Which is the best way to connect my 4 IDE items?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JSW
  • Start date Start date
J

JSW

I have the following IDE items and would like to know the best way to
connect them.

120gb H/D
CDRW Drive
DVD ROM Drive
DVDRW Drive

Cheers
John
 
I have the following IDE items and would like to know the best way to
connect them.

120gb H/D
CDRW Drive
DVD ROM Drive
DVDRW Drive

Cheers
John
Click to expand...

I would personally say,

1M = 120GB HD
1S = empty
2M = DVDRW
2S = DVD

And lose the CDRW since you've got the DVDRW. With IDE you should try
to match Master and Slave, speed for speed to get the most out of your
system.
 
And lose the CDRW since you've got the DVDRW. With IDE you should try
to match Master and Slave, speed for speed to get the most out of your
system.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with it! Todays systems do not have a problem running
ide devices of differing speeds on the same channel.
 
JSW said:
I have the following IDE items and would like to know the best way to
connect them.

120gb H/D
CDRW Drive
DVD ROM Drive
DVDRW Drive

Cheers
John
Click to expand...

Hard drive --- primary master
DVDRom drive ---- primary slave

DVDrw ---- seconday master
CDrw ---- secondary slave
 
DS said:
Hard drive --- primary master
DVDRom drive ---- primary slave

DVDrw ---- seconday master
CDrw ---- secondary slave
Click to expand...
Yep, that's what I'd say. I have a dvd/cdrw combo SM and a DVDrw SS on
mine.
 
Hard drive --- primary master
Yes, it seems to me this would be the most efficient way of transferring
data. I second this setup.
 
John E. Carty said:
and the link you quoted says:
"Transfer rates between drives on the same channel is less efficient than
transfers between channels."

Two very different things :-)
Click to expand...


they most certainly do.
i cant remember what mobo i had - either asus a7v333 or a7n8x, but i ran
cd+cdrw and 2x maxtor ATA133 drives - HDD as master's, cd drives are slaves,
and it SERIOUSLY impinged transfer speeds.
2gb from 1 hdd to the other - about 10-15mins.
once i stuck hdd's on the same IDE channel, then all was good - 2gb in
<2mins.

however, i have been informed that some baords do this, some done - luck of
the draw i guess.

and ok - the link says that, BUT, over 10mins difference copying 2gb files -
more like restricted to cd ATA33 speed AND the inefficency of the different
IDE channel transfer speed.
 
If you want the best rolls-royce solution (which id recommend) then do this;

IDE1 P - HDD
IDE1 S - Nothing

IDE2 P - DVDRW
IDE2 S - Nothing

ATA Add in card
IDE3 P - CDRW
IDE3 S - DVDROM

That gives a dedicated channel to both important devices and still leaves
the cdrw on a primary too (eg all write enabled devices are on a primary
channel) - writing 2 disks simultaniously from a HDD image would fly.
Copying from dvd to dvd have also split channels and in the unlikely event
of needing to do a dvdrom to cdrw copy, if theres any speed issues then
making an image first is only a tick in your copy software box.

A GOOD MAKE!!!! ATA add in card is not expensive (especially considering an
ATA66 card for the 2 cd drives would more than adequate, burn your money and
get an ATA133 if you must) - please stick to known brands, not some
Honkymoto value card and youll be sorted with a pretty bombproof IDE setup.
 
There is no Best way. Whichever of those other devices that you pair with
the harddrive is going to slow down the harddrive's ATA speed to the speed
of the slower CD/DVD device.
 
DaveW said:
There is no Best way. Whichever of those other devices that you pair with
the harddrive is going to slow down the harddrive's ATA speed to the speed
of the slower CD/DVD device.
Click to expand...

Only if he has a legacy system to start with :-)
 
() |V| 3 G /-\ said:
they most certainly do.
i cant remember what mobo i had - either asus a7v333 or a7n8x, but i ran
cd+cdrw and 2x maxtor ATA133 drives - HDD as master's, cd drives are slaves,
and it SERIOUSLY impinged transfer speeds.
2gb from 1 hdd to the other - about 10-15mins.
once i stuck hdd's on the same IDE channel, then all was good - 2gb in
<2mins.

however, i have been informed that some baords do this, some done - luck of
the draw i guess.

and ok - the link says that, BUT, over 10mins difference copying 2gb files -
more like restricted to cd ATA33 speed AND the inefficency of the different
IDE channel transfer speed.
Click to expand...

And what proof do you have that the cd roms were the reason for the lag. Did
you try the same setup without the cd's at all???
 
There is no Best way. Whichever of those other devices that you pair with
the harddrive is going to slow down the harddrive's ATA speed to the speed
of the slower CD/DVD device.
Click to expand...

_________________________________________________________

Is that the case even when the slave device is not being used, or only
when both master and slave are in use? I have my main HD as master on
IDE0 and my CD-RW a slave on IDE0. Bad idea?
 
Bill Turner said this...
Is that the case even when the slave device is not being used, or only
when both master and slave are in use?
Click to expand...


That advice no longer applies. Modern IDE controllers are smarter and no
longer work like that. Of course a transfer between two devices can only
work at the speed of the slowest.
 
ditto
Groove said:
Bill Turner said this...



That advice no longer applies. Modern IDE controllers are smarter and no
longer work like that. Of course a transfer between two devices can only
work at the speed of the slowest.
Click to expand...
 
Groove said:
Bill Turner said this...



That advice no longer applies. Modern IDE controllers are smarter and no
longer work like that.
Click to expand...

Are you SURE about that? Or is it modern OS drivers or both? Which
OSes do you know this to be true on?
 
Gary W. Swearingen said this...
Are you SURE about that? Or is it modern OS drivers or both? Which
OSes do you know this to be true on?
Click to expand...

I can speak for sure only about my personal experience. I have three
different boxes on my home network running a mix of 98se and xp opsystems.
All three systems have different speed devices on shared ide controllers
and run without stepping down to the speed of the slowest. Whether this is
due to hardware, software or a combination of both I would not like to
guess, but it remains a truth nevertheless.
 
Two different issues are being confused.

1: IDE transfer mode. On older systems an IDE channel ran at the mode
supported by the slowest device. This is no longer true for boards made
in recent years.

2: Master/slave sharing. Only one device can use a channel at one time.
Each must wait for the other to finish. This causes a large slowdown if
copying between master and slave on the same channel. This problem is
eliminated in SCSI and SATA which have no slaves.

Thus any devices that you want to exchange data at optimal speed should
be on separate channels where they can be active simultaneously.
 
Back
Top