Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Slow if share IDE port between HDD and CD-ROM ?

Last response: in Storage
Share
August 16, 2005 2:03:59 AM

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

Are the following true for my PC (2 years old with 2 IDE ports and no
SATA) and it runs WinXP:


"...make sure that your CD-ROM drive isn't on the same IDE channel as
your hard drive. Sharing of IDE channels can dramatically slow down
CD-ROM and hard disk access."

http://www.tweak3d.net/tweak/cdrom/



"Make sure your hard drive is not connected to the same IDE port as
your CD/DVD-ROM. Each IDE port is programmed to operate at the slower
of the two devices on the port, so you could be slowing down access
to your primary hard drive by leaving a CD-ROM on the same channel.
Put your CD/DVD-ROM on the Secondary IDE port."

from: http://www.techbargains.com/hottips/hottip12/index.cfm
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 16, 2005 2:04:00 AM

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

It is, indeed, true.

--
DaveW



"Larry" <nomail.thank.you@mail.com> wrote in message
news:96B3E078AC42551D7E@67.97.85.44...
> Are the following true for my PC (2 years old with 2 IDE ports and no
> SATA) and it runs WinXP:
>
>
> "...make sure that your CD-ROM drive isn't on the same IDE channel as
> your hard drive. Sharing of IDE channels can dramatically slow down
> CD-ROM and hard disk access."
>
> http://www.tweak3d.net/tweak/cdrom/
>
>
>
> "Make sure your hard drive is not connected to the same IDE port as
> your CD/DVD-ROM. Each IDE port is programmed to operate at the slower
> of the two devices on the port, so you could be slowing down access
> to your primary hard drive by leaving a CD-ROM on the same channel.
> Put your CD/DVD-ROM on the Secondary IDE port."
>
> from: http://www.techbargains.com/hottips/hottip12/index.cfm
August 16, 2005 2:04:00 AM

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

Rod is right, y'all.

johns
Related resources
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 16, 2005 8:12:45 AM

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

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:03:59 +0100, Larry <nomail.thank.you@mail.com>
wrote:

>Are the following true for my PC (2 years old with 2 IDE ports and no
>SATA) and it runs WinXP:

That statement has been around for almost as long as ATA CD-ROM have
been around. But I don't know if anyone actually used benchmark with
HD and CD-ROM on same IDE cable and then again with those 2 separate
to see if there's difference in HD performance.

For me, it's just more convenient to have them on separate IDE because
I have 2 HDs on primary channel.
--
When you hear the toilet flush, and hear the words "uh oh", it's already
too late. - by anonymous Mother in Austin, TX
To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 16, 2005 11:39:59 AM

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

Larry <nomail.thank.you@mail.com> wrote

> Are the following true for my PC (2 years old with
> 2 IDE ports and no SATA) and it runs WinXP:

Nope.

> "...make sure that your CD-ROM drive isn't on the same
> IDE channel as your hard drive. Sharing of IDE channels
> can dramatically slow down CD-ROM and hard disk access."

> http://www.tweak3d.net/tweak/cdrom/

Grossly obsolete 'advice'

> "Make sure your hard drive is not connected to the same IDE
> port as your CD/DVD-ROM. Each IDE port is programmed
> to operate at the slower of the two devices on the port,

Hasnt been true for years and years now.

> so you could be slowing down access to your primary
> hard drive by leaving a CD-ROM on the same channel.
> Put your CD/DVD-ROM on the Secondary IDE port."

> from: http://www.techbargains.com/hottips/hottip12/index.cfm

Grossly obsolete 'advice'
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 16, 2005 2:10:58 PM

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

DaveW <none@zero.org> wrote

> It is, indeed, true.

Not isnt, and hasnt been for a long time now.


