1. You are viewing our forum as a guest. For full access please Register. WindowsBBS.com is completely free, paid for by advertisers and donations.

IDE Slowdown?

Discussion in 'PC Hardware' started by Donniesito, 2004/08/09.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 2004/08/09
    Donniesito

    Donniesito Inactive Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/03/27
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a system with 2 optical drives and 2 hard drives. I have heard it said that you shouldn't connect a hard drive on the same IDE "channel" as an optical drive, because IDE only operates as fast as the fastest device on the chain.
    I have also heard it said that if you have 2 hard drives, you should connect one to the primary IDE interface, and one to the secondary for better performance...
    How true is this? It makes sense to me to have one hard drive on IDE-0 and one on IDE-1, because the cable can only handle so much throughput...
    Will I lose performance by sharing a hard drive with an optical on the same IDE channel ?
    Thanks for any help!
     
    Donniesito,
    #1
  2. 2004/08/09
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,585
    Likes Received:
    74
    Your question has two answers, depending on if You work from within Windows only or from DOS as well.

    I assume that You mean "as the slowest device on the chain "!
    This is true when You work from DOS but not when You work from within Windows with the motherboard drivers loaded.

    I am a Ghost user and Ghost is a DOS application. When devices are mixed, creating images, checking image integrity and restoring images is very slow but when devices are separated, the operations are much quicker (some 5-10 times quicker).

    I have benchmarked my drives using AIDA32 plugins and from within Windows, with the motherboard drivers loaded (in my case VIA 4in1) there is no performance difference mixed or separated.

    The jury is still out on that one. Some people argue that the HDDs should be on separate channels but other people argue that data transfer is faster within a channel than between channels.

    Being a Ghost user, I have my devices separated (HDDs on IDE0 and opticals on IDE1) and I don't think that I would notice the difference under Windows if the HDD's were on separate channels.

    Christer
     
    Christer,
    #2


  3. to hide this advert.

  4. 2004/08/09
    Donniesito

    Donniesito Inactive Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/03/27
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hehe.. Yes, that is indeed what I meant.. The "slowest " device in the chain... Ugh.. Morning came far too early for me today ;-)

    Thanks for your reply!
     
    Donniesito,
    #3
  5. 2004/08/09
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,585
    Likes Received:
    74
    Donniesito,
    You're welcome ...... :) ...... !

    I actually expected at least a minor debate on the subject. Old truths die hard.

    Christer
     
    Christer,
    #4
  6. 2004/08/09
    dale442

    dale442 Inactive

    Joined:
    2002/01/08
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    0
    It would be nice if you had posted your system specs to help us.

    Now, as I understand it, a slow drive on a channel is not a factor.

    Well, at least not on my machine.
     
    dale442,
    #5
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Accept Learn More...