L
Lez Pawl
SHRED said:
keep HDs on one and CD/DVDs on the other, don't mix.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
keep HDs on one and CD/DVDs on the other, don't mix.
S
SHRED
Is it best to have the 2 hard drives on a cable (master/slave) or split
them and run one cable with the hard drive and the CD burner (master/slave)?
them and run one cable with the hard drive and the CD burner (master/slave)?
S
SHRED
Lez said:keep HDs on one and CD/DVDs on the other, don't mix.
10-4 thanks!
OBTW: I play a silver anniversary Les Paul (silverburst)
http://cgi.ebay.com/Gibson-Les-Paul...ryZ47072QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
B
Boba & Ilinka
Depends what you use disk for. If you transfer a lot of data between HD-s
and copy cd-s than put HD-s on separate cables.
Boba Vankufer
and copy cd-s than put HD-s on separate cables.
Boba Vankufer
A
Anna
SHRED said:Is it best to have the 2 hard drives on a cable (master/slave) or split
them and run one cable with the hard drive and the CD burner
(master/slave)?
SHRED:
As you have or will have discovered, you're probably going to get a number
of conflicting responses recommending this or that configuration of your
IDE-connected devices. Based upon my own experience and tests the computer
facility I was associated with conducted a few years ago on this very
issue -- in virtually every case, when working with modern equipment, aside
from connecting one's working HDD as Primary Master, it really didn't matter
performance-wise how the remaining drives (hard drives & optical drives)
were connected on the two IDE channels. Nearly all of our tests were
conducted with connecting two hard drives and
two optical drives - a CD-ROM & a CD-DVD burner.
Note I said in "virtually every case" there were no significant performance
differences regardless of the IDE device configuration., There were,
however, some rather rare situations where it *did* matter with respect to
HDD connections/configurations. This usually involved the encoding/decoding
of extremely large video files (gigabytes in size) so this was an issue that
would involve only a extremely small percentage of PC users.
Also, again in some very rare instances, where the process involved copying
CDs (we didn't use DVDs at the time of these tests) from one optical drive
to another optical drive, there were some instances (rare as they might be)
where the configuration of the optical drives *did* matter in terms of
performance. Strangely enough, in that situation we were unable to come up
with a hard & fast rule as to the best configuration of the optical drives.
In some cases we found better, i.e., faster, data transfer rates when both
optical drives were connected on the same channel. In other cases we found
it was best to connect each on a separate IDE channel. And we could find no
correlation involving the make/model of
these optical drives. It was quite puzzling. But let me emphasize that these
were relatively rare exceptions. As I previously stated, we generally found
*no* significant performance differences regardless of how the optical
drives were connected/configured.
But do this. Experiment for yourself. In this instance don't rely on my
advice or anyone else's. Try different configurations of your IDE devices
and run speed tests based on your normal day-to-day activities with the
computer, i.e., accessing programs, moving/copying files, burning CDs, etc.
See if you can determine any performance difference depending upon how this
or that device is connected and thus determine the best setup for your
particular needs should there be any significant differences.
Anna
R
Rod Speed
As you have or will have discovered, you're probably going to get a number of conflicting
responses recommending this or that
configuration of your IDE-connected devices. Based upon my own
experience and tests the computer facility I was associated with
conducted a few years ago on this very issue -- in virtually every case, when working with modern
equipment, aside from connecting one's working HDD as Primary Master, it really didn't matter
performance-wise how the remaining drives (hard drives
& optical drives) were connected on the two IDE channels.
That 'working HDD', you presumably mean the boot drive,
doesnt matter either. Plenty have dual boot systems on two
different hard drives and that works fine performance wise.
The short story is that its generally best to have the hard drives
on one ribbon cable and the optical drives on another, but that
isnt because of any performance difference, its because the
hard drives are generally in the 3.5" drive bay stack and the
optical drives are generally in the 5.25" drive bay stack and
its generally mechanically easier to do it like that, particularly
due to the distance between the drive connectors.
Nearly all of our tests were conducted with connecting two hard drives and two optical drives - a
CD-ROM & a CD-DVD burner.
Note I said in "virtually every case" there were no significant
performance differences regardless of the IDE device configuration.,
There were, however, some rather rare situations where it *did*
matter with respect to HDD connections/configurations. This usually
involved the encoding/decoding of extremely large video files
(gigabytes in size) so this was an issue that would involve only a extremely small percentage of
PC users.
