each channel???
    >
    > thanks
    >
    >
    >
    > "Wes Newell" <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote in message
    > news:pan.2004.07.20.21.10.40.749665@TAKEOUTverizon.net...
    > > On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:33:29 -0400, ZigZag Master wrote:
    > >
    > > > I have a Maxtor 200GB (6Y200P0) and a Western Digital 250GB WD2500JB
    in
    > a
    > > > AMD 2500 / Abit NF7-S - 1GB RAM. I am running Windows XP Pro.
    > > >
    > > > I was wondering how long it should take to copy large files between
    the
    > > > drives.
    > > >
    > > > I have some TV captures that are about 8-12GB. It just seems like it
    > takes
    > > > a long time to copy from drive to drive....about 6-8 minutes. Is
    this
    > > > normal?
    > > >
    > > > Also, do I have to do anything special to turn on DMA mode? I think I
    > was
    > > > using Pinnacle Studio, and it popped up a window saying DMA mode was
    not
    > > > enabled on the Maxtor.
    > > >
    > > For best performance, make sure the 2 drives are not on the same channel
    > > (cable). If they are on the same channel, this will be a major
    > > slowdown, as each channel can only perform 1 IO fubction at a time. So
    > > it will have to read to ram, then write back out to the same channel.
    > > Using 2 channels (cables), both will happen at the same time. Then make
    > > sure you have them set to the fastest settings they support. I use
    hdparm
    > > to check/set mine, but I run linux. Not sure where you set/check drive
    > > modes in win.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
    > > http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
    >
    In a Nutshell yea....
    But what else you could do to increase speed is add a Raid or IDE card to
    you system and have each drive run on its Own interface....
    Say hard drives on Motherboard IDE channels 1 and 2 and then DVD drives on
    add-on card for IDE 3-4.
    I been thinkin about doin this myself....I have a Promise IDE 133 card
    sitting here that I may throw my DvDPlayer and CD-RW on and split the hard
    drives....but due to Case size so many cables would kill airflow for me.
    OZoNE


    -----= 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! =-----
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "ZigZag Master" <zigSPAMMYzagmaster@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:2m5h7rFjd86lU1@uni-berlin.de...
    > OK, I also have 1 DVD writer and 1 DVD reader, so if I understand you
    > correctly, I should put one HD and one DVD on each channel???

    Right.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "ZigZag Master" <zigSPAMMYzagmaster@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:2m5ac4Fikd6dU1@uni-berlin.de...
    > I have a Maxtor 200GB (6Y200P0) and a Western Digital 250GB WD2500JB in a
    > AMD 2500 / Abit NF7-S - 1GB RAM. I am running Windows XP Pro.
    >
    > I was wondering how long it should take to copy large files between the
    > drives.
    >
    > I have some TV captures that are about 8-12GB. It just seems like it
    takes
    > a long time to copy from drive to drive....about 6-8 minutes. Is this
    > normal?

    That's in the ballpark.

    > Also, do I have to do anything special to turn on DMA mode? I think I was
    > using Pinnacle Studio, and it popped up a window saying DMA mode was not
    > enabled on the Maxtor.

    Make SURE DMA mode is enabled for ALL ATA/IDE devices.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:30:40 -0400, ZigZag Master wrote:

    > OK, I also have 1 DVD writer and 1 DVD reader, so if I understand you
    > correctly, I should put one HD and one DVD on each channel???
    >
    If you've only got 2 channels and 4 devices, then you want the devices you
    copy to/from most on seperate channels. but you also need to consider
    from which drive you copy to the DVD wiriter most and keep them seperate
    as well if possible. It depsnds on how you use the sytem as to how to best
    configure the drives. Someone suggested another controller card, using 1
    drive per channel. That would be the best solution if that's posssible.
    They're cheap as dirt (I bought a dual channel with raid for about $10),
    so cost shouldn't be an issue for most people.

    --
    Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
    http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Wes Newell" <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote in message news:pan.2004.07.20.21.10.40.749665@TAKEOUTverizon.net
    > On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:33:29 -0400, ZigZag Master wrote:
    >
    > > I have a Maxtor 200GB (6Y200P0) and a Western Digital 250GB WD2500JB in a
    > > AMD 2500 / Abit NF7-S - 1GB RAM. I am running Windows XP Pro.
    > >
    > > I was wondering how long it should take to copy large files between the
    > > drives.
    > >
    > > I have some TV captures that are about 8-12GB. It just seems like it takes
    > > a long time to copy from drive to drive....about 6-8 minutes. Is this
    > > normal?
    > >
    > > Also, do I have to do anything special to turn on DMA mode? I think I was
    > > using Pinnacle Studio, and it popped up a window saying DMA mode was not
    > > enabled on the Maxtor.
    > >
    > For best performance, make sure the 2 drives are not on the same channel
    > (cable). If they are on the same channel, this will be a major
    > slowdown,

    Nope.

