7200 vs 5400 RPM Hard drives

7200 vs 5400 Hard drives

I just purchased a 80 Gig 7200 rpm HD. I currently have a 13.5 gig 5400 rpm HD. I was going to load win2k on the 7200 rpm HD, and format and leave the 13.5 gig as a slave and use it to store data only (no apps or system files). I was told the 5400 rpm HD will slow my system down. I don't see how that could be true. I realize it wont write as fast as the 7200 prm can send the info when transferring files. Can someone clear this up for me?

 

I would suggest you consider putting the 7200 RPM 80 Gig HD as Master on IDE #1
Then put the 5400 RPM 13.5 Gig HD as Master on IDE #2
Then put any CD ROM or CD-RW as Slave on IDE #2

Daddad

 

Doesn't a CD/RW have to be a master to work right?

I have two CD drives & two hard drives. One hard drive is 7200, & the other 5400.

I think I have the CD/RW & the CD ROM on the same ribbon on IDE #2, with the CD/RW as the master. I think I have my 7200 HD & my 5400 HD on the same ribbon on IDE #1, with the 7200 as master. At least that's the way hubby said he did it. So with all of my spaces taken up, how would you suggest I run mine, Daddad?

Just want to know if I'm harming anything with this configuration.

 

First: The reference to the slower 5400 rpm drive slowing system.

No not system directly. But unless you have a newer Ultra ATA controller that will handle it, the 5400 could slow down the HD access. Indirectly slowing system.

If the controller does not have the capability it will run at the speed of the slowest drive. You need to know the specs on this controller to know. Some will run both drives at max speed others will not.

Check the brand of HD controller and search for the specs on its website.

Second: No the CD's do not have to be primary. Although if you slave 1 cd off another you will have extremly slow copies, from and to, each other because they are on the same cable. Unless it is of the newer Ultra ATA controllers.

So knowledge of the capibilities of the controller and what to slave to what needs planning to maximize performance.

That said "performance aside" almost any combo will work.
Mike

 

This sounds reasonable. Even if the slowest drive is the slave.

I have a multiboot system on my main drive, plus a working OS on the slave drive. I normally don't transfer from the faster to the slower using the faster to do it. I mostly use the slower for storage of back-ups of my OS's & important data.

I initially copied the OS back-ups with Drive Image, from the faster to the slower, using the faster to do the transfer, although I could have easily done it the other way around, since I have Drive Image on both, but in normal everyday operations, when I want to transfer data from somewhere on #1 to #2, I boot to #2 & then do the transfer. Using the slower drive to do the actual cut\copy & paste. I don't know if that makes a difference or not.

As far as transfering data, or audio from one CD drive to the other, I don't do that at all. I prefer to place data & audio on the HDD & then burn from there. It's more error free that way. Errors being due to the differences in the read\write speeds of the two CD drives, and you don't get jitter when burning from the HDD. So having my two CD drives on the same ribbon would not seem to be an issue for me.

I'm not terribly concerned with getting something done the fastest way. I am more concerned with getting it done the best way that I can, and not cause harm to my hardware components. That's why I asked about having the two HDD's on the same ribbon possibly causing a speed conflict between the two, and possibly putting a strain on other components in the system as well.

 

Deloris, lets consider your hardware setup first.
You say you have a CD ROM drive AND a CD-RW drive in your machine.
Since you state you never copy from CD ROM to CD_RW or vice versa, it puzzles me as to why you have both those drives (unless I'm missing something).
Unless the CD-RW drive is very old and/or slow, you might want to consider doing away with the CD ROM drive altogether and allow the CD-RW drive to serve a dual purpose.

Then, you could configure your setup like I suggested in my reply to milo62 while circumventing the controller problem Mike alluded to.

My setup here is the following:
IDE #1=30 Gig 7200 RPM hdd, Master, no slave
IDE #2=CD-RW Drive, Master
IDE #2=30 Gig 7200 hdd, mounted in a mobile tray, slave

My second hdd is only used as a file storehouse and is rarely used, hence the mobile tray.
That cuts down on some heat, noise, wear and tear on the second hdd and reduces power supply drain when it's not in use.
Also, the mobile tray hdd concept works well when transfering large files from one machine to another if they aren't networked.

I'll see if I can get Giles, a good friend and mentor (who posts here in this BBS) to comment on what Mike and I have suggested. I know he has been down this road many times over the years.

Daddad

 

Hello all

Deloris sounds to me like all your prongs are pretty stright.

Ok to finish up for Milo62 and farther info for you both.

You both keep refering to transfer of files. It is not jut xfer speed but constant access speed that we are talking about. Hence the speed of booting scanning defraging program loading on the same drive are effected.

5400 to 7200 is just noticable in normal use but compare them on say a full virus scan or disk defrag or some other disk intensive task and there is a definate difference.

BTW a better gague of HD speed is the Ultra DMA /ATA speed rating.

Most now are 100 some older were 33 and 66. The newest is Ultra DMA 133. To get full perf you must have the controller to match or exceed the speed rating of the HD!

Put an Ultra DMA on a std IDE controller it will run slower than the 33, put a 133 on a 66 or 100 and that is the speed it will use. Has to use in fact!

