IDE setup-which is faster?

Hi all-First post…hope it’s not too stooopid :wink:
In my system currently I have a WD Caviar 80gig (the 8mb buffer one) as Primary master and an IBM Deskstar 46 gig as primary slave- this second drive is used purely to contain a mirror image of what’s on my WD in case the main drive dies…nothing more.
On my secondary IDE channel I have a Pioneer DVD Romdrive as master and a liteon 52x cdrw as slave.
Someone in work suggested to me that my hard drive times all around would be faster if I had the WD as primary master and the cdrw as primary slave and the IBM drive as secondary master and the Pioneer DVD drive as secondary slave.
What do ya’ll think?
TIA,
Pete:bow:

Since you are simply using your second hard drive for an image, it would not improve the speed of your hard drive, however the configuration would speed up the process of creating an image onto your backup hard drive. The suggested configuration would also allow you to copy on-the-fly from your DVD-ROM to your Lite-On.

-Scott

IMHO,the only benefit you have by using your friend’s suggested setup,is a better "on the fly"copying,because the dvd and writer will be on seperate ide channels.
As for speed…lately,most harddisks are at least ultra ata 66 ranked, burners and similar devices are just ultra ata 33,some people claim that your transfer rate will automaticly drop down to the value of the device with the lowest bandwidth…

Originally posted by pete1336

Someone in work suggested to me that my hard drive times all around would be faster if I had the WD as primary master and the cdrw as primary slave and the IBM drive as secondary master and the Pioneer DVD drive as secondary slave.

Well, if i were you i’d follow someone-in-work’s suggestion, i.e.

WD = PM
CDRW = PS
IBM = SM
DVD = SS

:smiley:

You should have the same on-the-fly copy speeds with both optical drives on one channel as you do with them on separate channels.

Are you suggesting that there shouldnt be problems on same channel?

I need to clear this up…as others say that the source/destination should be seperate.

OK. I’ll try it for myself and see wat happens.

If you are copying a CD, this is one operation, not 2. It should work just fine with both drives on the same channel. My own system will do this at 48x speed, so clearly there is no trouble with the theory. Where you will see much slower speeds is when you try to do 2 separate operations with the drives on the same channel, like burning to 2 burners from different programs, (or 2 instances of the same program), or reading from one drive in one program while you’re writing to the other drivee in another program. In this situation you will see alternating buffers and very slow performance, so the best configuration will be having the drives on separate channels.
At least this has been my experience. The same should be true for IDE HD’s, however the relatively faster speeds of the HD’s would likely make it less of an issue.

thanks for ll your replies and merry xmas!!