Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Does the Master affect the Slave

Last response: in Storage
Share
January 18, 2003 10:33:54 AM

"Does the Master affect the Slave" -> okay, first off, this isn't some obscure philosophy question ;) 

I have two drives in my computer. one 15gb, one 60gb. The latter is newer and supports a higher bandwidth.

I have one of the first Athlon TBird SoA motherboards, I seem to remember it's only UDMA66 / ATA66. The first drive is a '66 and the newer drive is a '100; I know the latter will only be ticking over at '66...

However, if the master (older 15gb) is failing and getting exceptionally slow/fragmented will this affect the slave (newer 60gb) performance?

I'm noticing that copying across the two drives is slow, and that internal copying on the dodgy drive is utter-****, but copying internally on the good drive is a bit poor as well.

Like many things, will both HDD's only go as fast as the slowest link in the chain? To communicate with/load from the Slave drive, does it need to communicate through the Master? OR, because windows is installed on the Master is it just that the OS is slow for loading and as such is slowing the whole computer down?

cheers,
Jack

More about : master affect slave

January 19, 2003 1:24:55 AM

Of course it will affect it, my advice is to get an ATA 100 PCI controller card to run the new hardrive on, and if you want to keep the old drive for storage, move it to the secondary IDE as slave, you'll still have use of the Primary and Secondary M/Bs IDEs, but don't run the old hardrive on the ATA 100 controller card.




Details, Details, Its all in the Details, If you need help, Don't leave out the Details.
January 19, 2003 9:55:49 AM

thanks for the reply, was what I thought.

However, I've now ordered my new HDD, so I'll have:

60gb DiamondMax+9 UDMA133
60gb DiamondMax+40 UDMA100

drives in my machine, they wont run at full speed due to the older motherboard, but when I get around to upgrading it I should be able to run both at full speed. [EDIT]Due to the future upgrade I'm not gonna bother investing in a PCI controller card, as I wont need it later - thanks for the idea tho[/EDIT]

I read in the HDD FAQ in this forum that 'IDT'(?) will allow my new motherboard to run both HDD's at their highest speeds (133 & 100 accordingly), rather than clamping the faster one to the speed of the slowest. So that sounds good.

Jack

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by JHoxley on 01/19/03 11:57 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
Related resources
January 19, 2003 6:37:52 PM

If you notice a slowdown when copying between a master and slave on the same cable, it's working normally. IDE controllers can only use one drive at a time per cable, so what's happening is, the information gets pulled off one drive, stored in a buffer (probably RAM), and then written to the other drive. This sequential read/right takes longer than if the information could go directly from one drive to the other simultaniously.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
January 20, 2003 9:29:47 AM

Quote:
it's working normally

I'm aware that this is how it normally copies / that drive-to-drive on the same cable is slow. However, it's unusually slow.

As in, 4-5 months ago (well before problems started) it went at least 4x faster. The only thing that I can conclude has changed is that the Master HDD is a bit screwed ;) 

STILL, drive-to-drive is only one part of it. if I copy slave->slave (where slave is the okay drive) it's still significantly slower than before the problems started.

I appreciate the buffered read/write process for master->slave (or vice versa), but is the slave->slave process going to be made slower by a faulty master (which, apart from having the OS installed on it, has no part to play in the copy operation).

does that make any more sense? :) 

cheers,
Jack
January 20, 2003 4:53:18 PM

It makes sense, but I don't know what's causing it. Could be DMA not enabled, an overly bussy bus, driver issues, etc. I'm certain someone will be along with more suggestions.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
January 20, 2003 8:15:01 PM

The answer to your question is no. In theory.

The reason why your new drive is slowing down is because you have your system on the old 15Gb drive. I bet your windows page file is nicely fragmented on that 15Gb drive also, correctemundo? Boot from a floppy and time the file transfers again. Should be better.

The slowest link in the chain is still your harddrive. Even your brandspankingnew Maxtor isn't going to read at 66Mb/s so all ATA100 allows you is better burst speed. In theory at least.
January 20, 2003 10:52:10 PM

Quote:
I bet your windows page file is nicely fragmented on that 15Gb drive also

yup. gotta love that dont you :) 

I'm a programmer at heart, and I've noticed that even simple things like loading libraries (.dll files) into memory has slowed down, what I'd once never notice is now something that I can wait 1-2 seconds for!

Jack
January 20, 2003 11:35:16 PM

I like that in win2k ive set the page file sized to be fixed, so it occupies a fixed area on my drive and doesnt fragment. Not that its really used much with 512Mb ram.

<b>Despite the huge top speeds, amazing acceleration and incredible G-Forces of Top Fuel Dragsters, a standed riced up Lancer often has a larger rear wing.</b>
January 21, 2003 9:45:39 AM

Quote:
it occupies a fixed area on my drive and doesnt fragment.

that's how I've generally have mine (under Win98/XP-Pro), but I changed it back to system-managed as soon as I started getting problems and it didn't make much difference. I thought at first it was just getting too limited by the fixed size.

Jack
January 21, 2003 4:33:16 PM

Quote:
Not that its really used much with 512Mb ram.

Windows automatically pages out lesser used items from memory to ensure that there is memory free. The rational being that if you want to load something into memory it is quicker if you don't first have to write that memory into the page file. Also that way it can build up an enormous system cache without you ever noticing!
January 21, 2003 7:37:12 PM

"I'm not gonna bother investing in a PCI controller card, as I wont need it later" -
. If your new mobo doesn't have RAID or SATA, you could use that controller to give each drive its own channel for max performance. In fact, an ATA100 or 133 add-on controller will run your hard disks faster than most on-board controllers - so put your HDS on it and your optical on the on-board.
.bh.


