Second Hard Disk Slower Than 1st

  • Thread starter Thread starter philhey
  • Start date Start date
P

philhey

Hi,

I just added a second hard drive to my Dell computer, its a :


SAMSUNG 250GB 7200RPM 8MB IDE


I'm not sure what the existing drive (c:) is but the pc is only 1.5
years old so I imagine its similar in spec. Anyway the new second drive

(d:) seems to be much slower than the first.


If a video file is on c then it plays back fine, however if I move it
to d and try to play it it drops frames when playing back the video.


The drives are both connected through the same ribbon cable.


Any ideas?


Thanks in advance


Phil
 
As has been explained many times, on this issue, ...and a quick rummage
with Google will quickly locate info. on this subject. WHEN 2 hd's of
different specs. are on the same ribbon, IDE ribbon speeds for both hd's
default to those of the hd with the slowest and lowest PATA interface :-)

regards, Richard
 
| Hi,
|
| I just added a second hard drive to my Dell computer, its a :
|
|
| SAMSUNG 250GB 7200RPM 8MB IDE
|
|
| I'm not sure what the existing drive (c:) is but the pc is only 1.5
| years old so I imagine its similar in spec. Anyway the new second drive
|
| (d:) seems to be much slower than the first.
|
|

Provided you haven't changed the configuration of the original (C:\) drive
the new one should be jumpered to cable select.

Have you gone into the BIOS (F2 @ boot for your Dell) and set the new drive
to <AUTO> ?

--
Doug

I'm not an MVP a VIP nor do I have ESP.
I was just trying to help.
Please use your own best judgment before implementing any suggestions or
advice herein.
No warranty is expressed or implied.
Your mileage may vary.
See store for details. :)

Remove shoes to E-mail.
 
RJK said:
As has been explained many times, on this issue, ...and a quick rummage
with Google will quickly locate info. on this subject. WHEN 2 hd's of
different specs. are on the same ribbon, IDE ribbon speeds for both hd's
default to those of the hd with the slowest and lowest PATA interface :-)

Uh, that was true 10 years ago. But all recent chipsets maintain independent
speed tables for each HD on each IDE bus, so each HD runs at its best speed.
 
Hi All

thanks for your input, I'm gonna check the bios now.

RJK:
Both drives are not going at the same speed though, the new one is
slower than the first one, I cant even play a Video clip off it which I
can with the old one.
 
Doug your a legend, set the disk to auto in the bios and it now seems
fine, cant tell you how much hassle this has been, thanks again!!

Phil

Hi All

thanks for your input, I'm gonna check the bios now.

RJK:
Both drives are not going at the same speed though, the new one is
slower than the first one, I cant even play a Video clip off it which I
can with the old one.

speed tables for each HD on each IDE bus, so each HD runs at its best speed.
 
Ummm , you're saying e.g. that if I connect an older ATA66 hd as master and
a slightly newer ATA100 hd as slave, (or the other way around come to that),
on the same ribbon, that the EIDE controller can shift data at 100mhz on the
slave drive ? ...my ! ..how things have changed !!

regards, Richard
 
RJK said:
Ummm , you're saying e.g. that if I connect an older ATA66 hd as master
and a slightly newer ATA100 hd as slave, (or the other way around come
to that), on the same ribbon, that the EIDE controller can shift data at
100mhz on the slave drive ? ...my ! ..how things have changed !!

Correct.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Technology_Attachment

Mixed device speeds
It is a common misconception that, if two devices of different speed
capabilities are on the same cable, both will necessarily transfer data
at the speed of the slower device. This is true only with very old
chipsets or add-in adapters. All modern ATA interfaces (since, at least,
the late Pentium III and AMD K7 era) support independent timing, which
allows each device on the cable to transfer data at its own best speed.
 
Thanks Bob and Bob !

As the years pass by, and as I learn more and more, and the more I try to
keep up to date,
the more I realise that I am, across those years, forgetting more than I'm
learning ...from year to year !
....or should that be "from decade to decade," and "across the decades" !

e.g. I keep hitting problems that I solved years ago, and those solutions
are long forgotten, and even is remembered will probably never be required
again !

....did any of that make any sense ? :-)

regards, Richard
 
Back
Top