Dual Hard Drives
Dual Hard Drives
Ok... Ive currently got 2 Hard drives in my computer... one that came with it... and one i bought for pure storage... but as i started using it, i noticed that if i tried to access files from it (such as a song or anime), that the performance would be greatly decreased (sound and mainly video/sound speed)... and if i move files from 1 HD to the other, the time it takes is rather large, even for small files... i kinda figured it was normal, and i sitll think it is... but what i'd like to know is if there is a way to perhaps make transfer faster. i dont now what my 1st HD is, but my 2nd is a Maxtor 120Gb, ATA133
-
Cyberliger777
- Redshirt
- Posts: 1903
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 5:19 pm
- Real Name: Zachary
- Gender: Male
- Location: Seattle, WA
-
Vektor T. Gecko
- Redshirt
- Posts: 859
- Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 8:43 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Ontario
1) If both drives are on the same IDE channel, they're sharing that channel's effective maximum bandwidth between themselves. Also, both devices on a given channel can be sending/receiving data at the same time, so the drives would be effectively "taking turns" on their IDE controller.
2) When moving files around on a single drive, you're not ACTUALLY moving the data around, merely altering a few entries in a table the operating system uses to determine which files are stored where on the hard drive. If you're moving a file from c:\temp to c:\temp2, there's no reason to copy all the data to a new location on the drive, then delete the old data. The operating system just makes a new entry in the filesystem that tells it that the new file (in c:\temp2) is stored at the same location the old file was stored at, then wipes the previous entry for the file in c:\temp (relatively simplified version there)
When you're moving data between drives, it can't just do this, since they're on two separate pieces of physical media. It actually needs to copy the file over to the new drive, bit for bit, then erase the old one.
2) When moving files around on a single drive, you're not ACTUALLY moving the data around, merely altering a few entries in a table the operating system uses to determine which files are stored where on the hard drive. If you're moving a file from c:\temp to c:\temp2, there's no reason to copy all the data to a new location on the drive, then delete the old data. The operating system just makes a new entry in the filesystem that tells it that the new file (in c:\temp2) is stored at the same location the old file was stored at, then wipes the previous entry for the file in c:\temp (relatively simplified version there)
When you're moving data between drives, it can't just do this, since they're on two separate pieces of physical media. It actually needs to copy the file over to the new drive, bit for bit, then erase the old one.
If all else fails, use fire.
-
FireAza
- Redshirt
- Posts: 12806
- Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 10:59 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Hasuda City, Japan
- Contact:
Just as an example, you mentioned watching anime off the 2nd drive, and using Winamp on one drive while running the song off the 2nd drive. I do all those on my PC, and it runs fine.
"For AUS$300, you get FireAza drawing your screen image." -MartinBlank "Oh shit. For once, FireAza is right." -Deacon
"FireAza, if you're really that sneaky and quiet then you can sleep in my bed anytime, mister." -kizba
-
Infin8Cyn
- Redshirt
- Posts: 6309
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2003 10:02 pm
- Real Name: James
- Gender: Male
- Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico
- Contact:
Vektor T. Gecko, Excellent post though I'm not sure that Kurosen got it.
Kurosen, The access times between the drives isn't because the program is on one drive and the music is on another. It's for a slightly more technical reason, allow me elaborate (or if you got it and I'm just a moron, say so as well
).
Most computers have two of what're called IDE Channels. If you look at a mother board it's where the big broad cable connects to it. Now, on each IDE Channel you can have two drives, a Master and a Slave.
So, for reference it would look something like this:
Now, think of that IDE Cable as a road, and those two drives as biggg ole UPS stores (or something). Now in order to send a box from one store to another, we can't just travel down the road and drop it off. It has to go alll the way from one drive, to the motherboard (where it'll get processed) then sent back up the road. So, in sending that box there's a lot of wasted time.
Now imagine if there was only one UPS store on each end of the big road with a little toll booth in the middle. Each UPS delivery can use the whole road, and make deliveries fast because it can send more w/o having to share the road with the other store.
While my analogy is bloated, sorta sucks, and is rather silly, that's what happens with your drives. If both of your hardrives are on the same channel, you can see a large loss of system speed when you start asking for them to share that road. If you only put one large hardrive on each cable (since you're allowed two IDE cables to the motherboard) and then say a CD drive or something else on each cable, data will flow much faster between the two hard drives. With this setup, you may lose some speed for CD -> HD copies, but a CD drive is typically used much less than a hard drive so you'll notice it less frequently.
Again, if you caught on and this was unnecessary, I'm sorry.
Kurosen, The access times between the drives isn't because the program is on one drive and the music is on another. It's for a slightly more technical reason, allow me elaborate (or if you got it and I'm just a moron, say so as well
). Most computers have two of what're called IDE Channels. If you look at a mother board it's where the big broad cable connects to it. Now, on each IDE Channel you can have two drives, a Master and a Slave.
So, for reference it would look something like this:
Now, think of that IDE Cable as a road, and those two drives as biggg ole UPS stores (or something). Now in order to send a box from one store to another, we can't just travel down the road and drop it off. It has to go alll the way from one drive, to the motherboard (where it'll get processed) then sent back up the road. So, in sending that box there's a lot of wasted time.
Now imagine if there was only one UPS store on each end of the big road with a little toll booth in the middle. Each UPS delivery can use the whole road, and make deliveries fast because it can send more w/o having to share the road with the other store.
