If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Walsh wrote:
What about sequential data transfer? What about it Mike? I'm not sure what you mean by your well worded and carefully thought out question. -- ~misfit~ ~misfit~ wrote: I've tested it, althought with my relatively new nForce2 Ultra 400 board, and having an old 120MB drive in PIO mode running alongside a modern drive running UltraDMA mode 5 on the same channel made virtually no difference to access times of the modern drive. -- ~misfit~ |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
The access time is determined by the physical attributes of the drive, i.e. rotational speed and head seek time, not by the I/O protocol. Sequential data transfer of a modern drive can be limited by I/O protocol; as slow as 2 MB/sec in PIO mode even if the drive is capable of 50 MB/sec. ~misfit~ wrote: Mike Walsh wrote: What about sequential data transfer? What about it Mike? I'm not sure what you mean by your well worded and carefully thought out question. -- ~misfit~ ~misfit~ wrote: I've tested it, althought with my relatively new nForce2 Ultra 400 board, and having an old 120MB drive in PIO mode running alongside a modern drive running UltraDMA mode 5 on the same channel made virtually no difference to access times of the modern drive. -- ~misfit~ -- Mike Walsh West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S.A. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 18:20:32 GMT, Mike Walsh
wrote: The access time is determined by the physical attributes of th more I feel like I just landed on mars. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
kony wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 18:20:32 GMT, Mike Walsh wrote: The access time is determined by the physical attributes of th more I feel like I just landed on mars. Not mars. There's signs of possible life there! :-) Virg Wall -- It is vain to do with more what can be done with fewer. William of Occam. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Steve James's log on stardate 09 ožu 2004
I have two HD's on the same IDE channel, I think one is faster than the other (ATA and RPM), will the fastest one be 'held back' by the slowest one or not ? No, no and no again. Old urban legend ... ATA interface, until 3rd volume of ATA 7 standard is paralel protocol. So, what happens with _any_ two devices conected to one channal is very simple to understand. Whatever tries to acces the device on one channal wil be able to to that only to the _one_ device in the same cycle. That is the biggest problem of ATA interface, and only then (communication between two devices on same channal) will come to _latency_ since controller can communicate with only one device per cycle, wich indirectly brings slower transfer. But, devices will comunicate with controller independently with the speed they decide, regardles on other device's transfer protocol. I have my O/S and program files on the main (fastest) drive and only use the slower one for storage and the pagefile. (to reduce head travel) Fine. You don't have to worry that your fast drive will work any slower. -- Ja sjedoh, svi sjedoshe Ja ustah, svi ustashe! |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Walsh wrote:
The access time is determined by the physical attributes of the drive, i.e. rotational speed and head seek time, not by the I/O protocol. Sequential data transfer of a modern drive can be limited by I/O protocol; as slow as 2 MB/sec in PIO mode even if the drive is capable of 50 MB/sec. Ok, thanks for clearing that up (I think). Maybe, instead of saying "virtually no difference to access times of the modern drive" I should have said that I benchmarked the system with a PIO drive and a UDMA drive on the same channel and the benchmarks (which included read/write of various sizes) was virtually unchanged for the UDMA drive even though it was sharing a channel with a PIO drive. Of course. the PIO drive did top out at just under 2MB/sec but, as long as I wasn't accessing it at the same time as I was accessing the UDMA drive it made no difference to the UDMA drive having a PIO drive on the same ribbon compared to it being alone on the channel. Better? -- ~misfit~ ~misfit~ wrote: Mike Walsh wrote: What about sequential data transfer? What about it Mike? I'm not sure what you mean by your well worded and carefully thought out question. -- ~misfit~ ~misfit~ wrote: I've tested it, althought with my relatively new nForce2 Ultra 400 board, and having an old 120MB drive in PIO mode running alongside a modern drive running UltraDMA mode 5 on the same channel made virtually no difference to access times of the modern drive. -- ~misfit~ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
IDE Channel problem | Magic Blue | General | 2 | February 24th 04 08:25 PM |
Difference between Dual channel and Non-Dual channel? | Chris Stolworthy | General | 5 | January 6th 04 09:41 AM |
DDR and dual channel operation | Wolfi | General | 0 | November 16th 03 01:58 AM |
what exactily is quad pumped vs dual channel | The 700mm man | General | 0 | September 8th 03 01:25 AM |
IDE channel corrupt? | daveyboy | General | 5 | July 14th 03 05:55 PM |