CDROM/DVD and CD-W on same cable

[thekingofpain]

Does the cdr/w drive and cd rom have to be ata66?? Never thought of it, are they ata66? If you pair one of them with a ata66 hdd will it drag that channel down to ata33 if the cd drives arnt???
My KT-7 only has 2 ata66 headers is why I ask, ive 1 hdd a cd and a cdr/w and backing up disks direct is a must...

No ata33 headers at all on this board, what were they thinking?
(I should have got the 4 header RAID version)

[This message has been edited by thekingofpain (edited 10-03-2000).]

[canit]

I don't think it would make a lot of difference to have ata33 and ata66 on the same channel since very few if any roms or hdds could sustain 66MB/sec. BTW my cd-rw and dvd-rom are on the same channel and work fine.

[Graham]

Sorry I lied (in error)

Should have read

Pri master hdd
Pri slave CD-rom
Sec master CD-rw
Sec slave hdd


oops

G

[Fingers]

First off, ATA/33 and ATA/66 both use the same 40-pin IDE connector. The ATA/66 cable has and additional 40 individual ground wires that reduce electronic interference. Either the mobo and bios support ATA/66, or they don't, and any ATA/66 capable mobo is fully backward compatible with ATA/33 devices.

There is currently no "dragging down" effect from mixing ATA standards. ATA/66 is a standard that provides for a theoretical maximum burst transfer of 66MB/second, but sustained transfer rate is still limited by hard drive technology, which still is less than 33MB/second.


I agree with Eli, if your going to "rip" from CD-Rom to CD-R(W), then the drives should be on different IDE channels(ribbons). The cable can only transmit data one direction at a time, so your going to have bottlenecks if they are on the same ribbon. The same goes for HDD's, if you want maximum performance transferring data from one HDD to another, put them on different cables. The problem with mixing HDD's and CD devices on the same channel is that if your trying to access a CD device and a HDD simultaneously, the HDD will loose performance while waiting for the much slower CD to get done poking around on the channel, relatively speaking. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif
So it come down to a matter of priorities, if your going to be ripping a lot of CD's, I suggest putting them on different channels.

[thekingofpain]

Im not really into purchasing a 30$ Promise card, did Abit drop the ball on providing the appropriate headers or what?

[Eli]

Wow, someone agreed with me for a change. I'll have to bookmark this thread. lol

[NDC]

I have my CDROM and CDRW on the same IDE channel That's the way I always use my IDE devices. I never mix DMA33 and DMA66 devices on the same channel. I did read in a Segate site that DMA66 will attain its speed even when DMA33 is attached on the same IDE channel as long as the DMA66 drive is using a conductor No. 80 IDE cable, but that hasn't been the case for me on all my mainboards. I see that my DMA66 HDD drive drops to DMA33 in my BIOS bootup screen when I attach a DMA33 device on the same channel. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif

Anyways, Most importantly, I burn my CD to CD at 8X and it doesn't turn out a coaster. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif




[This message has been edited by NDC (edited 09-30-2000).]

[Pack'nHeat]

Hello.
Someone told me that these two drives should not be on the same ribbon. Has anyone ever had troubles with them together. I thought this was common practice to pair them together. Thanks

[Graham]

I don't have a dvd but I do have a cd-rom and cd-rw on the same ide (secondary), wouldn't work at all 'till I put the RW as the master, then 100%.

Pri master hdd
Pri slave hdd
Sec master CD-RW
sec slave CD-rom


G

[Eli]

They shouldn't be on the same IDE channel if you intend to try copying CDs on the fly, without copying to your hard drive first. Ideally you should have them on seperate channels, usually with the reader sharing the primary channel with the hard drive and the writer on the secondary.

Of course, I'm assuming that you're talking about an IDE system...

[Win_98]

cdrom will perform much better when set as slave, the reason is they have very slow access time as compared that to a harddrive of 9ms. This way they won't hinder your harddrive performance either since the master drive is dominant, it is important that fastest device comes first.

[Dave2]

Does this apply also to Zip drives? Can you get a buffer underun if you copy something from a IDE hard drive to a IDE Zip drive when they are sharing the same cable?

[Eli]

That sounds more like a SCSI rule than an IDE one, Mr. 98.