Why (technically) would you want to run a CDROM & HDD on the same channel?

R

RichHead

New member
This is a quote for another thread:

--------------------------------
I would rather do this route :

Primary :
Master --> HD 1 (OS)
Slave --> CD-ROM

Secondary :
Master --> HD 2 (Audio data)
--------------------------------

I have seen more than one person (on this forum) saying this is "the way to go".

From what I have learned about IDE, this would be a "bad" setup. Why is this so popular here? There must be some reason for it, because I certainly don't see any performance gains in it at all.

Does somebody have some specs to back this up? As far as I know, any IDE channel you run a CDROM on would drop down to ATA33. And while that may be all fine and good to run a HDD from, why trade in ATA100 for it?

Somebody have a reason for this. Because I see this being stated here, with absolutely nothing to back it up.

----If I am missing something here, please forgive me----
 
RichHead said:
This is a quote for another thread:

--------------------------------
I would rather do this route :

Primary :
Master --> HD 1 (OS)
Slave --> CD-ROM

Secondary :
Master --> HD 2 (Audio data)
--------------------------------

I have seen more than one person (on this forum) saying this is "the way to go".

From what I have learned about IDE, this would be a "bad" setup. Why is this so popular here? There must be some reason for it, because I certainly don't see any performance gains in it at all.

Does somebody have some specs to back this up? As far as I know, any IDE channel you run a CDROM on would drop down to ATA33. And while that may be all fine and good to run a HDD from, why trade in ATA100 for it?

Somebody have a reason for this. Because I see this being stated here, with absolutely nothing to back it up.

----If I am missing something here, please forgive me----
Click to expand...

The point is that HD 2, most important drive while recording, has its own IDE connection so it won't be slowed down by anything.

PEACE....and Music
Henry
 
Lemme explain if I may...... Each IDE channel can do one read or write at a time. so if you have one drive running your os and for your audio applications (where your audio is store etc) then it may be preferable to be able to do simultaneous read/write on both disks at once, which if each HDD where on a seperate IDE channel it would be able to do,whereas if each HDD where on the same IDE channel it would have to switch back and forth in rapid succession therefore possibly causing performance loss. If you are recording audio to your HDD performance loss can introduce unwanted artifacts to your recorded audio. as far as cd performance goes being a slave -> if you are reading information it may take a bit longer but there wont be any problems from that and if you are recording to CD as long as your CD-R supports buffer underrun protection it wont be a problem (if it doesnt however you may experience problems with burning CD's)
also you CD rom would indeed run at ata33 but that doesnt slow down the whole ide channel it just affects the communication rate between the cd and the IDE controller not the whole IDE channel so your ata100 drive would still function at ata100 and your ata33 slave cdrom would run at ata33
 
My point is, I have always been told to keep CDROM/RW seperate from HDD because it will degrade performance of the HDD on that channel that has to deal wiht an ATA33 device. Consequently, I have two HDD on one channel, a CDROM and CDRW on another channel. (this is why I was saying you guys have slow HDD's, because I figured you didn't notice a drop to ATA33).

Well, I learned something new today, and Western Digital backed up exactly what you said....Thanks Randy

But then, I guess I am where I need to be as far as configuration, given what Randy said about CD burning (I do have buffer underrun, but if the IDE Channel can only read/write from one device at a time, I would lose peformance there). It seems like with a 2 HDD/1 CDRW combo, seperate channels would be more beneficial for the HDD.

Ok, got it. Just had to work it all out.
 
So, it's still the best way for audio recording to have you OS-drive and Audio-drive on a seperate channel.

Don't worry be happy
Henry
 
Last edited:
It sounds like it yes.

But then it makes me wonder just at what point (for audio purposes) would I have to get too to max out the setup I have, because I haven't reached anything close to the limit yet. I am thinking, for me to have a better overall system, I am better off the way I am since I use my second HDD mainly for temporary storage, not for audio programs.
 
RichHead said:
It sounds like it yes.

But then it makes me wonder just at what point (for audio purposes) would I have to get too to max out the setup I have, because I haven't reached anything close to the limit yet. I am thinking, for me to have a better overall system, I am better off the way I am since I use my second HDD mainly for temporary storage, not for audio programs.
Click to expand...