I have swithed an Ultra 33 drive and controller to a new Promise Ultra 133 controller and a Ultra 133 HD. Biggest single speed boost I have seen. Like a new computer. Boot up went from minutes to seconds.

Point! Don't think it only effects copying. It is constant.

I hope Milo62 now has enough info to make his decision.

If he is after max performance then the 1st thing is to find the specs on his controller (its dma speed rating) and if it has the capability to maintain the speeds of each device on the same cable seperately.

One other little tid bit. Have say an Ultra DMA 133 disk controller with a Ultra DMA 133 HD but use a standard IDE cable. BOOM! Will work at only std IDE speed.

So again almost anything will work.

Mike

 

Well, unless you're running an IDE controller on a separate plug in card you can forget about checking what kind of controller you have. The controller is part of your motherboard, not a separate item. If you wanted to upgrade to a better IDE controller you'd have to replace your motherboard and probably the CPU and memory. That would put you up around $300 minimum to do that. Of course you'd want a better screen card, etc. You'd be better off getting a whole new computer.

If you're concerned about slowness with a 5400 rpm hdd, run for a week or two with the 5400 connected and then run for a week or two with the 5400 disconnected. Get a feel for the difference. I doubt if you'll even notice any.

If it greatly concerns you, sell the 5400 to a friend. You'll find many takers. Take the money, add a little and get another 7200rpm drive. End of problem.

If it was me, I'd just go ahead and leave it the way it is and enjoy the computer. Sounds like a great setup.

 

Hi Giles

Not to correct, so no offence. But I deal with this at work at least on a weekly basis.

If it is on the motherboard go to the motherboard mfg site look up the model of the MB it will give specs on the onboard controller.

Good chance it is an Ultra 66 at least. Some can even be updated to higher speeds with a motherboard BIOS update usually free from the MB Mfg.

Usually a good idea to burn latest BIOS anyway (on a computer at least 1 year old) before installing W2K and especially XP.

And one of the best add-ons is the Maxstor/Promise Ultra DMA 133 controller can be bought for $50.00 and will co-exist with the onboard allowing 4 separate IDE devices without slaving.

And it is full dual channel and will support different speed devices on the same cable at the full speed of each device.

I am only giving the info; milo62 can hopefully make a better decision based on all of our advice.

Course Milo has not checked back or has not acknowledged it anyway. May be Academic but we are here for others to help and teach anyway.

Mike

 

Hi mflynn.

Not to correct, so no offence. But so do I. Of course you deal with it on an administration basis and I deal with it on a design basis.

 

Hello Giles

Of course no offence.

Yes I do administer but I am hands on because I want contol so as not to have to travel to 6 states to fix something except an absolute disaster. I hate to travel for work. So I have others that setup the workstations but I do all Server installs and setups myself.

I also handle special or High performace required work stations or upgrades.

You write good, clear, detailed posts.

I try but... mostly they just get long. Smile!

Mike

 

milo62

The answer to your question, minus all the technical jargon, is no. You won't notice a speed change.

I would suggest partitioning the 13.5 all extended with 3 logical partitions. 1 Ghz for swap file and split the rest for storage of your generated files including My Documents folder,
favorites, message store for emails etc. and straight storage on the other for downloaded files, ghost images, and such.

Happy New Year!

 

I don't think Milo has even been back. 1 timer!

May be Academic, but we are here for that also, to teach each other and others.

I know I have learned a lot from all of you!

Milo let us know!

Hi BMoore

Yeah I know I wax technical. I am almost ready to quit the BBS or very drastically cut back because I cannot help it (takes up too much of my time)! Smile!

I always always write to answer the current question so that others that need or had no concept of the subject could learn and also be helped.

But his specific question was about the performance not just would it work. No he would not notice the difference if he never had to compare.

I don’t know what kind of controller he has. But I have taken a STD IDE to an Ultra 133 controller and the new Ultra 133 Western digital HD and not only is it noticeable but impressive. The biggest single performance increase I have seen.

Much more noticeable than say taking memory from 128m to 512m. Boots in seconds instead of over a minute. Defrag HD (and these partitions were bigger but with exact image of old drive) (comparison was just on c: ) was cut from 45 minutes to about 8 minutes. Same for full Virus Scan cut the time to about a fourth.

HD speed is the biggest performance booster beside memory that you can do.

Also in 2 different messages I told him "almost anything will workâ€!

You do a great job, keep up the good work.

Mike

 

Milo is back, just winding down from the holidays. I read the replies. I am a bit confused, but from what I gather, the difference will be not noticable unless I am scanning or defragging the entire disk. I don't have a seperatre controller. My Micron spec sheet tells me I have a Seattle 2 P II 440BX ATX mboard w/ Integrated Comp. I don't see where that tells me the speed, but I am sure it is not the latest/greatest. So ultimately, I am looking at more overall storage space than access/boot speed. Thank you for your insights and have a great New Year.

 

Then hook it up and forget the rest!

You asked! I only provide info and guidence!

Mike

 

To finish it all off don't forget unless you use the 88 wire Ribbon it will not change at all. ATA 100 or 133 must have 88 wire.
good luck
hawk22