While my analogy is bloated, sorta sucks, and is rather silly, that's what happens with your drives. If both of your hardrives are on the same channel, you can see a large loss of system speed when you start asking for them to share that road. If you only put one large hardrive on each cable (since you're allowed two IDE cables to the motherboard) and then say a CD drive or something else on each cable, data will flow much faster between the two hard drives. With this setup, you may lose some speed for CD -> HD copies, but a CD drive is typically used much less than a hard drive so you'll notice it less frequently.
Again, if you caught on and this was unnecessary, I'm sorry.
Re: Dual Hard Drives
Best way to fix problem is to throw the Maxtor crap in the garbage and buy a real hard drive(Western Digital if you didn't know ) then check wiring, program compatabilities, and finally performance(heat, dust, and any thing else)
-
Vektor T. Gecko
- Redshirt
- Posts: 859
- Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 8:43 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Ontario
To be honest, I've had more WD drives fail on me than anything.
Albeit, they were all very old at the time.
My oldest living drive is my Quantum Bigfoot, which is probably approaching a decade of use (still in active use).
Although to be honest, I rather like Seagate drives more than most others nowadays, if only because they're willing to put a 5-year warranty behind it, whereas you get 1yr with Maxtor, I believe, and at most 3 years anywhere else.
Albeit, they were all very old at the time.
My oldest living drive is my Quantum Bigfoot, which is probably approaching a decade of use (still in active use).
Although to be honest, I rather like Seagate drives more than most others nowadays, if only because they're willing to put a 5-year warranty behind it, whereas you get 1yr with Maxtor, I believe, and at most 3 years anywhere else.
If all else fails, use fire.
-
Deacon
- Shining Adonis
- Posts: 44234
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Lakehills, TX
[quote="Vektor T. Gecko";p="387125"]My oldest living drive is my Quantum Bigfoot, which is probably approaching a decade of use (still in active use).[/quote]
Call Ripley's. That fucker is probably the only one still in existance. I worked at a tech shop when Compaq was putting those in all its computers. I've changed out so many, that when I think about it, I realize I could probably cover the entire surface of the earth with those things, stacked about 4 high.
However, for the longest time Seagate used to put out carefully molded nuggets of dog shit and spraypainted them metallic to look like a hard drive, at least for their consumer hard drives. Their SCSI drives have always been anywhere from pretty decent to awesome. Apparently their consumer drives have been catching up to that standard.
Call Ripley's. That fucker is probably the only one still in existance. I worked at a tech shop when Compaq was putting those in all its computers. I've changed out so many, that when I think about it, I realize I could probably cover the entire surface of the earth with those things, stacked about 4 high.
OEM warranties != Retail warranties.Although to be honest, I rather like Seagate drives more than most others nowadays, if only because they're willing to put a 5-year warranty behind it, whereas you get 1yr with Maxtor, I believe, and at most 3 years anywhere else.
However, for the longest time Seagate used to put out carefully molded nuggets of dog shit and spraypainted them metallic to look like a hard drive, at least for their consumer hard drives. Their SCSI drives have always been anywhere from pretty decent to awesome. Apparently their consumer drives have been catching up to that standard.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922
-
Salvation122
- Redshirt
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 9:49 pm
- Location: Memphis, TN, USA
-
Vektor T. Gecko
- Redshirt
- Posts: 859
- Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 8:43 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Ontario
Each SATA port only connects to one drive. The cabling is so much neater that way, too. On top of not being ribbon cables, that is.
As for the controllers, I'm not particularly familiar with how SATA controllers actually work (despite really wanting them because I hate ribbon cables, that's not happening until I become both wealthy and have a good reason/plan for what to do with my current IDE drives)
EDIT:
I should clarify that because I'm not terribly familiar with SATA hardware just yet, I'm not sure what the relationship between disk controllers and ports is, but given that SATA is a new technology (as opposed to aging IDE technology), that whatever group was tasked with laying down specs probably took multiple devices into account in an effort to reduce bottlenecks, so the technology lasts as long as possible before we have to start layering clever hacks on top of it to keep it up to speed with future hardware.
Just speculation, though.
As for the controllers, I'm not particularly familiar with how SATA controllers actually work (despite really wanting them because I hate ribbon cables, that's not happening until I become both wealthy and have a good reason/plan for what to do with my current IDE drives)
EDIT:
I should clarify that because I'm not terribly familiar with SATA hardware just yet, I'm not sure what the relationship between disk controllers and ports is, but given that SATA is a new technology (as opposed to aging IDE technology), that whatever group was tasked with laying down specs probably took multiple devices into account in an effort to reduce bottlenecks, so the technology lasts as long as possible before we have to start layering clever hacks on top of it to keep it up to speed with future hardware.
Just speculation, though.
Last edited by Vektor T. Gecko on Fri Aug 20, 2004 6:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
If all else fails, use fire.
Re: Dual Hard Drives
Western Digital is the leading hard drive to date and the first to break the 200 gig barrier. I have had omly WD hard drives and never had any problems with it and I have a warranty so massive that I could throw it against a wall run it over in a car and piss on it and still have it replaced for 7 years
uh... thanks infin8... tho i think you basicly said what vector said... and i did more or less understand that data traffic was simply getting conjested (that IS right... right?) ... tho im wondering... would it help the problem if i were to perhaps install winamp on my other drive? ... i might try that for the hell of it. cuz i cant think of any way to ask if that woudl work or not... so... ya... 
OMGIFINALLYREMOVEDIT!!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest