Harddrives

[coolman1969]

I have x2 Harddrives and CDRW and CDROM 48x
I have configured my system as follows:

Primary ide: hdd ATA/66 7200 20Gb with O/S
Secondary ide: CDROM and CDRW

PCI ATA/133 Controller Card with a
40Gb Seagate 7200rpm ATA/100 for recording AUDIO Data.

Is there a better configuration to maximise performance.

I thought of running the drives on motherboard IDE channel but the ATA/66 O/S drive will slow the AUDIO drive down.

Does having a separate controller card chew up more proccessor power and cause more problems???

David

The Coolman

[+Erik.+]

i would do it like this, providing your motherboard ide is ata 100


Primary ide: hdd ATA/66 7200 20Gb with O/S
Secondary ide: 40Gb Seagate 7200rpm ATA/100 for recording AUDIO Data


PCI ATA/133 Controller Card
IDE 3 - cdrom
IDE 4 - cdrw

this would remove the pci bandwidth limitation of the audio hard disc (how much that is in practise i have no idea).

the seperate IDE card is a good thing. i have one too with my cdroms on it and i have no problems at all.

if you do cd to cd copy its best not to put the cdrom and writer on the same ide.


[This message has been edited by +Erik.+ (edited 02-18-2003).]

[knowdoubt]

Originally posted by +Erik.+:
this would remove the pci bandwidth limitation of the audio hard disc (how much that is in practise i have no idea).

Actually that's a common misconception. The onboard IDE channels still typically use the PCI buss so there is no saving of PCI bandwidth by using them instead of a PCI controller card.

[+Erik.+]

so is there any actual difference in the speed of the card compared to the onboard IDE channels or should they technically go at the same rate? Actually, i've often wondered about this condisering scsi cards are commonly PCI, right?

whatever the answer to my question, i would still seperate each device to the primary positions on your ide, considering you have an ide port doing nothing.

[This message has been edited by +Erik.+ (edited 02-18-2003).]

[Pretty Pretty Cyanide]

Originally posted by coolman1969:
I have x2 Harddrives and CDRW and CDROM 48x
I have configured my system as follows:

Primary ide: hdd ATA/66 7200 20Gb with O/S
Secondary ide: CDROM and CDRW

PCI ATA/133 Controller Card with a
40Gb Seagate 7200rpm ATA/100 for recording AUDIO Data.

Is there a better configuration to maximise performance.

I thought of running the drives on motherboard IDE channel but the ATA/66 O/S drive will slow the AUDIO drive down.

Does having a separate controller card chew up more proccessor power and cause more problems???

David

The Coolman



I would say that is the optimal Harddrive configuration for what you have.

[+Erik.+]

what would be your reason for this? why not utililse all the ide ports if there is one spare? and why chain the cds together? why would this config be optimum ?

i'm starting to feel all this talk on ide device positions is just a big waste of time.

http://www.audioforums.com/forums/biggrin.gif

if your original config could be measured in numbers with larger being good then yours would equal 504303003223. All other configs would be between 504303003200 and 504303003602, so really the difference in all this maximising is for so little gain or reduction, these days.

http://www.audioforums.com/forums/biggrin.gif http://www.audioforums.com/forums/biggrin.gif



[This message has been edited by +Erik.+ (edited 02-18-2003).]

[knowdoubt]

coolman1969,
No, your setup is not quite optimum. The only problem with it is the cdrom & CDRW. You should have them on separate channels as Eric suggested. Just put one devise on each channel as you have enough channels with the controller card. It doesn't mater much which is where except to make sure they are on controllers that can support the maximum ATA transfer spec of the devise.

what you must always remember with IDE is that 2 devises on the same channel can not simultaneously read/write data block requests to the channel & interleave, sharing the total bandwidth of the channel in the manner that scsi can. One devise must wait for the other to finish it's block transfer before it can begin. This is why it's best to keep 'em separated if they are likely to be used simultaneously (as with burning from cdrom to CDRW).

A big problem that anyone will encounter with a single IDE audio drive is if you need to record several tracks while playing back several simultaneously. A system that can easily record 24 tracks without playing back any or playback 30 while maybe even recording a couple (recording is more taxing than playback) can be brought to it's knees recording only 10 tracks & playing back just one. This is where using separate record & playback drives on separate channels shows a huge boost in performance.


[This message has been edited by knowdoubt (edited 02-18-2003).]

[Pretty Pretty Cyanide]

That CDrom and CDRW seperation is a burner optimization.

Keeping them together and keeping the other IDE drives apart is an entire system optimization.

It's your choice on what you want to emphasize currently, optimize for burning or optimize for system executions. To put it simply the system will not respond better if you keep all your harddrive bunched up on 1 IDE channel. Keep them seperated as you have now and keep your Atapi devices on 1 IDE port.

That's pretty much my arguement. I got nothing else after this. cheers!

[knowdoubt]

Originally posted by Pretty Pretty Cyanide:
That CDrom and CDRW seperation is a burner optimization.

Keeping them together and keeping the other IDE drives apart is an entire system optimization.

It's your choice on what you want to emphasize currently, optimize for burning or optimize for system executions. To put it simply the system will not respond better if you keep all your harddrive bunched up on 1 IDE channel. Keep them seperated as you have now and keep your Atapi devices on 1 IDE port.

That's pretty much my arguement. I got nothing else after this. cheers!

You evidently didn't read his post clearly as he has 4 IDE channels, thus separating the cdrom & CDRW does not bunch up his hard drives on one channel. He can have one devise on each channel thus truly optimizing his entire system including his burning which by the way is part of the system. In fact even if he had only 2 channels, the best system optimization then would still be to separate the cdrom/CDRW (one on each channel) & separate the hard drives (one on each channel).

You see, it's possible to have the best of all worlds. http://www.audioforums.com/forums/smile.gif

[Pretty Pretty Cyanide]

2 IDE ports & 1 controller card does not truely make 4 IDE tranfer ports, just 4 IDE channels.

[+Erik.+]

Originally posted by Pretty Pretty Cyanide:
2 IDE ports & 1 controller card does not truely make 4 IDE tranfer ports, just 4 IDE channels.

so what does it make then? your input is appreciated but you have a habit of just giving your answer and not a real explanation behind the thinking.

i still don't get the logic behind it because his second hard disc is already on the pci card therefore, implied by your logic, somehow still interferring with the current setup.

[This message has been edited by +Erik.+ (edited 02-20-2003).]

[knowdoubt]

Originally posted by Pretty Pretty Cyanide:
2 IDE ports & 1 controller card does not truely make 4 IDE tranfer ports, just 4 IDE channels.

I assume your speaking of the on board IDE channels as ports to the South Bridge. In older chipsets usually they still linked to & shared the PCI bus. I'm not sure how they link at the South bridge in modern chipsets so my earlier comment of the onboard IDE channels still usung up PCI buss bandwidth may no longer apply. Even so, in that case his system as is would still not be optimized but would rather be either the scenario I outlined above for 2 IDE channels, with the HDD's & ATAPI devises split one of each on each channel or (as Erik suggested) a devise on each channel with the ATAPI's on the controller card since they are lower bandwidth hogs & won't likely be used much simultaneously with other PCI devises.

I see no scenario for which his system is optimum as is.

[This message has been edited by knowdoubt (edited 02-20-2003).]

[This message has been edited by knowdoubt (edited 02-20-2003).]

[Pretty Pretty Cyanide]

Ok I agrree then. I actually am focused on somewhere else now and just concluded this isn't really an issue for me. Maybe test the settings yourself by enabling alot of tracks n stuff. I say as long as your OS drive is Isolated that is a good point.