    > as each channel can only perform 1 IO fubction at a time.

    Like this would be any different for SCSI or any other bus.

    > So it will have to read to ram, then write back out to the same channel.

    So what. An IDE channel can support two drives.

    > Using 2 channels (cables), both will happen at the same time.

    Nope.

    > Then make
    > sure you have them set to the fastest settings they support. I use hdparm
    > to check/set mine, but I run linux. Not sure where you set/check drive
    > modes in win.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:9iiLc.292216$Gx4.57095@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
    > "ZigZag Master" <zigSPAMMYzagmaster@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:2m5ac4Fikd6dU1@uni-berlin.de...
    > > I have a Maxtor 200GB (6Y200P0) and a Western Digital 250GB WD2500JB in a
    > > AMD 2500 / Abit NF7-S - 1GB RAM. I am running Windows XP Pro.
    > >
    > > I was wondering how long it should take to copy large files between the
    > > drives.
    > >
    > > I have some TV captures that are about 8-12GB. It just seems like it takes
    > > a long time to copy from drive to drive....about 6-8 minutes. Is this
    > > normal?
    >
    > That's in the ballpark.
    >
    > > Also, do I have to do anything special to turn on DMA mode? I think I was
    > > using Pinnacle Studio, and it popped up a window saying DMA mode was not
    > > enabled on the Maxtor.
    >
    > Make SURE DMA mode is enabled for ALL ATA/IDE devices.

    Why? 22MB/s is definitely not PIO mode.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Folkert Rienstra wrote:
    > "Wes Newell" <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote in message
    > news:pan.2004.07.20.21.10.40.749665@TAKEOUTverizon.net
    >> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:33:29 -0400, ZigZag Master wrote:
    >>
    >>> I have a Maxtor 200GB (6Y200P0) and a Western Digital 250GB
    >>> WD2500JB in a AMD 2500 / Abit NF7-S - 1GB RAM. I am running
    >>> Windows XP Pro.
    >>>
    >>> I was wondering how long it should take to copy large files between
    >>> the drives.
    >>>
    >>> I have some TV captures that are about 8-12GB. It just seems like
    >>> it takes a long time to copy from drive to drive....about 6-8
    >>> minutes. Is this normal?
    >>>
    >>> Also, do I have to do anything special to turn on DMA mode? I
    >>> think I was using Pinnacle Studio, and it popped up a window saying
    >>> DMA mode was not enabled on the Maxtor.
    >>
    >> For best performance, make sure the 2 drives are not on the same
    >> channel (cable). If they are on the same channel, this will be a
    >> major
    >> slowdown,
    >
    > Nope.

    Wrong. His drives will only be running at half their potential if they're
    both on the same channel.

    >> as each channel can only perform 1 IO fubction at a time.
    >
    > Like this would be any different for SCSI or any other bus.

    Actually, it is. An ATA bus (current SATA implementations or parallel) can
    only have one active request at a time. A SCSI bus can have requests
    outstanding, so there is very little wastage of bus bandwidth (though more
    complex electronics are needed).

    >> So it will have to read to ram, then write back out to the same
    >> channel.
    >
    > So what. An IDE channel can support two drives.

    Yes, but not at the same time. Only one request can be active at any point
    in time. So your drives will run at exactly half of their potential speed if
    you only use one channel. This is the reason why doing any sort of IDE RAID
    pretty much requires that you have one device per channel, otherwise you
    take a big performance hit.

    >> Using 2 channels (cables), both will happen at the same time.
    >
    > Nope.

    You're wrong, again. You should actually understand the topic before you
    answer with such confidence :)

    [...]

    --
    Michael Brown
    www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Michael Brown" <see@signature.below> wrote in message
    news:%AtLc.3097$N77.226298@news.xtra.co.nz...
    > Folkert Rienstra wrote:
    >
    > >> So it will have to read to ram, then write back out to the same
    > >> channel.
    > >
    > > So what. An IDE channel can support two drives.
    >
    > Yes, but not at the same time. Only one request can be active at any point
    > in time. So your drives will run at exactly half of their potential speed if
    > you only use one channel. This is the reason why doing any sort of IDE RAID
    > pretty much requires that you have one device per channel, otherwise you
    > take a big performance hit.
    >
    It doesn't matter if you are doing sequential copies. IDE drives implement
    read ahead and write behind, so the host is transfering to/from the cache and
    both drives read and write at the same time. Similar argument for ROM to
    writer on the same channel. The speed of the channel is enough for two
    devices.

