Which ide i choose for HD and CD's?

[Vinicio Ascone]

hi all!

I've got a A7N8X-X , a Hd 80gb 7200 100ata, a dvd and a CD-RW.

I've got the HD as primary-master, the dvd as primary-slave and the cd-rw as
secondary-slave.

What's the best way (looking for performance) to put these devices?

Should I put the optical drives together?

Thanks in advance!

Vinicio

 

[Charlie]

hi all!

I've got a A7N8X-X , a Hd 80gb 7200 100ata, a dvd and a CD-RW.

I've got the HD as primary-master, the dvd as primary-slave and the cd-rw as
secondary-slave.

What's the best way (looking for performance) to put these devices?

Should I put the optical drives together?

Thanks in advance!

Vinicio

I would make the choice based on the kind of disc-to-disc transfers
you make most often. If you transfer from HD to optical most, put the
two devices you use on separate IDE channels. If most of your
transfers are optical to optical, put those two devices on different
IDE channels. In either case, your one HD should be on Primary,
Master.

Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

 

[Vinicio Ascone]

I always though that 2 devices on the same ide channel was faster. Now,
how do I made to that conclusion?, I don't really know!

That was helpful, thanks al lot for your soon answer.

 

[Tod]

I run the Boot hard drive as primary master,
CD-RW as secondary master
DVD as secondary slave.
I heard that mixing hard drives and optical drives and the same channel
slows down the hard drive.

 

[Ron Reaugh]

hi all!

I've got a A7N8X-X , a Hd 80gb 7200 100ata, a dvd and a CD-RW.

I've got the HD as primary-master, the dvd as primary-slave and the cd-rw as
secondary-slave.

What's the best way (looking for performance) to put these devices?

Should I put the optical drives together?

YES, like you have them. Make sure all devices use DMA mode.

 

[Ron Reaugh]

I always though that 2 devices on the same ide channel was faster. Now,
how do I made to that conclusion?, I don't really know!

Two slow devices like optical on the same cable are just fine so long as
both use DMA mode.

 

[Ron Reaugh]

So, is it best if I put the Hard as prim-mas, and the 2 optical together at
the second ide?

Right.

 

[Vinicio Ascone]

So, is it best if I put the Hard as prim-mas, and the 2 optical together at
the second ide?

 

[Charlie]

So, is it best if I put the Hard as prim-mas, and the 2 optical together at
the second ide?

It probably doesn't matter... your system if fairly new is probably
fast enough that any configuration would work fine. However, if you
find when burning that the burner is waiting for data (buffer
underrun), then you'd be better off with the burner on a different
channel than whatever you're writing the data from.

 

[DaveW]

The harddrive should be on the Primary IDE channel, and the two optical
drives should be together on the Secondary IDE channel.

 

[Peter R. Fletcher]

Early optical drives slowed down the transfer speed of IDE hard drives
which were on the same channel. More modern ones (even, I believe, if
they are not using DMA) do not do this. As someone else has said,
disk-to-disk transfers are slightly faster if the from and to disks
are not on the same channel, so people who do a lot of CD to CD or DVD
to DVD copying are better off "splitting" their optical drives, while
the typical user who copies mainly from CD/DVD to HD and vice versa is
still marginally better off with the older arrangement of HD(s) on the
primary channel and optical drive(s) on the secondary channel. You are
unlikely to notice the difference between the two arrangements, in
normal use.

I run the Boot hard drive as primary master,
CD-RW as secondary master
DVD as secondary slave.
I heard that mixing hard drives and optical drives and the same channel
slows down the hard drive.

Please respond to the Newsgroup, so that others may benefit from the exchange.
Peter R. Fletcher

 

[Ron Reaugh]

Early optical drives slowed down the transfer speed of IDE hard drives
which were on the same channel. More modern ones (even, I believe, if
they are not using DMA) do not do this. As someone else has said,
disk-to-disk transfers are slightly faster if the from and to disks
are not on the same channel, so people who do a lot of CD to CD or DVD
to DVD copying are better off "splitting" their optical drives,
No.

while
the typical user who copies mainly from CD/DVD to HD and vice versa is
still marginally better off with the older arrangement of HD(s) on the
primary channel and optical drive(s) on the secondary channel. You are
unlikely to notice the difference between the two arrangements, in
normal use.
Correct.





Please respond to the Newsgroup, so that others may benefit from the exchange.
Peter R. Fletcher

 

[Joe]

Correct. What Dave said. Reason is that u'd want your ATA100 drive alone. Or
it would just be as slow as the optical with it. ie. both would be running
at ATA33.

TIP : Get u an ATA133 drive. The difference is huge.

Joe

 

[Vinicio Ascone]

I will try that! Thanks!

It's ATA133 really make a difference over 100? I mean, I know it's a better,
but it's really huge the difference? or just one more point to the overall?

 

[Don Coon]

I will try that! Thanks!

It's ATA133 really make a difference over 100? I mean, I know it's a better,
but it's really huge the difference? or just one more point to the

overall?


33% faster. If that's huge : )

 

[Phil]

overall?


33% faster. If that's huge : )

Yeah, the interface is, but there's still the slight limiting factor of the
disk itself...

With my Hitachi Deskstar (not spectacular, but not too bad) I get 88.5MB/s
burst...not even pushing ATA100 (which it runs at)

Sustained speed is around 40-45.

Also my Primary Harddisk runs on Primary/Slave, and my DVD drive on
Primary/Master (CDRW and DVDRW on Secondary). I have to run them like this
as this is the only way the cables will really allow...I was previously
running the HDD on its own on Primary/Master, and have noticed no difference
whatsoever after adding the DVD.

The HDD still runs at ATA100, and all the optical drives go at UDMA2
(Ultra33) whatever the cable arrangement.

How would changing the interface on an average IDE drive (like mine) to
ATA133 speed things up by 33%?

(Drive speedtest was done in the nvidia drivers on an A7N8X-X mobo)

 

[Ron Reaugh]

Correct. What Dave said. Reason is that u'd want your ATA100 drive alone. Or
it would just be as slow as the optical with it. ie. both would be running
at ATA33.

That's false. Each device runs at its own speed.

TIP : Get u an ATA133 drive. The difference is huge.

Nope, the difference is the RPM, access time and sustained transfer rate.
The speed of the interface has nothing to do with it except that it must be
faster than the sustained transfer rate.

 

[Ron Reaugh]

I will try that! Thanks!

It's ATA133 really make a difference over 100?

Only if there are two high speed HDs on the same cable. BUT then 133 tends
to be on later model drives with higher STRs and lower access times and
those specs DO make a difference.

 

[Ron Reaugh]

overall?


33% faster. If that's huge : )

No, that's only the burst rate of the interface and not the speed of the HD
itself and therefore represents little.