Question about transfer speeds between HDs, and DMA mode

Discussion in 'Abit' started by ZigZag Master, Jul 20, 2004.

  1. I have a Maxtor 200GB (6Y200P0) and a Western Digital 250GB WD2500JB in a
    AMD 2500 / Abit NF7-S - 1GB RAM. I am running Windows XP Pro.

    I was wondering how long it should take to copy large files between the
    drives.

    I have some TV captures that are about 8-12GB. It just seems like it takes
    a long time to copy from drive to drive....about 6-8 minutes. Is this
    normal?

    Also, do I have to do anything special to turn on DMA mode? I think I was
    using Pinnacle Studio, and it popped up a window saying DMA mode was not
    enabled on the Maxtor.

    Thanks
     
    ZigZag Master, Jul 20, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. ZigZag Master

    Wes Newell Guest

    For best performance, make sure the 2 drives are not on the same channel
    (cable). If they are on the same channel, this will be a major
    slowdown, as each channel can only perform 1 IO fubction at a time. So
    it will have to read to ram, then write back out to the same channel.
    Using 2 channels (cables), both will happen at the same time. Then make
    sure you have them set to the fastest settings they support. I use hdparm
    to check/set mine, but I run linux. Not sure where you set/check drive
    modes in win.
     
    Wes Newell, Jul 20, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. OK, I also have 1 DVD writer and 1 DVD reader, so if I understand you
    correctly, I should put one HD and one DVD on each channel???

    thanks
     
    ZigZag Master, Jul 20, 2004
    #3
  4. ZigZag Master

    PRIVATE1964 Guest

    Is this
    Yes, I would say so. Those are large files to be copying between drives.


    You shouldn't have to do anything, but there are cases that it doesn't get
    enabled automatically. Go to control panel, then double click on the system
    icon, then look under the hardware tab for device manager...start device
    manager look under IDE and get properties.
     
    PRIVATE1964, Jul 20, 2004
    #4
  5. ZigZag Master

    PRIVATE1964 Guest

    For best performance, make sure the 2 drives are not on the same channel
    Yes that will slow things down a bit.
    You might also want to create a permanent windows page file on the second drive
    only maybe 1.5 gigs. You could put a very small page file on the first drive
    maybe 100 Megs and the rest on the second drive.
    I'm not sure how much the page file would be used for copying from drive to
    drive with 1GB system memory, but it might help with overall windows
    performance. If still possible I would also put it in it's own partition on the
    second drive.
     
    PRIVATE1964, Jul 20, 2004
    #5
  6. ZigZag Master

    PRIVATE1964 Guest

    Yeah I would say so, unless you are able to use your sata. You did say your
    using an NF7-S right?

    I have two drives on the same channel, but the second drive is only for backups
    and I don't transfer all that many files between them.

    I would put main drive and the DVD you use the least. Then second drive and
    remaining DVD.

    Or if you can use SATA put main or second drive on SATA, keep one remaining
    hard drive on first ide channel and put the two dvd drives on second IDE
    channel.

    It wasn't wise a while ago to mix hard drives and DVD or CDROM, because they
    could hold the speed down of a hard drive. The controllers are better now so
    that is not a problem any more as far as I know.
     
    PRIVATE1964, Jul 20, 2004
    #6
  7. ZigZag Master

    TBC OZoNE Guest

     
    TBC OZoNE, Jul 21, 2004
    #7
  8. ZigZag Master

    Ron Reaugh Guest

    Right.
     
    Ron Reaugh, Jul 21, 2004
    #8
  9. ZigZag Master

    Ron Reaugh Guest

    That's in the ballpark.
    Make SURE DMA mode is enabled for ALL ATA/IDE devices.
     
    Ron Reaugh, Jul 21, 2004
    #9
  10. ZigZag Master

    Wes Newell Guest

    If you've only got 2 channels and 4 devices, then you want the devices you
    copy to/from most on seperate channels. but you also need to consider
    from which drive you copy to the DVD wiriter most and keep them seperate
    as well if possible. It depsnds on how you use the sytem as to how to best
    configure the drives. Someone suggested another controller card, using 1
    drive per channel. That would be the best solution if that's posssible.
    They're cheap as dirt (I bought a dual channel with raid for about $10),
    so cost shouldn't be an issue for most people.
     
