Trent© wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 15:36:07 +1300, "~misfit~" <~misfit~@his_desk.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> If the mb controller has independent timing (a modern mb), the PIO
>>> drive (probably Mode 0 or Mode 1) won't slow down the other drive.
>>> That only happened during the dark ages! lol
>>>
>>>
>>> Have a nice week...
>>
>> I agree totally Trent, any motherboard made for Pentium 1 or better
>> will have independant timing. See my test results to confirm.
>
> Remember...you said that...I didn't. And I see a lot of
> inconsistencies in your testing.

As I said, if I'd had time I would have done several runs and averaged the
results.

>> I get so sick of idiots who read an out-dated book 12 years ago keep
>> pulling out the "The channel will only run as fast as the slowest
>> device" bullshit. Maybe in the days when a 386 was king. I've just
>> spent a couple of hours proving that wrong. Let's hope we never hear
>> that crap here again. It's cruel and unusual punishment to give
>> completely wrong information to newbies who are trying to find
>> answers.
>>
>> Cheers,
>
> People give opinionated advice here all the time. Most folks that
> give advice have not really TRIED that advice. They've read it
> somewhere...and simply passed it on. Some of it is correct...some
> isn't.
>
> I refrain from calling anyone an 'idiot'...although I did actually do
> that...to a spammer who was bad-mouthing Office Max. For example, I
> don't consider you an idiot...but there's a LOT of holes in the
> testing procedure you outlined (cluster sizes, cache, etc.) Someone
> will now pick up those results as gospel...and simply pass them on.
>
> I believe in being cordial to most folks. Life is too short to be
> rude...usually! lol

Usually being the operative word, However, I have some across this hoary old
chestnt being spouted as gospel and contended it, only to be told that I'n
wrong, just a few times too many. By the same people.
--
~misfit~

~misfit~ wrote:

> ~misfit~ wrote:
>> kony wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 23:19:27 +1300, "~misfit~" <~misfit~@his_desk.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> If it's not a UDMA drive, (i.e. it's an old PIO drive) don't
>>>>>>> slave it to the fast drive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why? (loaded question).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Try it and see. Hook a 400MB vintage PIO mode drive up with an
>>>>> ata33> UDMA drive and post the benchmarks.
>>>>
>>>> And can you reccomend a small program to use to benchmark? I have a
>>>> Seagate ATA100 in my PC at the moment, on it's own on an IDE
>>>> channel, running ultra DMA mode 5, and a 212MB drive in the junk
>>>> drawer.
>>>>
>>>> Lets do this. Gotta be a small proggy, I'm on dial-up with a crap
>>>> connection.
>>>
>>> Atto is about as small as it gets, but doesn't show CPU utilization.
>>> Perhaps that doesn't matter on XP, you still have a built-in monitor.
>>>
>>> http://69.36.189.159/usr_1034/26k.zip
>>
>> Thanks, I'll have a play a bit later and post results. I have MBM5
>> set to show CPU utilisation in my tray anyway, although it's always
>> showing 100% as I run SETI CLI. Might turn it off for this.
>
> Ok, this will take a while, I ran some tests and wrote out the results by
> hand, I don't know how it will come out format-wise, maybe use fixed text
> setting. I fitted a Quantum LPS170A 170MB HDD (couldn't find the 212MB I
> mentioned earlier) as a slave to my 80GB Seagate and ran ATTO Disk
> Benchmark, at default settings. Transfer size was 0.5Kb through to 1024Kb,
> total length (whatever that means) was 4Mb. The old Quantum would run at
> Multi-Word DMA mode 1 but I limited it to PIO as that is what we were
> discussing.

> What say you Stacey?
>

I -said- a non-DMA drive which you didn't use in your test..

--

Stacey

Stacey wrote:
> ~misfit~ wrote:
>
>> ~misfit~ wrote:
>>> kony wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 23:19:27 +1300, "~misfit~"
>>>> <~misfit~@his_desk.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it's not a UDMA drive, (i.e. it's an old PIO drive) don't
>>>>>>>> slave it to the fast drive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why? (loaded question).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try it and see. Hook a 400MB vintage PIO mode drive up with an
>>>>>> ata33> UDMA drive and post the benchmarks.
>>>>>
>>>>> And can you reccomend a small program to use to benchmark? I have
>>>>> a Seagate ATA100 in my PC at the moment, on it's own on an IDE
>>>>> channel, running ultra DMA mode 5, and a 212MB drive in the junk
>>>>> drawer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lets do this. Gotta be a small proggy, I'm on dial-up with a crap
>>>>> connection.
>>>>
>>>> Atto is about as small as it gets, but doesn't show CPU
>>>> utilization. Perhaps that doesn't matter on XP, you still have a
>>>> built-in monitor.
>>>>
>>>> http://69.36.189.159/usr_1034/26k.zip
>>>
>>> Thanks, I'll have a play a bit later and post results. I have MBM5
>>> set to show CPU utilisation in my tray anyway, although it's always
>>> showing 100% as I run SETI CLI. Might turn it off for this.
>>
>> Ok, this will take a while, I ran some tests and wrote out the
>> results by hand, I don't know how it will come out format-wise,
>> maybe use fixed text setting. I fitted a Quantum LPS170A 170MB HDD
>> (couldn't find the 212MB I mentioned earlier) as a slave to my 80GB
>> Seagate and ran ATTO Disk Benchmark, at default settings. Transfer
>> size was 0.5Kb through to 1024Kb, total length (whatever that means)
>> was 4Mb. The old Quantum would run at Multi-Word DMA mode 1 but I
>> limited it to PIO as that is what we were discussing.
>
>> What say you Stacey?
>>
>
> I -said- a non-DMA drive which you didn't use in your test..

You said a "400MB vintage PIO drive". I used an even older drive, and set
it, both in BIOS and OS, to use PIO access only. Therefore it was in fact a
non-DMA drive. Or at least it was behaving as one. Your argument is
baseless.

I have an old Conner 80MB drive here, want me to repeat the experiment? It
will run DMA mode 1 as well though. So far, with this mobo, I've found that
every drive I've hooked up to it is capable of using at least DMA mode 1, I
think you'll find the PIO limitation you are so infatuated with is a
motherboard/bus limitation, not a just a drive one. I have tested drives of
80MB, 120, 170, 212, 300, 420, 540 from diverse manufacturers and *all* are
capable of DMA mode 1 on the right board.

And anyway, the people you've been advising not to hook up older drives
aren't talking about tiny little dinosaurs like these.

I wondered if you'd have the balls to reply (I see it took you a while), and
what excuse you'd come up with to back up your uninformed statements.

Does spreading FUD make you feel like you have something useful to say?

I have been discussing your ludicrous statements (and the results of my
test) with some knowledgeable people in another group, people who have been
building and maintaining machines for a living since pre-286 days and they
told me people like you would never change their mind-set or admit to being
wrong. LOL, one of them even predicted that you'd come back with that exact
(flawed) statement.
--
~misfit~