    > >> Using 2 channels (cables), both will happen at the same time.
    > >
    > > Nope.
    >
    > You're wrong, again. You should actually understand the topic before you
    > answer with such confidence :)
    >
    You are the one who doesn't understand. You can easily do CD duplication with
    both drives on one UDMA-33 channel. This was what the prior poster asked.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Michael Brown" <see@signature.below> wrote in message
    news:%AtLc.3097$N77.226298@news.xtra.co.nz...
    > Folkert Rienstra wrote:
    > > "Wes Newell" <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote in message
    > > news:pan.2004.07.20.21.10.40.749665@TAKEOUTverizon.net
    > >> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:33:29 -0400, ZigZag Master wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> I have a Maxtor 200GB (6Y200P0) and a Western Digital 250GB
    > >>> WD2500JB in a AMD 2500 / Abit NF7-S - 1GB RAM. I am running
    > >>> Windows XP Pro.
    > >>>
    > >>> I was wondering how long it should take to copy large files between
    > >>> the drives.
    > >>>
    > >>> I have some TV captures that are about 8-12GB. It just seems like
    > >>> it takes a long time to copy from drive to drive....about 6-8
    > >>> minutes. Is this normal?
    > >>>
    > >>> Also, do I have to do anything special to turn on DMA mode? I
    > >>> think I was using Pinnacle Studio, and it popped up a window saying
    > >>> DMA mode was not enabled on the Maxtor.
    > >>
    > >> For best performance, make sure the 2 drives are not on the same
    > >> channel (cable). If they are on the same channel, this will be a
    > >> major
    > >> slowdown,
    > >
    > > Nope.
    >
    > Wrong. His drives will only be running at half their potential if they're
    > both on the same channel.

    You are wrong.

    > >> as each channel can only perform 1 IO fubction at a time.
    > >
    > > Like this would be any different for SCSI or any other bus.
    >
    > Actually, it is. An ATA bus (current SATA implementations or parallel) can
    > only have one active request at a time.

    So, drives do read ahead and write behind caching...hmm, I wonder why?

    > A SCSI bus can have requests
    > outstanding, so there is very little wastage of bus bandwidth (though more
    > complex electronics are needed).
    >
    > >> So it will have to read to ram, then write back out to the same
    > >> channel.
    > >
    > > So what. An IDE channel can support two drives.
    >
    > Yes, but not at the same time.

    Wrong.

    > Only one request can be active at any point
    > in time.

    Just like SCSI. Define "active".

    >So your drives will run at exactly half of their potential speed if

    Wrong.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Defrag both drives, pick a huge file, restart the os, and copy the file
    between the drives while timing it, then delete the copy. Do this a few
    times. Then put one drive on the other channel and do it again. You'll then
    know if it makes a difference on your machine.

    I suspect that since (most?) drives can't read or write at anywhere near the
    rate of the modern 133 interface, it doesn't matter at all.

    But I would love to read your results.

    I have 2 drives on the same channel that max out at 40 mb/s and down to 25
    mb/s on the insides of the platters. They can copy a large file between them
    at 30 mb/s.


    --
    Ed Light

    Smiley :-/
    MS Smiley :-\

    Send spam to the FTC at
    uce@ftc.gov
    Thanks, robots.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Ed Light" <nobody@nobody.there> wrote

    > I have 2 drives on the same channel that max out at 40 mb/s and down to 25
    > mb/s on the insides of the platters. They can copy a large file between
    them
    > at 30 mb/s.

    That's in Win XP Home.

    --
    Ed Light

    Smiley :-/
    MS Smiley :-\

    Send spam to the FTC at
    uce@ftc.gov
    Thanks, robots.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Ed Light" <nobody@nobody.there> wrote in message
    news:7VALc.43469$ve2.12065@okepread05...
    > I have 2 drives on the same channel that max out at 40 mb/s and down to 25
    > mb/s on the insides of the platters. They can copy a large file between
    them
    > at 30 mb/s.

    That's a typical result for two HDs on the same cable doing big file
    sequential I/O. There is no interference.

    However if both drives were doing intense small record random I/O then there
    would be significant interference.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Yes this is my experience also. I did similar real life experiments
    too.

    Although I would attribute the no cable difference result to waiting
    on disk access time to intermix read and writes. I think what happens
    is that you (1) quickly purge the buffer on one drive, (2) wait for
    another disk revolution, (3) then purge the buffer again. This
    sequence intermixed between two drives.

    I used winXp as Ed did. Results may be way different for other
    operating systems...