If it isn't broken why fix it?
If you're happy with your configuration than don't change it.

Hope that helps
Henry
 
Right on FanTC.....Man I was struggling with this one too, and you are just mellow as could be. Thanks for not losing patience with me man.
 
lol.....And persistent too. Nah, not for me.....It won't do much of anything for me. For me it would be a minimal gain, and I got Linux partitions, storage partitions, etc. I'm cool.

If I can only figure why I would need to write/read to two HDD (for more than a second or two) at the same time (other than a RAID config), I might jump into it. But that's a WHOOOLLLEE 'notha thread.

..Later
 
The idea that a CD-ROM will slow down a hard drive on the same channel is obsolete, but it was true at one time. With very early IDE CD-ROM this did in fact happen. But any IDE CD drives sold in the last few years will have no effect whatsoever on HDD performance.

As was said by others, IDE controlllers don't do a good job of doing reads and writes at the same time. This is one area where SCSI is much better. But SCSI is expensive and really overkill for most uses. So ideally you want to spread your IDE devices so the same IDE controller won't be doing both at once.

The setup I like is this -

Primary master - System hard drive with applications
Primary Slave - a CDR drive
Secondary master - A big, fast audio data hard drive
Secondary slave - a DVD/CD-ROM reader

With this setup any of the following common functions will have a controller only reading or writing, but not both -

Audio recording or playback
Copying audio data to CDR
Dupeing CD to CDR
Doing a back-up (Ghost) of the system drive to the data drive
Moving that backup to CDR
 
Why would I be able to write CD's faster?

RWHITE, I am still not convinced that it would be enough of an advantage to completely change around my system.

that having been said, I understand why technically it would be a performance advantage, but so far (even though some of this information has been good) all I have heard is "because I said so". I was looking for something maybe a little more technical.

Maybe somebody who could tell me what this did for them.....could record/playback two more tracks because they changed around their system, maybe even had some benchmarks or tests they ran. Maybe then also, I could decide, based on another's improvement, how to incorporate that into my own system.

but now...I do a lot more than audio with my config...I have to make room for all the things that I do.......So far, I have heard nothing compelling me to reset up my disks, OS's, etc.
 
You still don't get it.....

First of all you don't have to reformat or reinstall anything at all.
There are different ways you can do this.
The easyest way, is just switch the two slave drives and your done. If you want the D-drive to stay D-drive you can change that in windows. No problem. That's all to it. you're ready to go. Five minutes top.

Secondly.
How more technical do you want to go. I read this stuff in every PC magazine. It's basic stuff. If you wan't more technical info try the webside of your mobo or any other brand. Or send them an e-mail.
 
Last edited:
FanTC....Relax man....I have multiple OS's. It WOULD mean a reinstall for me because I am not comfortable editing my MBR. Are you? Maybe you should try actually reading what I wrote about my system.....

I'm learning here too dude. I read plenty of info on PC's. I'm not spitting on you dude.

I want to know what kind of performance increase we are talking about here.

I had some misinformation about IDE buses. Ok, great. I am moving on.

So how am I getting faster CD burning dude? You know what.....Nevermind. I'll find what I need to know elsewhere. As you have suggested.
 
I know you have multiple OS's. You set up your system wrong to begin with. You best put your OS's on one drive and the DATA on the other. In case of a fatal HD-crash you're DATA will still be accessable and untouched. And you would't have a problem switching the slave-drives. Now you have to reinstall/reformat everything to change it.

Well....good luck anyway
Henry
 
Tell me. Just when will you be playing or burning a CD while you are tracking audio data onto your audio HD?

Is tracking THAT boring?
 
...I saw and read this thread over and over, couldn't stand to not replying, since you actualy quoting my post in some other thread, RichHead...
Actualy, Randy5235, FanTC®, RWhite and Doctorstawl had tried to explain pretty well, I think it's time for you to PROOF IT YOUR SELF. We did find these by messin' around with our PC, trial and error. If you're not satisfied, we can't show you every single bit trafic in your IDE cables. Why don't you try yourself, say do CD burning with your current setup, three or four CD's. Write the result. Time needed, and error level. Then use "our" setup, do the same thing. Burn exactly same data. Write the result. Compare with the first. There you can tell...

;)
Jaymz
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top