DJK(John) Robinson
djkr at msn.com
Mon Mar 6 02:39:57 CST 2006
Of course the real answer is to go SATA for HDDs. Better for several reasons. John -----Original Message----- From: dba-tech-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:dba-tech-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Stuart McLachlan Sent: 06 March 2006 06:08 To: Discussion of Hardware and Software issues Subject: Re: [dba-Tech] Ghosting an old HD to a New HD On 5 Mar 2006 at 23:14, Josh McFarlane wrote: > How's that work? > > I would have figured the bottleneck would be at the source of the > bottleneck. If you use a ATA 33 cable, you're capped at 33, if you use > an ATA 66/100, you've got independant channels for each device, and > thus shouldn't have any problem between the drives, unless of course > you're using an old controller that doesn't support the higher > standards. > > Can you post a link to somewhere that explains that the controllers > clock-down to the lowest device on the independant cables? > I posted it over the weekend: http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/if/ide/conf_Performance.htm for all the gory details and http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/if/ide/confRecommendationsht ml for recommended configurations in different situations. -- Stuart _______________________________________________ dba-Tech mailing list dba-Tech at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-tech Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com