> > There is no performance-hit with UDMA100/133 drives when using two > > devices per channel. This an old "SCSI-is-best" story that were true a > > long time ago. > > On http://www.coker.com.au/hardware/46g.png I have a graph of this using > ATA66 on an Athlon800 machine without DDR RAM. It shows a significant > performance difference between having only one active drive and having two > drives active on different channels. But the difference between two drives > on different channels and two drives on the same channel is much smaller.
I get a 404 on the above image. Regardless, you may not notice any big performance different when running 2 devices per IDE channel/port if you are doing light random accesses and such, but if you start doing heavy I/O and such, you'll notice an increasing performance difference compared with 1 devices on each IDE channel. At least, this is our experience. > ATA133 is twice as fast as ATA66 and modern CPUs are twice as fast as the one > I tested with, but you can't buy IDE drives that are twice as fast as the > drives I tested with! Therefore I expect to see less difference if the test > is repeated on modern hardware. True. 7200rpm ATA66 VS 7200rpm ATA133 would produce a minimal performance increase, assuming that the onboard cache and associated caching algorithm was similar. Jason http://www.zentek-international.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