> "Larry" <nomail.thank.you@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:96B3E078AC42551D7E@67.97.85.44...
>> Are the following true for my PC (2 years old with 2 IDE ports and no
>> SATA) and it runs WinXP:
>>
>>
>> "...make sure that your CD-ROM drive isn't on the same IDE channel as
>> your hard drive. Sharing of IDE channels can dramatically slow down
>> CD-ROM and hard disk access."
>>
>> http://www.tweak3d.net/tweak/cdrom/
>>
>>
>>
>> "Make sure your hard drive is not connected to the same IDE port as
>> your CD/DVD-ROM. Each IDE port is programmed to operate at the slower
>> of the two devices on the port, so you could be slowing down access
>> to your primary hard drive by leaving a CD-ROM on the same channel.
>> Put your CD/DVD-ROM on the Secondary IDE port."
>>
>> from: http://www.techbargains.com/hottips/hottip12/index.cfm
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 16, 2005 2:10:59 PM

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

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:10:58 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
wrote:


>Not isnt, and hasnt been for a long time now.

I'm with Rod on this one. It was true years ago but it isn't anymore.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 16, 2005 2:11:00 PM

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

Howdy!

"Praxiteles Democritus" <no@email.here> wrote in message
news:e0e2g1l4rfgc8dmpgnaniia5484vmhtii6@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:10:58 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Not isnt, and hasnt been for a long time now.
>
> I'm with Rod on this one. It was true years ago but it isn't anymore.

*nod* It might be true during OS install also, until the UDMA
drivers get installed.

But as soon as the chipset says UDMA (actually before!), the two
devices on an IDE channel run at whatever speed they run, while they're
running.

So advice that says both run at the same speed are like "Be sure to
seat all the DRAMs on the motherboard, especially if you have 512K or more
of onboard RAM. Also, be certain to seat the 80286 processor well"....

RwP
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 16, 2005 3:13:45 PM

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

"Impmon" <impmon@digi.mon> wrote in message
news:rs73g1dko9d9r030l9dbqe3hebisb60lam@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:03:59 +0100, Larry <nomail.thank.you@mail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Are the following true for my PC (2 years old with 2 IDE ports and no
>>SATA) and it runs WinXP:
>
> That statement has been around for almost as long as ATA CD-ROM have
> been around. But I don't know if anyone actually used benchmark with
> HD and CD-ROM on same IDE cable and then again with those 2 separate
> to see if there's difference in HD performance.
>
> For me, it's just more convenient to have them on separate IDE because
> I have 2 HDs on primary channel.


Surely that's slow for copying from one HD to the other? ;) 

--
Derek
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 16, 2005 3:21:12 PM

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

In article <rdCdnTvLA4sduZzeRVn-gg@comcast.com>, DaveW says...
> It is, indeed, true.
>
Only if you're still living in 1995.


--
Conor

If Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened
rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic
music.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 16, 2005 7:50:56 PM

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

"Larry" <nomail.thank.you@mail.com> wrote in message
news:96B3E078AC42551D7E@67.97.85.44...
> Are the following true for my PC (2 years old with 2 IDE ports and no
> SATA) and it runs WinXP:
>
>
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/if/ide/confTiming-c.html
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 17, 2005 12:02:13 AM

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

Larry wrote:

> Are the following true for my PC (2 years old with 2
> IDE ports and no SATA) and it runs WinXP:

> "...make sure that your CD-ROM drive isn't on the same
> IDE channel as your hard drive. Sharing of IDE
> channels can dramatically slow down CD-ROM and hard
> disk access."
>
> http://www.tweak3d.net/tweak/cdrom/

That happen only once to me, several years ago, when I decided to
install VIA's latest weekly driver package revision. The drives ran
fine when I installed older or newer VIA drivers. I also tested mobos
equipped with SiS Intel chipsets and a PCI IDE card based on a Silicon
Image chip, but none of them showed any slowdown of the CD or HD.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 17, 2005 12:30:31 AM

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

Impmon <impmon@digi.mon> wrote
> Larry <nomail.thank.you@mail.com> wrote

>> Are the following true for my PC (2 years old
>> with 2 IDE ports and no SATA) and it runs WinXP:

> That statement has been around for almost as long as ATA CD-ROM
> have been around. But I don't know if anyone actually used benchmark
> with HD and CD-ROM on same IDE cable and then again with those
> 2 separate to see if there's difference in HD performance.

Corse they have.