----------
Perhaps the only reason for your existence is to act as a warning to others...
January 21, 2003 9:04:05 PM

You can change windows so it uses all the ram before going to the swapfile, but in certain instances this can be annoying as i found out with games.

after gaming for 15-30 mins on a memory hungy game all of a sudden it would freeze solid for half a minute as it had reached the memory limit and was paging everything not used to the swapfile in one big shot. not fun.

<b>Despite the huge top speeds, amazing acceleration and incredible G-Forces of Top Fuel Dragsters, a standed riced up Lancer often has a larger rear wing.</b>
January 22, 2003 1:20:49 AM

I checked out prices for PCI controller cards... £29 for a Maxtor PCI UDMA133 controller. I'm on a tight budget already, so would I ACTUALLY notice that much difference between on-board and the PCI controller? Are we talking about (possible) 5-10secs faster loading, or 0.25 secs faster loading?

I know it's a difficult question, but any thoughts are appreciated ;) 

As much as people love to criticise MS Windows, they do have some very clever engineers - and have more than enough money to do quality research. For the WinNT/2k/xp generation I'd trust they're automatic paging/caching/writing system more than any that I can override...!

Jack
January 22, 2003 1:24:45 AM

Barely any difference... Mainly third party addon PCI cards have more functions such as raid1+0 as well as 0+1 and raid 3 and 5.

Performance wise there will be no noticable difference. Use the onboard RAID. You paid for it when getting the Motherboard! Use it!

<b>Despite the huge top speeds, amazing acceleration and incredible G-Forces of Top Fuel Dragsters, a standed riced up Lancer often has a larger rear wing.</b>
January 22, 2003 1:28:29 AM

Quote:
Performance wise there will be no noticable difference

well thats £30 I dont need to consider spending :)  cheers!

I dont really get RAID - afaik it's of most use to high-end servers and industrial grade machines, and of little use to normal home-pc users (even if I make pro-level use of mine where possible!).

Jack
January 22, 2003 1:35:45 AM

Well if you dont understand it, why are you getting it.?
P.S. read the RAID FAQ and LINKS for more info!!! Get educated.




<b>Despite the huge top speeds, amazing acceleration and incredible G-Forces of Top Fuel Dragsters, a standed riced up Lancer often has a larger rear wing.</b>
January 22, 2003 1:54:40 AM

Quote:
why are you getting it.?

hmm, I'm not :)  if I were, I'd of read the RAID FAQ

This whole thread has been regarding 'traditional' IDE hard drives. Where I have 2 ports on my mobo - one going to DVD and CDRW drives, the other going to my two IDE HDD's.

sorry for any confusion.

Jack
January 22, 2003 2:22:23 AM

ahh ok. Sorry i occasionally loose the plot. But dont worry, i have medication to fix that :smile:

Sounds like you are doing what i did.
My 8K3A+ has 4 channels, 2 IDE and 2 IDE/RAID, so i decided to put 1 device on each.

prim master: liteon dvd
sec master: liteon 48x24x48x
raid 3 master: 800JB
raid 4 master: D740x

<b>You will die.
If you are lucky you may last ten decades.
If you are especially lucky you will be
remembered for another 5 decades.</b>
January 22, 2003 11:36:51 AM

Quote:
i have medication to fix that

gotta love the wonders of modern medicine :lol: 

I've got my system something like this:

IDE1-MASTER-AOpen CDRW drive
IDE1-SLAVE-Toshiba DVD

IDE2-MASTER-Primary HDD (the one that's broke/i'm replacing)
IDE2-SLAVE-Secondary HDD (filestore)

I've got university exams this week, so I cant screw with my computer... but once they're done I'll fit my shiny new drive in :smile: - ordered it online and it arrived within 2 days.

Jack
January 22, 2003 7:10:19 PM

I was under the impression with a ATA100 controller and above, the old rule of the slower device (ATA66/33) pulling the ata100+ device down to its level no longer is true.

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s
January 22, 2003 7:16:38 PM

Quote:
the old rule of the slower device (ATA66/33) pulling the ata100+ device down

From my research, it would appear that this sort of thing was ruled out some time ago.

I forget where I saw it, but they talked of "IDT" (Independent device timing) that allowed master/slave to be of different speed and operate at their fastest (motherboard dependent of course).

They also talked of this being in the pentium-2 days, and that it was a little 'shaky' back then... now we're a few generations beyond I'd hope they'd got it all sorted now.

Jack
January 22, 2003 7:53:22 PM

Thanks for verifying that. My belief was that it was sorted out with ATA100 but either way, the original poster should have one less thing to worry about!

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s
January 22, 2003 9:36:59 PM

Yeah, the answer to that is in the FAQ. It was sorted out around the time of pentium2/3 chipsets.


<b>You will die.
If you are lucky you may last ten decades.
If you are especially lucky you will be
remembered for another 5 decades.</b>
January 24, 2003 1:56:56 PM

LOL, seeing the title "Master/Slave" kind of popped out at me today. The industry term almost seems biased, or reinforces negative history. They should adopt the term "primary and secondary". Sort of how windows referes to the IDE channels.. anyhow, just a rambling.
January 24, 2003 8:20:36 PM

But i <b>LIKE</b> master & slave :smile:


<b>You will die.
If you are lucky you may last ten decades.
If you are especially lucky you will be
remembered for another 5 decades.</b>
!