    Forrest

    Motherboard Help By HAL web site:
    http://home.comcast.net/~hal-9000/


    On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:06:11 -0700, "Ed Light" <nobody@nobody.there>
    wrote:

    >Defrag both drives, pick a huge file, restart the os, and copy the file
    >between the drives while timing it, then delete the copy. Do this a few
    >times. Then put one drive on the other channel and do it again. You'll then
    >know if it makes a difference on your machine.
    >
    >I suspect that since (most?) drives can't read or write at anywhere near the
    >rate of the modern 133 interface, it doesn't matter at all.
    >
    >But I would love to read your results.
    >
    >I have 2 drives on the same channel that max out at 40 mb/s and down to 25
    >mb/s on the insides of the platters. They can copy a large file between them
    >at 30 mb/s.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Michael Brown" <see@signature.below> wrote in message news:%AtLc.3097$N77.226298@news.xtra.co.nz
    > Folkert Rienstra wrote:
    > > "Wes Newell" w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote in message news:pan.2004.07.20.21.10.40.749665@TAKEOUTverizon.net
    > > > On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:33:29 -0400, ZigZag Master wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > I have a Maxtor 200GB (6Y200P0) and a Western Digital 250GB
    > > > > WD2500JB in a AMD 2500 / Abit NF7-S - 1GB RAM. I am running
    > > > > Windows XP Pro.
    > > > >
    > > > > I was wondering how long it should take to copy large files between
    > > > > the drives.
    > > > >
    > > > > I have some TV captures that are about 8-12GB. It just seems like
    > > > > it takes a long time to copy from drive to drive....about 6-8
    > > > > minutes. Is this normal?
    > > > >
    > > > > Also, do I have to do anything special to turn on DMA mode? I
    > > > > think I was using Pinnacle Studio, and it popped up a window saying
    > > > > DMA mode was not enabled on the Maxtor.
    > > >
    > > > For best performance, make sure the 2 drives are not on the same
    > > > channel (cable). If they are on the same channel, this will be a
    > > > major
    > > > slowdown,
    > >
    > > Nope.
    >
    > Wrong. His drives will only be running at half their potential if they're
    > both on the same channel.
    >
    > > > as each channel can only perform 1 IO fubction at a time.
    > >
    > > Like this would be any different for SCSI or any other bus.
    >
    > Actually, it is. An ATA bus (current SATA implementations or parallel) can
    > only have one active request at a time. A SCSI bus can have requests
    > outstanding, so there is very little wastage of bus bandwidth (though more
    > complex electronics are needed).
    >
    > > > So it will have to read to ram, then write back out to the same
    > > > channel.
    > >
    > > So what. An IDE channel can support two drives.
    >
    > Yes, but not at the same time. Only one request can be active at any point
    > in time. So your drives will run at exactly half of their potential speed if
    > you only use one channel. This is the reason why doing any sort of IDE RAID
    > pretty much requires that you have one device per channel, otherwise you
    > take a big performance hit.
    >
    > > > Using 2 channels (cables), both will happen at the same time.
    > >
    > > Nope.
    >
    > You're wrong, again.

    > You should actually understand the topic before you
    > answer with such confidence :)

    LOL, what can I say, one has it or one doesn't.

    Guess again in what camp you are.

    >
    > [...]
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:HiCLc.120552$OB3.105979@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
    > "Ed Light" <nobody@nobody.there> wrote in message
    > news:7VALc.43469$ve2.12065@okepread05...
    > > I have 2 drives on the same channel that max out at 40 mb/s and down to 25
    > > mb/s on the insides of the platters. They can copy a large file between them
    > > at 30 mb/s.
    >
    > That's a typical result for two HDs on the same cable doing big file
    > sequential I/O. There is no interference.
    >
    > However if both drives were doing intense small record random I/O then there
    > would be significant interference.

    On dual reads.
    Not with one read and the other write or with dual writes.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Eric Gisin wrote:
    > "Michael Brown" <see@signature.below> wrote in message
    > news:%AtLc.3097$N77.226298@news.xtra.co.nz...
    >> Folkert Rienstra wrote:
    >>
    >>>> So it will have to read to ram, then write back out to the same
    >>>> channel.
    >>>
    >>> So what. An IDE channel can support two drives.
    >>
    >> Yes, but not at the same time. Only one request can be active at any
    >> point in time. So your drives will run at exactly half of their
    >> potential speed if you only use one channel. This is the reason why
    >> doing any sort of IDE RAID pretty much requires that you have one
    >> device per channel, otherwise you take a big performance hit.
    >>
    > It doesn't matter if you are doing sequential copies. IDE drives
    > implement read ahead and write behind, so the host is transfering
    > to/from the cache and both drives read and write at the same time.
    > Similar argument for ROM to writer on the same channel. The speed of
    > the channel is enough for two devices.

    The cache and write buffers have (almost) no effect on the situation we're
    talking about here: multi-gigabyte file moves between hard disks. The write
    buffer on the drive will be 100% full all the time, and the read cache will
    never have a chance to get ahead of the interface (as the interface is 2-3
    times faster than the off-the-platter speed of the drive). The write request
    will be sent to the drive, but the interface will stall until there is a
    free block in the (write) cache. Likewise for reading. The request will come
    in for a number of sectors. From the start of this request to the time when
    the drive has finished sending the data, the interface is in use.

