Re: should I change how my drives are cabled?
- From: "Anna" <myname@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 08:38:21 -0400
"Talal Itani" <titani@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:qbPri.7753$8u1.1868@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hello,
I have in my PC two hard drives, and two CD-ROM drives. The two hard
drives are connected to the same IDE cable. The two CD-ROM drives are
connected to the same IDE cable. Do I speed things up if I connect a
hard drive, and a CD-ROM drive to the same cable? My computer is
running XP.
Thanks.
T.I.
"Anna" <myname@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uW55ks80HHA.5380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
As you shortly will discover, you're probably going to get a number of
conflicting responses recommending this or that configuration of your
IDE-connected devices. All I can tell you is that based upon my own
experience and tests the computer facility I was associated with
conducted a few years ago on this very issue -- in virtually every case,
when working with modern equipment, aside from connecting one's working
PATA HDD as Primary Master, it really didn't matter performance-wise how
the remaining drives (hard drives & optical drives) were connected on the
two IDE channels. Nearly all of our tests were conducted with connecting
two hard drives and two optical drives - a CD-ROM & a CD-DVD burner.
Note I said in "virtually every case" there were no significant
performance
differences regardless of the IDE device configuration., There were,
however, some rather rare situations where it *did* matter with respect
to HDD connections/configurations. This usually involved the
encoding/decoding of extremely large video files (gigabytes in size) so
this was an issue that would involve only a extremely small percentage of
PC users.
Also, again in some very rare instances, where the process involved
copying CDs (we didn't use DVDs at the time of these tests) from one
optical drive to another optical drive, there were some instances (rare
as they might be) where the configuration of the optical drives *did*
matter in terms of performance. Strangely enough, in that situation we
were unable to come up with a hard & fast rule as to the best
configuration of the optical drives. In some cases we found better, i.e.,
faster, data transfer rates when both optical drives were connected on
the same channel. In other cases we found it was best to connect each on
a separate IDE channel. And we could find no correlation involving the
make/model of these optical drives. It was quite puzzling. But let me
emphasize that these were relatively rare exceptions. As I previously
stated, we generally found *no* significant performance differences
regardless of how the optical drives were connected/configured.
I would add one additional thing. If both HDDs are bootable devices and
the user has occasion to boot to one or the other drive, then it might be
necessary to connect/configure the second HDD as Secondary Master, rather
than as a Slave to the Primary Master or a Slave on the secondary IDE
channel. We came across a number of motherboards that balked at booting
to a potentially bootable HDD that was connected in the Slave position.
But, in general, it simply didn't matter.
But do this. Experiment for yourself in determining the precise
configuration of your IDE devices. In this instance don't rely on my
advice or anyone else's advice. Try different configurations of your IDE
devices and run simple speed tests based on your normal & usual
day-to-day activities with the computer, e.g., accessing programs,
moving/copying files, burning CDs, etc. See if you can determine any
performance difference depending upon how this or that device is
connected, and thus determine the best setup for your particular needs
should there be any significant differences.
Anna
"Bill Ridgeway" <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23XFpFlB1HHA.4184@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I don't want to detract from your clear explanation. However, although
you say there are rare occasions when the configuration does matter you
haven't commented on the significance of the configuration was when it was
found. The instances of configuration making any differences may be rare
but if, when it does occur performance is also insignificant makes it even
less worth worrying about.
Regards.
Bill Ridgeway
Bill:
It's really difficult, if not truly impossible, to precisely quantify (in
this particular instance or issue) what is "significant" or "insignificant"
in terms of a level of performance. As an example, for some users a
difference of say - 20 seconds in the total copying time of one CD to
another CD would be considered an enormous difference, i.e., a "significant"
difference - for others this was a trifling difference and not worth
worrying about.
As I tried to explain, in our view we considered whatever differences we
encountered re performance (speed) based on this or that IDE configuration
were, in the main - "insignificant". It was simply a value judgment we made
on how we considered the vast majority of users would look upon these
differences.
That is why I emphasized in my final paragraph that the user experiment for
him or herself in setting up their IDE devices in this or that configuration
and determine if he or she encounters what they would consider any
"significant" difference in performance due to one or another type of
configuration.
Anna
.
- References:
- should I change how my drives are cabled?
- From: Talal Itani
- Re: should I change how my drives are cabled?
- From: Anna
- Re: should I change how my drives are cabled?
- From: Bill Ridgeway
- should I change how my drives are cabled?
- Prev by Date: Re: should I change how my drives are cabled?
- Next by Date: Re: Do Windows XP PC's require defrag?
- Previous by thread: Re: should I change how my drives are cabled?
- Next by thread: Re: Norton Ghost 12.0 give HDD error.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