C
Conor
The only problem being that Lez Pawls advice became redundant around 6-10-4 thanks!
7 years ago.
It makes no difference having an optical drive on the same cable. If
you're doing a lot of HDD to HDD copying, stick them on different
cables.
--
Conor
I'm really a nice guy. If I had friends, they would tell you.
Earn commission on online purchases, £2.50 just for signing up:
http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm
R
RussellS
Rodspeed is correct...and the previous post from LezPaul is incorrect,
unless you have a motherboard that is more than 7 years old. Usually easier
to get things hooked up inside your case if optical drives share an IDE
cable and hard disks share an IDE cable, due to the physical layout of the
case interior and the limited space between hookups on the cables
themselves.
However, if you do have room in your particular case, you might consider
what kind of operations using simultaneous dual disc interaction you'll want
to perform most often and hook drives up accordingly. For example, if
you're planning on doing a lot of "on-the-fly" CD/DVD copying from one
optical drive to another, the best performance would be obtained by having
the source optical drive on a separate IDE cable from the destination
optical drive. if you'll be doing a lot of disc-to-disc file transfers in
your daily use, the 2 disks used most often for this scenario would perform
better by having them on separate IDE cables.
unless you have a motherboard that is more than 7 years old. Usually easier
to get things hooked up inside your case if optical drives share an IDE
cable and hard disks share an IDE cable, due to the physical layout of the
case interior and the limited space between hookups on the cables
themselves.
However, if you do have room in your particular case, you might consider
what kind of operations using simultaneous dual disc interaction you'll want
to perform most often and hook drives up accordingly. For example, if
you're planning on doing a lot of "on-the-fly" CD/DVD copying from one
optical drive to another, the best performance would be obtained by having
the source optical drive on a separate IDE cable from the destination
optical drive. if you'll be doing a lot of disc-to-disc file transfers in
your daily use, the 2 disks used most often for this scenario would perform
better by having them on separate IDE cables.
R
Rod Speed
RussellS" <rsullivan@tastycomputersdotcom"replace dot with .
Not necessarily, depends on what you are doing the copying with.
The main apps like Nero and Roxio EMC in fact dont do the copy
any faster with them on separate cables, essentially because they
copy the stuff into ram and then out of ram to the destination drive
as two quite separate operations, they arent overlapped.
If you do a lot of that copying, you need to consider if that
config makes any sense. It generally makes more sense
to 'move' the files on the same partition, between folder trees.
Thats done by a much quicker update of the directory entrys
without any need to physically move the file itself.
Corse that wont be viable if you're doing it for backup etc,
but even that is better done to another drive across the lan
than to a different physical drive in the one system, because
there is always a small chance of a power supply failure
killing both drives etc.
Rodspeed is correct...and the previous post from LezPaul is incorrect,
unless you have a motherboard that is more than 7 years old. Usually
easier to get things hooked up inside your case if optical drives
share an IDE cable and hard disks share an IDE cable, due to the
physical layout of the case interior and the limited space between
hookups on the cables themselves.
However, if you do have room in your particular case, you might
consider what kind of operations using simultaneous dual disc
interaction you'll want to perform most often and hook drives up
accordingly. For example, if you're planning on doing a lot of
"on-the-fly" CD/DVD copying from one optical drive to another, the
best performance would be obtained by having the source optical drive
on a separate IDE cable from the destination optical drive.
Not necessarily, depends on what you are doing the copying with.
The main apps like Nero and Roxio EMC in fact dont do the copy
any faster with them on separate cables, essentially because they
copy the stuff into ram and then out of ram to the destination drive
as two quite separate operations, they arent overlapped.
if you'll be doing a lot of disc-to-disc file transfers in your daily
use, the 2 disks used most often for this scenario would perform better by having them on separate
IDE cables.
If you do a lot of that copying, you need to consider if that
config makes any sense. It generally makes more sense
to 'move' the files on the same partition, between folder trees.
Thats done by a much quicker update of the directory entrys
without any need to physically move the file itself.
Corse that wont be viable if you're doing it for backup etc,
but even that is better done to another drive across the lan
than to a different physical drive in the one system, because
there is always a small chance of a power supply failure
killing both drives etc.