    A timeline might help. The following assumptions are made:
    1) Zero seek time
    2) 50mbytes/sec sustained reading and writing (HDD manufacturer mbytes,
    1mbyte = 1000000 bytes)
    3) Sufficient data hasa been transferred already to fill up the write buffer
    on the destination drive (~12mb or so)
    4) The drive can transmit as it's read off the platters (ie: doesn't cache
    then send)
    5) Requests don't take any time to send.
    6) Interface is ATA133

    If 1, 3, 4 or 5 don't hold, it makes the analysis somewhat more complex, and
    decreases the throughput on the bus. So I'm assuming best-case conditions
    here. Times are in ms to 3sf.

    One channel:
    t = 0.000: 64kb (treating kb = 1024 bytes here) read request to drive 1. Bus
    becomes allocated to drive 1.
    t = 0.010: Drive 1 finishes reading sector 1 off the platters, and has sent
    it.
    t = 0.020: Drive 1 finishes reading sector 2 off the platters, and has sent
    it.
    t = 1.311: Drive 1 finishes reading sector 128 off the platters, and has
    sent it. The bus is now free.
    t = 1.311: 64kb write request to drive 2. Bus becomes allocated to drive 2.
    Read request queued in HDD driver for drive 1.
    t = 1.315: Drive 2 finishes receiving sector 1 from the interface. Begins
    writing to platters. Begins reading sector 2 from interface.
    t = 1.325: Drive 2 finishes writing sector 1 to platters.
    t = 2.625: Drive 2 finishes writing sector 128 to the platters. The bus is
    now free.
    So, it has taken 2.625ms to transfer 64kb, giving drive-to-drive copy speed
    of very slightly under 25 mbytes/sec. Actually, it's not usually quite this
    bad, since some of the time the firmware is successful in reading ahead in
    the right way. I was curious about this about a year ago, and wrote a small
    assembler/FreePascal program to do the tests (bootdisk somewhat like
    memtest86). In a benchmark between two Seagate 80gb drives (2mb cache) I
    measured it to copy about 35 mbytes/sec. Two-channel copying was measured at
    ~50 mbytes sec (this was all done at the start of the drive IIRC). It's
    quite possible that Seagate's firmware is just hopeless at reading ahead,
    but since I'm not rich enough to have a whole lot of unused hard disks
    floating around, I never got around to testing any others. You can probably
    do much the same thing in linux doing a dd from /dev/hda to /dev/hdb or
    similar (I always choose the hard way to do things :) ). I can probably whip
    up a quick linux bootdisk (or try to find my original program) if you want
    to test it yourself.

    Two channels:
    t = 0.000: 64kb (treating kb = 1024 bytes here) read request to drive 1 on
    bus 1. Bus 1 becomes allocated to drive 1.
    t = 0.010: Drive 1 finishes reading sector 1 off the platters, and has sent
    it.
    t = 0.020: Drive 1 finishes reading sector 2 off the platters, and has sent
    it.
    t = 1.311: Drive 1 finishes reading sector 128 off the platters, and has
    sent it. Bus 1 is now free.
    t = 1.311: 64kb write request to drive 2 on second channel. Bus 2 becomes
    allocated to drive 2.
    t = 1.311: 64kb read request to drive 1 on bus 1. Bus 1 becomes allocated to
    drive 1.
    t = 1.315: Drive 2 finishes receiving sector 1 from the interface. Begins
    writing to platters. Begins reading sector 2 from interface.
    t = 1.321: Drive 1 finishes reading sector 129 off the platters, and has
    sent it.
    t = 1.325: Drive 2 finishes writing sector 1 to platters.
    t = 2.621: Drive 1 finishes reading sector 256 off the platters, and has
    sent it. Bus 1 is now free.
    t = 2.625: Drive 2 finishes writing sector 128 to the platters. Bus 2 is now
    free.

    So, now it's only taking 1.315ms to transfer 64kb, giving a drive-to-drive
    copy speed of just under 50 mbytes/sec.

    In SCSI, however, data is separated from request packets (as I understand
    it, I haven't looked into it as much as ATA, mainly for financial reasons
    :) ). Without going into a whole lot of timing detail, the transfer looks
    more like:
    Send read to drive 1. Bus is freed immediately after transfer. The drive
    begins reading data into an internal buffer.
    Drive 1 sends a read acknowledge back to the controller, along with the data
    (at full bus speed, from the buffer).
    Send read to drive 1. Bus is freed immediately after transfer. The drive
    begins reading data into an internal buffer.
    Send write to drive 2, along with data. Data is buffered into internal
    buffer, and the bus is freed immediately after the transfer of the request.
    The drive begins writing data onto the platters.
    Drive 1 sends a read acknowledge back to the controller, along with the data
    (at full bus speed, from the buffer).
    Drive 2 sends a write acknowledge back to the controller.
    etc etc

    With a bit of sensible programming, the writes are buffered on the CPU side
    until the drive reports that the request has been completed. Only then is
    the next write request sent out, which is transferred at full bus speed into
    the write buffer of the hard disk. In other words, all transfers are done at
    full bus speed, with no stalling, and the bus is freed immediately after the
    request has been sent (unlike ATA). This is the main advantage of SCSI, and
    the reason why you can hang a stupid number of devices off a single channel
    without having any performance issues.