> For me, it's just more convenient to have them on
> separate IDE because I have 2 HDs on primary channel.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 17, 2005 12:31:28 AM

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

Derek Baker <me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
> "Impmon" <impmon@digi.mon> wrote in message
> news:rs73g1dko9d9r030l9dbqe3hebisb60lam@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:03:59 +0100, Larry <nomail.thank.you@mail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Are the following true for my PC (2 years old with 2 IDE ports and
>>> no SATA) and it runs WinXP:
>>
>> That statement has been around for almost as long as ATA CD-ROM have
>> been around. But I don't know if anyone actually used benchmark with
>> HD and CD-ROM on same IDE cable and then again with those 2 separate
>> to see if there's difference in HD performance.
>>
>> For me, it's just more convenient to have them on separate IDE
>> because I have 2 HDs on primary channel.
>
>
> Surely that's slow for copying from one HD to the other? ;) 

Nope, because most apps that are used to do
the copying dont overlap access to both drives.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 17, 2005 6:55:05 AM

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

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3mdtk2F16h3jdU1@individual.net...
> Derek Baker <me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Impmon" <impmon@digi.mon> wrote in message
>> news:rs73g1dko9d9r030l9dbqe3hebisb60lam@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:03:59 +0100, Larry <nomail.thank.you@mail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are the following true for my PC (2 years old with 2 IDE ports and
>>>> no SATA) and it runs WinXP:
>>>
>>> That statement has been around for almost as long as ATA CD-ROM have
>>> been around. But I don't know if anyone actually used benchmark with
>>> HD and CD-ROM on same IDE cable and then again with those 2 separate
>>> to see if there's difference in HD performance.
>>>
>>> For me, it's just more convenient to have them on separate IDE
>>> because I have 2 HDs on primary channel.
>>
>>
>> Surely that's slow for copying from one HD to the other? ;) 
>
> Nope, because most apps that are used to do
> the copying dont overlap access to both drives.
Just to clarify. Would 2 drive, RAID 0 performance be the same if the two
drives were master/slave vs one on each IDE channel?

Thanks
>
>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 17, 2005 6:55:06 AM

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

fj wrote:

> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3mdtk2F16h3jdU1@individual.net...
>
>>Derek Baker <me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>"Impmon" <impmon@digi.mon> wrote in message
>>>news:rs73g1dko9d9r030l9dbqe3hebisb60lam@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:03:59 +0100, Larry <nomail.thank.you@mail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Are the following true for my PC (2 years old with 2 IDE ports and
>>>>>no SATA) and it runs WinXP:
>>>>
>>>>That statement has been around for almost as long as ATA CD-ROM have
>>>>been around. But I don't know if anyone actually used benchmark with
>>>>HD and CD-ROM on same IDE cable and then again with those 2 separate
>>>>to see if there's difference in HD performance.
>>>>
>>>>For me, it's just more convenient to have them on separate IDE
>>>>because I have 2 HDs on primary channel.
>>>
>>>
>>>Surely that's slow for copying from one HD to the other? ;) 
>>
>>Nope, because most apps that are used to do
>>the copying dont overlap access to both drives.
>
> Just to clarify. Would 2 drive, RAID 0 performance be the same if the two
> drives were master/slave vs one on each IDE channel?
>
> Thanks

No, because IDE cannot talk to two devices on the same channel at the same
time but it can if they are on separate channels.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 17, 2005 7:05:13 AM

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

"fj" <jelenko@att.net> wrote in message
news:D GxMe.106069$5N3.15618@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>>.
> Just to clarify. Would 2 drive, RAID 0 performance be the same if the two
> drives were master/slave vs one on each IDE channel?
>
> Thanks
>>
I'd say no, much better to have them on seperate channels. With IDTiming
you won't slow down a HD with a CD-ROM but there's still an IDE limitation
where you can only read or write from one device at a time on each IDE
channel.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 17, 2005 5:30:38 PM

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

fj <jelenko@att.net> wrote:
> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3mdtk2F16h3jdU1@individual.net...
>> Derek Baker <me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>>> "Impmon" <impmon@digi.mon> wrote in message
>>> news:rs73g1dko9d9r030l9dbqe3hebisb60lam@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:03:59 +0100, Larry
>>>> <nomail.thank.you@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Are the following true for my PC (2 years old with 2 IDE ports and
>>>>> no SATA) and it runs WinXP:
>>>>
>>>> That statement has been around for almost as long as ATA CD-ROM
>>>> have been around. But I don't know if anyone actually used
>>>> benchmark with HD and CD-ROM on same IDE cable and then again with
>>>> those 2 separate to see if there's difference in HD performance.
>>>>
>>>> For me, it's just more convenient to have them on separate IDE
>>>> because I have 2 HDs on primary channel.
>>>
>>>
>>> Surely that's slow for copying from one HD to the other? ;) 
>>
>> Nope, because most apps that are used to do
>> the copying dont overlap access to both drives.

