|
Home > Archive > Data Storage > April 2005 > set-up advice
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
|
Hello
I've just bought a Maxtor diamondmax plus 9, 250GB, SATA/150, HDD and want
to use it for storage and don't really have much of a clue how to set it up.
This is my set up now if this helps
Primary IDE connector........80GB Maxtor ATA/133 HDD
Secondary IDE connector.. CD/RW with DVD Drive slaved
My motherboard doesn't have a SATA connection so I'll buy a SATA PCI card
"which one?
And that's where I get lost.
Should I ;
Primary IDE connector.....80GB ATA HDD as master + DVD/RW as slave
SATA PCI card...............250GB SATA HDD as master + CD/RW as slave if
possible, if not could I put it on the secondary IDE connector?
So to summarize;
I've got (two IDE slots) and will have (SATA PCI card) and best set-up with,
250GB SATA HDD
80GB ATA HDD
CD/RW
DVD/RW
--
Regards
p.mc
For personal replies please leave or type signature
"p.mc" In the body of the message otherwise
posts will not be received.
Thanks
| |
| Curious George 2005-03-30, 2:45 am |
| On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 05:14:43 +0000 (UTC), "p.mc" <sigadd1to
reply@btintershite.com> wrote:
>250GB SATA HDD
Just to warn you, you're getting no benefit from the extra expense of
the SATA controller and more expensive SATA drive. I would have
bought the biggest PATA drive I could for that price instead.
>80GB ATA HDD
>CD/RW
>DVD/RW
Where you put what doesn't really matter. If it were my system,
though, I'd put the HDD on the first channel and the opticals on the
second channel. The optical drive I planned to use boot disks on
(likely the DVD) I'd probably make master. The reasons for this have
disappeared. It usually doesn't matter on a modern, decent system.
| |
| Maxim S. Shatskih 2005-03-30, 2:45 am |
| > Where you put what doesn't really matter. If it were my system,
> though, I'd put the HDD on the first channel and the opticals on the
2 PATA devices on the same cable cannot do IO in parallel, they wait for each
other. So, putting disks to different cables is a good idea.
SATA is also a good idea just to introduce 2 more connection points for disks.
SATA implementation in i865PE chipset is hardware-compatible with usual Intel's
family of PATA controllers and do not require driver installation (the
OS-provided drivers suite well).
--
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com
| |
|
|
"Curious George" <cg@email.net> wrote in message
news:rkak419hds4h0cuhmrvnul88ajqh8suk1e@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 05:14:43 +0000 (UTC), "p.mc" <sigadd1to
> reply@btintershite.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Just to warn you, you're getting no benefit from the extra expense of
> the SATA controller and more expensive SATA drive. I would have
> bought the biggest PATA drive I could for that price instead.
----snip----
That's the funny thing, I thought I did, but I didn't try to install it
'till five months after I bought it from Dabs online, and they would
probably laugh if I asked to swap it.
Maxtor DiamondMax plus 9 ATA 80GB HDD.......My original
Maxtor DiamondMax plus 9 SATA 250GB HDD...Bought for storage
Moral of story..Less haste,less waste..What's in an "S" ....About
£115..Aaargh!!
Plus £40 PCI card ..Tee hee!!
Cheers
pmc
>
>
> Where you put what doesn't really matter. If it were my system,
> though, I'd put the HDD on the first channel and the opticals on the
> second channel. The optical drive I planned to use boot disks on
> (likely the DVD) I'd probably make master. The reasons for this have
> disappeared. It usually doesn't matter on a modern, decent system.
| |
| Curious George 2005-03-31, 8:46 pm |
| On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:47:37 +0400, "Maxim S. Shatskih"
<maxim@storagecraft.com> wrote:
>
>2 PATA devices on the same cable cannot do IO in parallel, they wait for each
>other. So, putting disks to different cables is a good idea.
That's no longer the case with modern ATA which is capable of
multithreaded IO since ATA/ATAPI-4.
SATA uses scsi & ata command overhead as well as devices frequently
using bridges and/or concentrators which means you're not getting all
you may think bandwidth/efficiency wise.
SATA for medium or larger ATA arrays is nice for cabling reasons and
because manufacturers are putting their best efforts there.
>SATA is also a good idea just to introduce 2 more connection points for disks.
PATA handles 2 disks just fine. For 1 or 2 jbod drives in a desktop
pc it offers no benefit.
>SATA implementation in i865PE chipset is hardware-compatible with usual Intel's
>family of PATA controllers and do not require driver installation (the
>OS-provided drivers suite well).
He's not using that. I'm not citing driver issues as a case against
SATA. I don't even thing SATA is necessarily a bad thing. If you
want to use a raptor or it came with your pc already it's a nice
thing.
| |
| Maxim S. Shatskih 2005-04-01, 2:45 am |
| > >2 PATA devices on the same cable cannot do IO in parallel, they wait for
each
>
> That's no longer the case with modern ATA which is capable of
> multithreaded IO since ATA/ATAPI-4.
IIRC no OS supported this. Many controllers too. Disks - yes, disks are usually
supporting this.
--
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com
| |
| Curious George 2005-04-01, 7:45 am |
| On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 10:26:30 +0400, "Maxim S. Shatskih"
<maxim@storagecraft.com> wrote:
>each
>
>IIRC no OS supported this. Many controllers too. Disks - yes, disks are usually
>supporting this.
AFAIK the controller and driver are the main issue. In the initial
days of ATA33 its true no one fully implemented the standard. I'm not
so sure this is still total vaporware though. I, for one, haven't
observed the same penalties with modern ATA bus sharing as with
ancient IDE/EIDE.
| |
| Maxim S. Shatskih 2005-04-01, 7:45 am |
| > so sure this is still total vaporware though. I, for one, haven't
> observed the same penalties with modern ATA bus sharing as with
> ancient IDE/EIDE.
I saw this in XP SP2 even with SATA, in a case if SATA settings in BIOS setup
map SATA as a secondary PATA channell.
No such problems if BIOS settings map SATA to second independent 2way
controller. In this case, Windows sees PATA the same way as usually, and also
sees SATA as the second 2way controller with 1 device on each channel. In this
case - no bus sharing penalty.
This is i865PE chipset, where the OS-provided standard PCIIDE.SYS is used for
SATA.
--
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com
|
|
|
|
|