    Finally, I'm not sure exactly how the various command queuing techniques
    that are hopefully going to become part of SATA work. I hope that they
    operate along similar lines to what I described for the SCSI, as this would
    get rid of one of the disadvantages of ATA.

    The whole analysis changes, of course, when you add in significant seek
    times. The buffers play a much larger role in saving performance (otherwise
    the bus is stalled for ~10ms, OUCH!) here. But this wasn't what the OP was
    asking about, so wasn't what I was answering about either.

    >>>> Using 2 channels (cables), both will happen at the same time.
    >>>
    >>> Nope.
    >>
    >> You're wrong, again. You should actually understand the topic before
    >> you answer with such confidence :)
    >
    > You are the one who doesn't understand. You can easily do CD
    > duplication with both drives on one UDMA-33 channel. This was what
    > the prior poster asked.

    Actually, the prior poster was asking about copying multi-gigabyte files
    between hard disks. CD writers top out at about 9 mbytes/sec, so even mode 4
    PIO is nearly fast enough for CD duplication.

    --
    Michael Brown
    www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Michael Brown wrote:
    [...]

    Sorry about this post. I missed the x-post to the
    comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (I "live" in a.c.h.o), and seeing the
    unfamiliar name and the non-backed-up responses, I posted with rather more
    of snippy attitude than should have. However, I still believe my responses
    are still mostly correct (except the one about operating at exactly half
    speed, dunno why I said that ...): see my response to Eric Gisin.

    --
    Michael Brown
    www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    A few corrections on reading through it again ...

    Michael Brown wrote:
    > Eric Gisin wrote:
    >> "Michael Brown" <see@signature.below> wrote in message
    >> news:%AtLc.3097$N77.226298@news.xtra.co.nz...
    >>> Folkert Rienstra wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> So it will have to read to ram, then write back out to the same
    >>>>> channel.
    >>>>
    >>>> So what. An IDE channel can support two drives.
    >>>
    >>> Yes, but not at the same time. Only one request can be active at any
    >>> point in time. So your drives will run at exactly half of their
    >>> potential speed if you only use one channel. This is the reason why
    >>> doing any sort of IDE RAID pretty much requires that you have one
    >>> device per channel, otherwise you take a big performance hit.
    >>>
    >> It doesn't matter if you are doing sequential copies. IDE drives
    >> implement read ahead and write behind, so the host is transfering
    >> to/from the cache and both drives read and write at the same time.
    >> Similar argument for ROM to writer on the same channel. The speed of
    >> the channel is enough for two devices.
    >
    > The cache and write buffers have (almost) no effect on the situation
    > we're talking about here: multi-gigabyte file moves between hard
    > disks. The write buffer on the drive will be 100% full all the time,

    I should have probably mentioned that this was assuming that the hard drive
    was typical, not ideal (as below). "Typical" hard drives have slightly lower
    write speeds than read speeds, so the write buffer generally gets to 100%
    full during "streaming" disk writes. There's a whole great big mess at the
    start with buffering and read-ahead on a single-channel setup, but that
    usually gets sorted out after a few hundred meg.

    > and the read cache will never have a chance to get ahead of the
    > interface (as the interface is 2-3 times faster than the
    > off-the-platter speed of the drive).

    Again, I was talking about typical drives, not theoretical drives. A
    theoretical drive would be able to get 2mb (or whatever the buffer size is)
    ahead of the actual read point by reading in the data while the write drive
    is stalling (either due to being on the same channel or because writing is
    marginally slower than reading). However, my tests seem to indicate that
    this does not happen, or at least it does not happen as well as it should
    (eg: the drive might not automatically seek ahead to the next track,
    creating a bursty dataflow).

    [...]

    --
    Michael Brown
    www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Michael Brown" <see@signature.below> wrote in message news:TFKLc.3445$N77.239892@news.xtra.co.nz
    > Michael Brown wrote:
    > [...]
    >
    > Sorry about this post. I missed the x-post to the
    > comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (I "live" in a.c.h.o), and seeing the
    > unfamiliar name and the non-backed-up responses, I posted with rather more of snippy attitude than should have.

    It appears about normal from what usually comes from your part of the world.

    > However, I still believe my responses are still mostly correct

    Not in that post.

    > (except the one about operating at exactly half speed, dunno why I said that ...):

    Maybe because that is what you really think and why you had to correct yourself?
    Twice.

    > see my response to Eric Gisin.