> Just to clarify. Would 2 drive, RAID 0 performance be the same if
> the two drives were master/slave vs one on each IDE channel?

Nope, separate channels should be better in that particular situation.

Thats nothing like the original situation tho.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 17, 2005 6:28:58 PM

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

On Wed 17 Aug 2005 06:05:30, David Maynard wrote:
> fj wrote:
>
>> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:3mdtk2F16h3jdU1@individual.net...
>>
>>> Derek Baker <me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Impmon" <impmon@digi.mon> wrote in message
>>>> news:rs73g1dko9d9r030l9dbqe3hebisb60lam@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:03:59 +0100, Larry
>>>>> <nomail.thank.you@mail.com> wrote:


>>>>>> Are the following true for my PC (2 years old with 2 IDE
>>>>>> ports and no SATA) and it runs WinXP:


>>>>> That statement has been around for almost as long as ATA
>>>>> CD-ROM have been around. But I don't know if anyone
>>>>> actually used benchmark with HD and CD-ROM on same IDE cable
>>>>> and then again with those 2 separate to see if there's
>>>>> difference in HD performance.
>>>>>
>>>>> For me, it's just more convenient to have them on separate
>>>>> IDE because I have 2 HDs on primary channel.


>>>> Surely that's slow for copying from one HD to the other? ;) 


>>> Nope, because most apps that are used to do
>>> the copying dont overlap access to both drives.


>> Just to clarify. Would 2 drive, RAID 0 performance be the same
>> if the two drives were master/slave vs one on each IDE channel?


> No, because IDE cannot talk to two devices on the same channel
> at the same time but it can if they are on separate channels.


So from what you say, if I have an XP system partition on one hard
drive then the swap file (assuming I want to fiddle with placing my
swap file) should not only be on another hard drive but that other
hard drive should be on another IDE channel. Is this correct?

----

I also use a PCI card to give me an extra two IDE channels. The card
is based on the Silicon Image 0680 Ultra-133 chip.
(I don't use its RAID capability. http://tinyurl.com/a685d)

In terms of performance does it make a difference if a 7200rpm hard
drive is on one of the two IDE channels on the motherboard (whose VIA
Via 266A/8235 chipset provides ATA133) rather on one of the IDE
channels on my adaptor card?


Thanks for any info

Mark




--


[groups widened]
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 17, 2005 6:31:12 PM

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

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 14:28:58 +0100, Mark M
<CANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@com.invalid> wrote:


>> No, because IDE cannot talk to two devices on the same channel
>> at the same time but it can if they are on separate channels.
>
>
>So from what you say, if I have an XP system partition on one hard
>drive then the swap file (assuming I want to fiddle with placing my
>swap file) should not only be on another hard drive but that other
>hard drive should be on another IDE channel. Is this correct?
>

"Should" is relative. Yes, having the swapfile drive on a
different IDE channel (or controller of course) will
increase performance some in theory. In practice, "most" of
the performance gain is from use of the second drive,
because the drives are still slower than the interfaces.

If you find swapfile performance is an issue, more likely
you need to add memory to the system, rather than (or at
least before) focusing on where that swapfile is.


>----
>
>I also use a PCI card to give me an extra two IDE channels. The card
>is based on the Silicon Image 0680 Ultra-133 chip.
>(I don't use its RAID capability. http://tinyurl.com/a685d)
>
>In terms of performance does it make a difference if a 7200rpm hard
>drive is on one of the two IDE channels on the motherboard (whose VIA
>Via 266A/8235 chipset provides ATA133) rather on one of the IDE
>channels on my adaptor card?

