S
Shep©
It doesnt normally matter much, essentially because
ops are normally limited by the speed of the burner.
Wrong
It doesnt normally matter much, essentially because
ops are normally limited by the speed of the burner.
Complete waste of time and money. Wont achieve
a damned thing with the way that PC will be used.
It makes no difference, essentially because the speed of
burning is completely limited by the speed of the DVD writer.
T said:I think you are correct about HDDs on separate channels . When I had my
system just doing analog capture I didn't notice having a problem with both
drives on the same channel but when I added a HDTV card it couldn't keep up.
Putting the "capture" drive on it's own channel rectified the situation. IOW
you don't want the O/S and capture competing for the channel.
YMMV
Wrong
Wrong
David said:Bingo.
IDE can't overlap requests to two devices on the same channel but you
can if they're on separate channels. I.E.
Two on same channel---
readA writeB readA writeB readA writeB readA writeB
Two on separate channels---
readA readA readA readA
writeB writeB writeB writeB
spodosaurus said:And this goes even for the current 80-wire IDE ribbons? Sorry, too tired
to google for it right now
Ari
David said:Yes. 80 wire doesn't change how IDE works, it's just noise rejection for
higher data rates.
spodosaurus said:Well, I've got an extra generic PCI IDE card now, so hopefully I can get
it working on the WinXP system without too much fiddling and move each
drive to a separate channel. I'm concerned that the generic IDE card
will reduce drive performance though.
Ari
David Maynard said:Bingo.
IDE can't overlap requests to two devices on the same channel but you
can if they're on separate channels. I.E.
Two on same channel---
readA writeB readA writeB readA writeB readA writeB
Two on separate channels---
readA readA readA readA
writeB writeB writeB writeB
David Maynard said:I don't see why it would. IDE is just an interface. The controller is
on the drive.
Shep© said:Wrong
Rod said:Pity that you dont need to in the situation being discussed.
I haven't seen a computer yet that didn't both read and write to the hard
drive(s), if it had them.
Shep© said:Don't bother with this Git Dave.He's been trolling mis-information for
years.Just kill file him.
David said:Ah. Thanks for the tip.
I haven't seen a computer yet that didn't both read and write to the
hard drive(s), if it had them.
Pity that its only SIMULTANEOUS ops where there is any
advantage with a separate channel per drive, and even that
is entirely theoretical when burning DVDs since the total time
to burn the DVD is determined by the speed the DVD can
write at, not the speed of access to the hard drive.
Even when editing, it aint the access to the hard
drives that determines the speed of transcoding etc.