    Wes Newell, Jul 21, 2004
    #10
  11. Like this would be any different for SCSI or any other bus.
    So what. An IDE channel can support two drives.
     
    Folkert Rienstra, Jul 21, 2004
    #11
  12. Why? 22MB/s is definitely not PIO mode.
     
    Folkert Rienstra, Jul 21, 2004
    #12
  13. Wrong. His drives will only be running at half their potential if they're
    both on the same channel.
    Actually, it is. An ATA bus (current SATA implementations or parallel) can
    only have one active request at a time. A SCSI bus can have requests
    outstanding, so there is very little wastage of bus bandwidth (though more
    complex electronics are needed).
    Yes, but not at the same time. Only one request can be active at any point
    in time. So your drives will run at exactly half of their potential speed if
    you only use one channel. This is the reason why doing any sort of IDE RAID
    pretty much requires that you have one device per channel, otherwise you
    take a big performance hit.
    You're wrong, again. You should actually understand the topic before you
    answer with such confidence :)

    [...]
     
    Michael Brown, Jul 21, 2004
    #13
  14. ZigZag Master

    PRIVATE1964 Guest

    He posted he has an NF7-S which has 2 SATA connections and comes with a SATA
    adapter.
    He would not have to buy anything to have 3 channels.

    One Drive on SATA, the other on IDE and the two DVD drives on the second IDE
    channels.
     
    PRIVATE1964, Jul 21, 2004
    #14
  15. ZigZag Master

    Eric Gisin Guest

    It doesn't matter if you are doing sequential copies. IDE drives implement
    read ahead and write behind, so the host is transfering to/from the cache and
    both drives read and write at the same time. Similar argument for ROM to
    writer on the same channel. The speed of the channel is enough for two
    devices.
    You are the one who doesn't understand. You can easily do CD duplication with
    both drives on one UDMA-33 channel. This was what the prior poster asked.
     
    Eric Gisin, Jul 21, 2004
    #15
  16. ZigZag Master

    Ron Reaugh Guest

    You are wrong.
    So, drives do read ahead and write behind caching...hmm, I wonder why?
    Just like SCSI. Define "active".
    Wrong.
     
    Ron Reaugh, Jul 21, 2004
    #16
  17. ZigZag Master

    Ed Light Guest

    Defrag both drives, pick a huge file, restart the os, and copy the file
    between the drives while timing it, then delete the copy. Do this a few
    times. Then put one drive on the other channel and do it again. You'll then
    know if it makes a difference on your machine.

    I suspect that since (most?) drives can't read or write at anywhere near the
    rate of the modern 133 interface, it doesn't matter at all.

    But I would love to read your results.

    I have 2 drives on the same channel that max out at 40 mb/s and down to 25
    mb/s on the insides of the platters. They can copy a large file between them
    at 30 mb/s.


    --
    Ed Light

    Smiley :-/
    MS Smiley :-\

    Send spam to the FTC at

    Thanks, robots.
     
    Ed Light, Jul 21, 2004
    #17
  18. ZigZag Master

    Ed Light Guest

    That's in Win XP Home.

    --
    Ed Light

    Smiley :-/
    MS Smiley :-\

    Send spam to the FTC at

    Thanks, robots.
     
    Ed Light, Jul 21, 2004
    #18
  19. ZigZag Master

    Ron Reaugh Guest

    That's a typical result for two HDs on the same cable doing big file
    sequential I/O. There is no interference.

    However if both drives were doing intense small record random I/O then there
    would be significant interference.
     
    Ron Reaugh, Jul 21, 2004
    #19
  20. ZigZag Master

    - HAL9000 Guest

    Yes this is my experience also. I did similar real life experiments
    too.

    Although I would attribute the no cable difference result to waiting
    on disk access time to intermix read and writes. I think what happens
    is that you (1) quickly purge the buffer on one drive, (2) wait for
    another disk revolution, (3) then purge the buffer again. This
    sequence intermixed between two drives.

    I used winXp as Ed did. Results may be way different for other
    operating systems...

    Forrest

    Motherboard Help By HAL web site:
    http://home.comcast.net/~hal-9000/
     
    - HAL9000, Jul 22, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.