The adapter card is slower, because it must use PCI bus to
get the data to southbridge, while the integrated controller
is a southbridge function pseudo-parallel to the PCI bus.
That also means that using the PCI card will reduce PCI bus
time and bandwidth available to any other PCI devices which
may (or may not) need a lot of time. Common cards needing a
lot of time are video capture cards, external USB/firewire,
sound cards, Gigabit network adapters. The sound card is
the most commonly reported as problematic because listening
to audio is a real-time event... anyone will recognize sound
stuttering but far fewer people actually benchmark their
Gigabit or firewire performance (for example).

For this reason it's best to leave lesser used devices on
the PCI IDE controller. Archival data drives or optical
drives (if they work ok on it, some controller cards have
problems with optical drives, and some require jumper or
bios changes, and some require at least one hard drive
connected to load the card bios , allow booting from any
optical drive connected to it.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 18, 2005 11:23:13 PM

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

"Larry" <nomail.thank.you@mail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
96B3E078AC42551D7E@67.97.85.44...

> Are the following true for my PC (2 years old with 2 IDE ports and no
> SATA) and it runs WinXP:
>
>
> "...make sure that your CD-ROM drive isn't on the same IDE channel as
> your hard drive. Sharing of IDE channels can dramatically slow down
> CD-ROM and hard disk access."
>
> http://www.tweak3d.net/tweak/cdrom/
>
>
>
> "Make sure your hard drive is not connected to the same IDE port as
> your CD/DVD-ROM. Each IDE port is programmed to operate at the slower
> of the two devices on the port, so you could be slowing down access
> to your primary hard drive by leaving a CD-ROM on the same channel.
> Put your CD/DVD-ROM on the Secondary IDE port."
>
> from: http://www.techbargains.com/hottips/hottip12/index.cfm

I confirm that all that is ridiculous. What is true though, is that
transfer between a HD and a CD drive is slowed down if they are on the same
IDE cable, and that the master should be set to the faster drive.

--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Free technical support at : http://www.protonic.com/
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 19, 2005 2:32:25 AM

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

Mark M wrote:

> On Wed 17 Aug 2005 06:05:30, David Maynard wrote:
>
>>fj wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3mdtk2F16h3jdU1@individual.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Derek Baker <me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Impmon" <impmon@digi.mon> wrote in message
>>>>>news:rs73g1dko9d9r030l9dbqe3hebisb60lam@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:03:59 +0100, Larry
>>>>>><nomail.thank.you@mail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>>>>Are the following true for my PC (2 years old with 2 IDE
>>>>>>>ports and no SATA) and it runs WinXP:
>
>
>
>>>>>>That statement has been around for almost as long as ATA
>>>>>>CD-ROM have been around. But I don't know if anyone
>>>>>>actually used benchmark with HD and CD-ROM on same IDE cable
>>>>>>and then again with those 2 separate to see if there's
>>>>>>difference in HD performance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>For me, it's just more convenient to have them on separate
>>>>>>IDE because I have 2 HDs on primary channel.
>
>
>
>>>>> Surely that's slow for copying from one HD to the other? ;) 
>
>
>
>>>> Nope, because most apps that are used to do
>>>> the copying dont overlap access to both drives.
>
>
>
>>> Just to clarify. Would 2 drive, RAID 0 performance be the same
>>> if the two drives were master/slave vs one on each IDE channel?
>
>
>
>> No, because IDE cannot talk to two devices on the same channel
>> at the same time but it can if they are on separate channels.
>
>
>
> So from what you say, if I have an XP system partition on one hard
> drive then the swap file (assuming I want to fiddle with placing my
> swap file) should not only be on another hard drive but that other
> hard drive should be on another IDE channel. Is this correct?

In theory it would be better but the majority of the speed increase from
putting it on a second drive is reduced latency from head movement.

Say the swap file is at the front of the first drive and you're loading a
program located in the middle of the first drive (as in a one drive
system). The heads are slamming back and forth between the loading program
and swap file; and head movement is agonizingly slow compared to read/write.

Even if the drive is on the same channel, if the swap is on a second drive
then it's head can stay in the swap area while the other drive's head stays
in the program area and the system doesn't have to wait for them to run
their little butts back and forth across the drive.

In normal use you would probably never notice the difference between the
same or different channels, however, because the read/write overlap, or
lack thereof, is such a small portion relative to everything else going on.
(A time critical application, or large transfers, might though).

