I can look back though our old paper work on IBM storage products and I am sure
I locate the link. Give me a day or two and I will forward it to you. Also, as
I recall, this is only true for devices of different speeds on the same SCSI
bus.
On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, you wrote:
> Peck Dickens wrote:
> >
> > There is an article on the IBM storage web site that addressess this exact
> > issue. If you read the article, basically the lowest common denominator
> > (Slowest device) determines the rate of data flow. The article states that the
> > reason for this is the slowest device would miss data that is sent to it by
> > faster devices creating data integrety problems
>
> Have you got a link?
>
> >
> > On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, you wrote:
> > > On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, Wandered Inn wrote:
> > >
> > > > > and another thing.....
> > > > >
> > > > > If you put the 66 and the 33 on the same controller (master/slave), they will run at the speed of the slower device. :-)
> > > >
> > > > I've seen this claim tossed back and forth a number of times. The
> > > > original claim was that you didn't want your cdrom on the same ide as
> > > > your hard drive, that's why most PC manufacturers routinely installed
> > > > the hard drive on primary and the cdrom on the secondary.
> > > >
> > > > I really would like to find some documented evidence of this issue, as
> > > > the last I heard it was not true.
> > >
> > > I have always assumed the claim to be true and wired accordingly, so as to
> > > err on the side of caution. My system, for example, looks like this:
> > >
> > > Primary master = WD 13.5 GB ATA66 7200 RPM
> > > Primary slave = empty
> > > Secondary master = empty
> > > Secondary slave = 32X CDROM
> > > SCSI 0:0:3:0 = Tandberg 1GB Magnus tape
> > > SCSI 0:0:4:0 = Seagate 1GB SCSI-2 5400 RPM
> > > SCSI 0:0:6:0 = Quantum 1.2GB SCSI-2 5400 RPM
> > > SCSI 1:0:6:0 = Iomega Zip 100 Parallel
> > >
> > > (BTW, the format on the SCSI address is controller:bus:target:lun)
> > >
> > > This seems to be a fairly optimal arrangement, the tape and one of the
> > > SCSI drives are rarely accessed devices, and otherwise the devices each
> > > exist on separate buses. The only thing I would like to improve is to
> > > eventually replace the parallel Zip 100 with a SCSI Zip 250. This
> > > wouldn't impede in any significant manner because the Zip is also a rarely
> > > accessed device.
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Glenn C. Lasher, Jr - Senior Engineer, Telecommunications/UNIX/Windows NT
> > > Data Tech Associates, Ltd, 883 Broadway, Albany NY, 518.465.1190
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe: mail ">majordomo@ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.
> > --
> > To unsubscribe: mail ">majordomo@ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.
>
> --
> Until later: Geoffrey ">esoteric@denali.atlnet.com
>
> I'm afraid there will be more problems with W2K than there were with
> Y2K...
> --
> To unsubscribe: mail ">majordomo@ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.
--
To unsubscribe: mail ">majordomo@ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.