Slyck Chatbox - And More

Computer failure: Windows could not start because...

This is the forum to discuss tech-hardware related issues.
Forum rules

Re: Computer failure: Windows could not start because...

Postby SlyckTom » Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:20 pm

IneptVagrant wrote:We aren't romans.

Don't say that to Mrs. 2p ;)
Follow us on Twitter @SlyckDotCom
Join our Facebook Fan page
Posts: 5713
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Computer failure: Windows could not start because...

Postby anonomously2 » Thu Mar 06, 2008 9:46 pm

beowolf wrote:What a qualified response IneptVagrant, read up:

""Two devices on one cable - speed impact

There are many debates about how much a slow device can impact the performance of a faster device on the same cable. There is an effect, but the debate is confused by the blurring of two quite different causes, called here "Slowest Speed" and "One Operation at a Time".

[edit] "Slowest speed"

It is a common misconception that, if two devices of different speed capabilities are on the same cable, both devices' data transfers will be constrained to the speed of the slower device.

For all modern ATA host adapters this is not true, as modern ATA host adapters support independent device timing. This allows each device on the cable to transfer data at its own best speed. Even with older adapters without independent timing, this effect only impacts the data transfer phase of a read or write operation. This is usually the shortest part of a complete read or write operation.

[edit] "One operation at a time"

This is caused by the omission of both overlapped and queued feature sets from most parallel ATA products. Only one device on a cable can perform a read or write operation at one time, therefore a fast device on the same cable as a slow device under heavy use will find it has to wait for the slow device to complete its task first.

The impact of this on a system's performance depends on the application. For example, when copying data from an optical drive to a hard drive (such as during software installation), this effect probably doesn't matter: Such jobs are necessarily limited by the speed of the optical drive no matter where it is. But if the hard drive in question is also expected to provide good throughput for other tasks at the same time, it probably should not be on the same cable as the optical drive.""
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 7:40 pm
Location: The Outer Limits of the Twilight Zone

Re: Computer failure: Windows could not start because...

Postby beowolf » Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:39 pm

True, the article shows my statement does not apply to systems nowadays, and I'm happy to admit that, no problem, but I hate useless comments with no real argument why an assumption or statement is incorrect, just stating it's FUD (which is also not correct) is just a way of saying I know it better, but I actually can't prove it... doh. And from the second paragraph it is also clear that if you should be using both, HDD and CD/DVD reader at the same time, it could have an impact on the speed. But hey, I set up my first system back in 1994 and then those rules surely applied :-) and since then I always applied that scheme...
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 7:12 am


Return to Tech/Hardware Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

© 2001-2008