RAID 0, the question you asked, is a different matter as the whole point to
it is simultaneous access to make the array look like a faster 'single'
drive. I.E. a simultaneous read from two drives is theoretically twice as
fast as two sequential reads. You get 'twice' the data in the same time as
'one read' (to both drives).

On the other hand, if it has to read/write them sequentially, being on the
same channel, then it's no faster than one physical drive, since sequential
access is sequential access, and there's no point to it. The only thing
you'd get out of it is the worst of everything: sequential access like a
'normal' drive, no 'second drive' to put the swap file on because it's in
the RAID array, and lower reliability due to the added feature that if one
dies you loose everything on both.


>
> ----
>
> I also use a PCI card to give me an extra two IDE channels. The card
> is based on the Silicon Image 0680 Ultra-133 chip.
> (I don't use its RAID capability. http://tinyurl.com/a685d)
>
> In terms of performance does it make a difference if a 7200rpm hard
> drive is on one of the two IDE channels on the motherboard (whose VIA
> Via 266A/8235 chipset provides ATA133) rather on one of the IDE
> channels on my adaptor card?

Just off hand I can't think of any reason why it would make a difference
one way or the other.

>
>
> Thanks for any info
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 19, 2005 9:37:56 AM

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

Cl.Massé <toto@tata.ti> wrote:
> "Larry" <nomail.thank.you@mail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 96B3E078AC42551D7E@67.97.85.44...
>
>> Are the following true for my PC (2 years old with 2 IDE ports and no
>> SATA) and it runs WinXP:
>>
>>
>> "...make sure that your CD-ROM drive isn't on the same IDE channel as
>> your hard drive. Sharing of IDE channels can dramatically slow down
>> CD-ROM and hard disk access."
>>
>> http://www.tweak3d.net/tweak/cdrom/
>>
>>
>>
>> "Make sure your hard drive is not connected to the same IDE port as
>> your CD/DVD-ROM. Each IDE port is programmed to operate at the slower
>> of the two devices on the port, so you could be slowing down access
>> to your primary hard drive by leaving a CD-ROM on the same channel.
>> Put your CD/DVD-ROM on the Secondary IDE port."
>>
>> from: http://www.techbargains.com/hottips/hottip12/index.cfm

> I confirm that all that is ridiculous. What is true though,
> is that transfer between a HD and a CD drive is slowed
> down if they are on the same IDE cable,

Nope. Basically because very little software even
trys to use them simultaneously when copying.

> and that the master should be set to the faster drive.

That is just plain wrong too.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 20, 2005 2:11:08 AM

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

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3mk6cnF17h0p3U1@individual.net...

> > What is true though,
> > is that transfer between a HD and a CD drive is slowed
> > down if they are on the same IDE cable,

> Nope. Basically because very little software even
> trys to use them simultaneously when copying.

I disagree. It's precisely the case when one rip a CD or burn a CD. In the
latter case, the burning could fail, there isn't enough RAM to cache 650 MB.

> > and that the master should be set to the faster drive.

> That is just plain wrong too.

Perhaps expressed like that. The most recent and sophisticated drive. It's
because the master takes charge of the communication with the controller and
with the other drive.

--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Free technical support at : http://www.protonic.com/
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 20, 2005 11:28:08 AM

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

Cl.Massé <toto@tata.ti> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

>>> What is true though, is that transfer between a HD and a
>>> CD drive is slowed down if they are on the same IDE cable,

>> Nope. Basically because very little software even
>> trys to use them simultaneously when copying.

> I disagree.

You're wrong anyway.

> It's precisely the case when one rip a CD or burn a CD.

Nope, those dont use both drives simultaneously and the speed of the
operation is entirely determined by the speed of the cdrom drive anyway.

> In the latter case, the burning could fail,

Nope.

> there isn't enough RAM to cache 650 MB.

There doesnt need to be. There's a buffer in the cdrom drive for a reason.

>>> and that the master should be set to the faster drive.

>> That is just plain wrong too.

> Perhaps expressed like that.

No perhaps about it.

> The most recent and sophisticated drive.

Still just plain wrong.

> It's because the master takes charge of the communication
> with the controller and with the other drive.

