Re: Two hdds on one channel - why so slow?

Krzysztof Oledzki
2002-01-04T09:29:51Z

On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Mark Hahn wrote:

>
> yes, I know what he said. it's true that there's no concurrency,
> but he's wrong about expecting half (due to readahead/writebehind),
> and there's no real overhead in switching.
So why my disks work with ~12MB/sec per device (~24 per channel) when
both HDDs are accessed on the sime time?

> in short, master-slave concurrency is not common (but definitely
> supported by the standard and some disks), but this has less
> effect than you'd think. especially since most people just
> treat ide as a single-drive ptp link. which works fine, since
> ide channels cost $15 or less, and ide disks are *so* much cheaper
> than scsi.

Yes. IDE as a PtP device works nice. But this means that in most cases
it is possible to connect only half of expected devices. What a pity :(

Best regards,

Krzysztof Oldzki