    Which because of the sheer size of it and the odd linebreaks nobody might
    read. And when you use mbytes (millibytes) when you mean MB (MegaBytes)
    and that drives read and send sector for sector to the interface or read sector
    for sector from the interface then I won't even bother to read further.
  22. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Michael Brown" <see@signature.below> wrote in message news:2qKLc.3438$N77.239681@news.xtra.co.nz
    > Eric Gisin wrote:
    > > "Michael Brown" <see@signature.below> wrote in message news:%AtLc.3097$N77.226298@news.xtra.co.nz...
    > > > Folkert Rienstra wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > > So it will have to read to ram, then write back out to the same
    > > > > > channel.
    > > > >
    > > > > So what. An IDE channel can support two drives.
    > > >
    > > > Yes, but not at the same time. Only one request can be active at any
    > > > point in time. So your drives will run at exactly half of their
    > > > potential speed if you only use one channel. This is the reason why
    > > > doing any sort of IDE RAID pretty much requires that you have one
    > > > device per channel, otherwise you take a big performance hit.
    > > >
    > > It doesn't matter if you are doing sequential copies. IDE drives
    > > implement read ahead and write behind, so the host is transfering
    > > to/from the cache and both drives read and write at the same time.
    > > Similar argument for ROM to writer on the same channel. The speed of
    > > the channel is enough for two devices.
    >
    > The cache and write buffers have (almost) no effect on the situation we're
    > talking about here: multi-gigabyte file moves between hard disks.

    Yes, it does. That is exactly the situation where 2 drives on a channel
    do not sit in each others way:
    Sequential reading which caches ahead and writing that doesn't hog the bus.

    > The write buffer on the drive

    Write buffer?

    > will be 100% full all the time,

    What write buffer?

    > and the read cache will never have a chance to get ahead of the interface

    Gee, wonder what read-ahead caching is for then when it can't do anything.

    > (as the interface is 2-3 times faster than the off-the-platter speed of the drive).

    That is why it is called a cache, a place where the data can be held until the
    host requests it the next time that the bus is free.

    > The write request will be sent to the drive, but the interface will stall until there is a
    > free block in the (write) cache.

    Pure nonsense.

    > Likewise for reading. The request will come
    > in for a number of sectors. From the start of this request to the time when
    > the drive has finished sending the data, the interface is in use.

    So what?
    That is to the host. The host then sends it to the destination.
    The action is serial whether single channel or dual channel. The interface runs
    at twice the speed a single drive needs so running the action in series doesn't
    loose them any transfer speed when run from read ahead cache to write buffer.
    When the source drive reads 128kB to the transfer buffer that is transferred
    to the host and then send to destination, it reads another chunk to the readahead
    cache. The destination drive accepts the data in its buffer and then releases the
    bus immediately. While the destination drive is writing from it's buffer the next
    command is send to the source drive which then already finds it's requested data
    filling the cache.

    So as Eric said:
    "so the host is transfering to/from the cache and both drives read and write at the same time".

    [gibber snipped]

    >
    > > > > > Using 2 channels (cables), both will happen at the same time.
    > > > >
    > > > > Nope.
    > > >
    > > > You're wrong, again. You should actually understand the topic before
    > > > you answer with such confidence :)
    > >
    > > You are the one who doesn't understand. You can easily do CD
    > > duplication with both drives on one UDMA-33 channel. This was what
    > > the prior poster asked.
    >
    > Actually, the prior poster was asking about copying multi-gigabyte files
    > between hard disks. CD writers top out at about 9 mbytes/sec, so even mode 4
    > PIO is nearly fast enough for CD duplication.
  23. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Michael Brown" <see@signature.below> wrote in message
    news:2qKLc.3438$N77.239681@news.xtra.co.nz...
    > Eric Gisin wrote:
    > > "Michael Brown" <see@signature.below> wrote in message
    > > news:%AtLc.3097$N77.226298@news.xtra.co.nz...
    > >> Folkert Rienstra wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>> So it will have to read to ram, then write back out to the same
    > >>>> channel.
    > >>>
    > >>> So what. An IDE channel can support two drives.
    > >>
    > >> Yes, but not at the same time. Only one request can be active at any
    > >> point in time. So your drives will run at exactly half of their
    > >> potential speed if you only use one channel. This is the reason why
    > >> doing any sort of IDE RAID pretty much requires that you have one
    > >> device per channel, otherwise you take a big performance hit.
    > >>
    > > It doesn't matter if you are doing sequential copies. IDE drives
    > > implement read ahead and write behind, so the host is transfering
    > > to/from the cache and both drives read and write at the same time.
    > > Similar argument for ROM to writer on the same channel. The speed of
    > > the channel is enough for two devices.
    >
    > The cache and write buffers have (almost) no effect on the situation we're
    > talking about here: multi-gigabyte file moves between hard disks.

    That's flat false. The drive's onboard read and write caching are CRITICAL
    to such an operation.


    > The write
    > buffer on the drive will be 100% full all the time,

    Just NO!