Completely wrong again.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 22, 2005 12:08:46 AM

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

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3mn17bF17ht0rU1@individual.net...

> You're wrong anyway.

Anyway you are wrong to speak me that way, I'm not your dog.

On protonic, there is a huge bunch of *real* technician, and it is entirely
free. I tried it as a client and as a tech, and it is incredible. There is
even a quality assurance, and the techs are *polite*.

--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Free technical support at : http://www.protonic.com/
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 22, 2005 10:42:39 AM

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

Cl.Massé <toto@tata.ti> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Cl.Massé <toto@tata.ti> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> Cl.Massé <toto@tata.ti> wrote

>>>>> What is true though, is that transfer between a HD and a
>>>>> CD drive is slowed down if they are on the same IDE cable,

>>>> Nope. Basically because very little software even
>>>> trys to use them simultaneously when copying.

>>> I disagree.

>> You're wrong anyway.

> Anyway you are wrong to speak me that way,

Nope.

> I'm not your dog.

I wouldnt have for a dog.

> On protonic, there is a huge bunch of *real* technician, and it is
> entirely free. I tried it as a client and as a tech, and it is incredible.
> There is even a quality assurance, and the techs are *polite*.

Dont let the door hit you on the arse on the way out.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 25, 2005 4:36:01 AM

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

"Derek Baker" <me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message news:NP2dnYQLAdnAIZzeRVnytQ@eclipse.net.uk
> "Impmon" <impmon@digi.mon> wrote in message news:rs73g1dko9d9r030l9dbqe3hebisb60lam@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:03:59 +0100, Larry <nomail.thank.you@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Are the following true for my PC (2 years old with 2 IDE ports and no
> > > SATA) and it runs WinXP:
> >
> > That statement has been around for almost as long as ATA CD-ROM have
> > been around. But I don't know if anyone actually used benchmark with
> > HD and CD-ROM on same IDE cable and then again with those 2 separate
> > to see if there's difference in HD performance.
> >
> > For me, it's just more convenient to have them on separate IDE because
> > I have 2 HDs on primary channel.
>
>
> Surely that's slow for copying from one HD to the other? ;) 

Nope, not on copying, i.e. one reading, the other writing.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 25, 2005 4:44:56 AM

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

"fj" <jelenko@att.net> wrote in message news:D GxMe.106069$5N3.15618@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3mdtk2F16h3jdU1@individual.net...
> > Derek Baker <me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
> > > "Impmon" <impmon@digi.mon> wrote in message news:rs73g1dko9d9r030l9dbqe3hebisb60lam@4ax.com...
> > > > On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:03:59 +0100, Larry <nomail.thank.you@mail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Are the following true for my PC (2 years old with 2 IDE ports and
> > > > > no SATA) and it runs WinXP:
> > > >
> > > > That statement has been around for almost as long as ATA CD-ROM have
> > > > been around. But I don't know if anyone actually used benchmark with
> > > > HD and CD-ROM on same IDE cable and then again with those 2 separate
> > > > to see if there's difference in HD performance.
> > > >
> > > > For me, it's just more convenient to have them on separate IDE
> > > > because I have 2 HDs on primary channel.
> > >
> > >
> > > Surely that's slow for copying from one HD to the other? ;) 
> >
> > Nope, because most apps that are used to do
> > the copying dont overlap access to both drives.
>
> Just to clarify. Would 2 drive, RAID 0 performance be the same if the two
> drives were master/slave vs one on each IDE channel?

Depends on the access pattern. Long sequential access makes the drives read-ahead
and the fact that drives can't be accessed simultaniously is offset by delivering
the data from the cache. So it doesn't work so well for random access but then that
is already quite slow.

