| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 43180 | 2004-03-06 03:32:00 | SATA & IDE Hard Drives | Chemical Ali (118) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 220414 | 2004-03-06 09:54:00 | ARrrghh I think I'm going to go crazy. > with raid 0 the drives act as 1 drive. theres is no redundance so if one drive dies use loose all data & > But if you have RAID, isnt there more chance for error, then you loose all your data or something? What is with people using the incorrect usage of the word! In both those contexts the correct word is LOSE. Not loose! For the meaning of loose check here (dictionary.reference.com) and for lose check here (dictionary.reference.com). Please use them correctly. I've even seen on anandtech.com in an article someone used loose instead of lose as well. Is it yankie spelling or something? Suggest both of you continue taking english right through 7th form and if you've already finished school then take an english course. |
PoWa (203) | ||
| 220415 | 2004-03-06 10:10:00 | you missed so if one drive dies use loose all data ;-) tweak'es infamous spelling ! ! ! ! :^O |
tweak'e (174) | ||
| 220416 | 2004-03-06 11:18:00 | Yes I noticed that too but decided to pass it off as a typo ;) | PoWa (203) | ||
| 220417 | 2004-03-06 13:27:00 | > there is little difference in speed btween sata raid > and pata raid. Disagree. When you put the SATA on the Front Side buss (Northbridge) and use drives with big caches and RAID0 then it is faster than PATA on the PCI buss (Southbridge) due to the limitations of the buss. |
Big John (551) | ||
| 220418 | 2004-03-06 13:50:00 | yeah,but 99 percent of drives in home computers dont run a raid set up. | metla (154) | ||
| 220419 | 2004-03-06 18:11:00 | I am useing a 120 gig Sata disk. It runs well and is much cooler than an IDE drive. As far as I am concerned there is no discernable difference in speed. I have a gigabyte motherboard and according to their literature there is no problem in running them in conjunction with an IDE drive. Of course you would have to be sure your "C drive" is set to load first. I had problems getting XP to realise it was supposed to recognise the Sata drive and that the boot files were on it. This was solved by doing a bios flash. Brand new m/b with inbuilt Sata and a bios that wanted IDE. Jack |
JJJJJ (528) | ||
| 220420 | 2004-03-06 22:15:00 | Yeah the new mo/bo that I have is a Gigabyte GA8IK1100 so just wanting to run a sata drive as a data only drive while using one of the IDE drives as the C Drive. So sholud be okay should'nt it? |
Chemical Ali (118) | ||
| 220421 | 2004-03-06 23:42:00 | > > there is little difference in speed btween sata > > raid > > and pata raid. > > Disagree. > > When you put the SATA on the Front Side buss > (Northbridge) and use drives with big caches and > RAID0 then it is faster than PATA on the PCI buss > (Southbridge) due to the limitations of the buss. true but it all depends on how the raid card connected to the mobo. if useing a card then its via pci bus and both types will perform the same. with onboard raid,very few connect directly on the north bridge, most conect to the south bridge which dosn't make any difference as the north and south don't use the pci bus to send data to each other, it goes via the interconnect (each manafacture has there own system and name for it) which has a high bandwidth more than enough to cope with the raid. |
tweak'e (174) | ||
| 220422 | 2004-03-07 09:53:00 | sorry ali i missed your last post. yeah it should be fine. tho i would stick the OS on what ever drive is the fastest. to add to what i said before, have a look at this block diagram. (www.via.com.tw) |
tweak'e (174) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||