    > and the read cache will
    > never have a chance to get ahead of the interface (as the interface is 2-3
    > times faster than the off-the-platter speed of the drive).

    Wacko.

    > The write request
    > will be sent to the drive, but the interface will stall until there is a
    > free block in the (write) cache. Likewise for reading. The request will
    come
    > in for a number of sectors. From the start of this request to the time
    when
    > the drive has finished sending the data, the interface is in use.
    >
    > A timeline might help. The following assumptions are made:
    > 1) Zero seek time
    > 2) 50mbytes/sec sustained reading and writing (HDD manufacturer mbytes,
    > 1mbyte = 1000000 bytes)
    > 3) Sufficient data hasa been transferred already to fill up the write
    buffer
    > on the destination drive (~12mb or so)

    NO, what HDs have either a 12mb or 12 MB buffer?

    > 4) The drive can transmit as it's read off the platters (ie: doesn't cache
    > then send)
    > 5) Requests don't take any time to send.
    > 6) Interface is ATA133
    >
    > If 1, 3, 4 or 5 don't hold, it makes the analysis somewhat more complex,
    and
    > decreases the throughput on the bus. So I'm assuming best-case conditions
    > here. Times are in ms to 3sf.

    Drivel ignored.
  24. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Folkert Rienstra wrote:
    [...]
    > LOL, what can I say, one has it or one doesn't.
    >
    > Guess again in what camp you are.

    If you're referring to tact, I'd say I very definately fall into the latter
    :) Although I don't think my tone was right, I still stand by (most of) my
    original comments (see my longer reply to Eric Gisin). They're based on both
    reading of the specs and a substantial amount of testing (though admittedly
    a lot of it not directly related to large-file copying ). If you or Ron
    have something to contribute other than single-word responses or personal
    attacks (though I regretfully admit I fired the first shot for this one)
    then I'd be interested to hear them. Otherwise, I don't see much point in
    continuing this thread.


    At one point in time, I was doing the planning for an MP3 player (as
    many people have) and completed about half the IDE interface before I lost
    interest due to cost reasons (I picked an overly powerful DSP that required
    a rather expensive PCB layout). I did a substantial amount of testing with
    low-level ATA stuff, since I was hoping to run both a (normal, desktop)
    CDRom drive and a (laptop) hard drive off a single channel. The idea was to
    buffer the file from the CDRom into the more shock-resistant hard disk, and
    play it from there. The issue I ran into was that due to the continuous
    needs of the DSP, and the effectively zero buffer on the microcontroller,
    things stuffed up at the end of the song as the CDRom drive was stalling the
    bus sufficiently to break up the stream of data from the HDD to the DSP.
    This got me curious as to exactly how stalls affected the bus, and one part
    of that was the test I did with the Seagates.

    --
    Michael Brown
    www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
  25. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "- HAL9000" <gumpy@mail.org> wrote in message news:57fuf0lv0pstgi2pmlsg9onaj00s74vseh@4ax.com
    > Yes this is my experience also. I did similar real life experiments too.
    >
    > Although I would attribute the no difference result to waiting
    > on disk access time to intermix read and writes.

    > I think what happens is that you (1) quickly purge the buffer on one drive,
    > (2) wait for another disk revolution, (3) then purge the buffer again.

    A command is always for a contiguous part of data so there is no waiting for
    revolutions other than as part of the access time directly from the start of
    the command. Commands are limited to a maximum of 128kB (256 sectors).

    > This sequence intermixed between two drives.

    If you mean 1) for the read and 3) for the write, then yes.
    The system however doesn't need to wait for the write to finish, so the
    read drive can get its follow-up command while the write drive is writing.
    Of course the write drive isn't available until it has finished the writing.
    Because of the commands are for contiguous data there is only head and
    cylinder switches to deal with after the initial access seek and latency.

    >
    > I used winXp as Ed did. Results may be way different for other
    > operating systems...

    For OS related overhead only.

    >
    > Forrest
    >
    > Motherboard Help By HAL web site:
    > http://home.comcast.net/~hal-9000/
    >
    >
    > On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:06:11 -0700, "Ed Light" <nobody@nobody.there>
    > wrote:
    >
    > > Defrag both drives, pick a huge file, restart the os, and copy the file
    > > between the drives while timing it, then delete the copy. Do this a few
    > > times. Then put one drive on the other channel and do it again. You'll then
    > > know if it makes a difference on your machine.
    > >
    > > I suspect that since (most?) drives can't read or write at anywhere near the
    > > rate of the modern 133 interface, it doesn't matter at all.
    > >
    > > But I would love to read your results.
    > >
    > > I have 2 drives on the same channel that max out at 40 mb/s and down to 25
    > > mb/s on the insides of the platters. They can copy a large file between them
    > > at 30 mb/s.
Ask a new question

Read More

Storage