>
> Thanks
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 25, 2005 4:45:44 AM

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

"Cl.Massé" <toto@tata.ti> wrote in message news:4304ce4e$0$29152$626a14ce@news.free.fr
> "Larry" <nomail.thank.you@mail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:96B3E078AC42551D7E@67.97.85.44...
>
> > Are the following true for my PC (2 years old with 2 IDE ports and no
> > SATA) and it runs WinXP:
> >
> >
> > "...make sure that your CD-ROM drive isn't on the same IDE channel as
> > your hard drive. Sharing of IDE channels can dramatically slow down
> > CD-ROM and hard disk access."
> >
> > http://www.tweak3d.net/tweak/cdrom/
> >
> >
> > "Make sure your hard drive is not connected to the same IDE port as
> > your CD/DVD-ROM. Each IDE port is programmed to operate at the slower
> > of the two devices on the port, so you could be slowing down access
> > to your primary hard drive by leaving a CD-ROM on the same channel.
> > Put your CD/DVD-ROM on the Secondary IDE port."
> >
> > from: http://www.techbargains.com/hottips/hottip12/index.cfm
>
> I confirm that all that is ridiculous.

> What is true though, is that transfer between a HD and a CD drive is slowed
> down if they are on the same IDE cable,

Nope.

> and that the master should be set to the faster drive.

Nonsense.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 25, 2005 4:47:11 AM

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

"Cl.Massé" <toto@tata.ti> wrote in message news:430645db$0$17408$626a14ce@news.free.fr
> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news: 3mk6cnF17h0p3U1@individual.net...
>
> > > What is true though, is that transfer between a HD and a CD drive is slowed
> > > down if they are on the same IDE cable,
>
> > Nope. Basically because very little software even
> > trys to use them simultaneously when copying.
>
> I disagree. It's precisely the case when one rip a CD or burn a CD. In the
> latter case, the burning could fail, there isn't enough RAM to cache 650 MB.
>
> > > and that the master should be set to the faster drive.
>
> > That is just plain wrong too.
>
> Perhaps expressed like that. The most recent and sophisticated drive.

> It's because the master takes charge of the communication with the controller
> and with the other drive.

Nope. Only on POST with the selftest.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 26, 2005 11:36:38 PM

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

> > It's because the master takes charge of the communication with the
> > controller and with the other drive.

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> a écrit dans le message de news:
430cfe27$1$34319$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...

> Nope. Only on POST with the selftest.

Sorry, but "master" need a thing, POST has nothing to do with that. You
could at least support what you say. So, what's the difference between a
drive working as a slave and one working as a master?

--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Free technical support at : http://www.protonic.com/
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 27, 2005 2:09:34 AM

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

"Cl.Massé" <toto@tata.ti> wrote in message news:430f5701$0$20232$636a15ce@news.free.fr
> > > It's because the master takes charge of the communication with the
> > > controller and with the other drive.
>
> "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 430cfe27$1$34319$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
>
> > Nope. Only on POST with the selftest.
>
> Sorry, but "master" need a thing,

That's far too technical for me.

> POST has nothing to do with that.

Yup. Read the ATA spec.

> You could at least support what you say.

Why? You sure don't.

> So, what's the difference between a drive working
> as a slave and one working as a master?

None other than that one responds to ID device0
and the other to ID device1.

Master and slave was abandoned right after the first ATA spec.
That's 6 intermediate specs ago already.
Haven't they told you that in your very polite and very competent
http://www.protonic.com/ forum?

>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 27, 2005 8:54:06 AM

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

Cl.Massé <toto@tata.ti> wrote
> Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote
>> Cl.Massé <toto@tata.ti> wrote

>>> It's because the master takes charge of the communication
>>> with the controller and with the other drive.

Doesnt happen except at drive setup time.

>> Nope. Only on POST with the selftest.

More strictly when the drives are enumerated.

> Sorry, but "master" need a thing, POST has nothing to do with that.

Want to try that again in english this time ?

> You could at least support what you say.

How odd that you didnt yourself.

> So, what's the difference between a drive working
> as a slave and one working as a master?

Nothing as far as normal drive ops are concerned.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 28, 2005 11:05:07 PM

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

> > So, what's the difference between a drive working
> > as a slave and one working as a master?

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> a écrit dans le message de news:
430f8041$0$34407$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...

> None other than that one responds to ID device0
> and the other to ID device1.

Well, elusive answers, I suspected it.

By the way, ID0 and ID1 correspond to the position on the cable, ID0 is the
master only if the first drive is set to master or if both are set to cable
select.

Sorry if your business run slowly because of benevolent people, er...
well... yuppie!! If you had employed more people, you would have less idle
people competing with you. The Batavian redundancy rate is shameful.

--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Free technical support at : http://www.protonic.com/
!