On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Mark Blunier wrote: > I would use hda and hdb. I don't have an eide controller so I don't have > an hdc or hdd. Some might prefer to use hda and hdc, since both > drives could be masters, but if you have an ide cdrom, I would use > hda, and hdb, as I believe the cdrom can slow down the other side, > ie cdrom on hdd slows down hdc.
I've got two WD1.2s in my workstation (Win95/WinNT/DebianLinux). I had the two drives on primary master/slave, with CD as secondary slave. I noticed INCREDIBLE slowness in 95's ScanDisk when doing a thorough scan, so I fired up System Monitor and watched filesystem reads, bytes/sec. My primary master was showing 1.5MBytes/sec read performance, while my primary slave was showing 150KBytes/sec read performance. I (carefully) slid the second drive back to secondary master and moved the CD-ROM to secondary slave, and now both drives show nearly identical (i.e. 1.5MB) performance in ScanDisk. While we're on the subject of identical hard drives, can anyone tell me how to get both of my WD1.2s to show up with the same CHS? I can't seem to squeeze in a bootable (C<1024) partition after the 800M in the beginning. Thanks, --Pete _______________________________________________________________ Peter J. Templin, Jr. Client Services Analyst Computer & Communication Services tel: (717) 524-1590 Bucknell University [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
