Thanks. I interpret this as meaning that modern systems (meaning
mid-90's or later) allow both channels on a single controller to be bus
masters and should thus allow parallelism between devices on each
channel. Mid-90's would be after I got out of the OS business, thus my
ignorance of later developments.
<http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/if/ide/confChannels.html>
I'm also wondering how old this text is. I didn't see mention of shared
IRQ's.
Chuck Norcutt
LostKase wrote:
> Found one site with some recommendations.
>
> http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/if/ide/confRecommendations.html
> I'm sure there are conflicting opinions to be found elsewhere :)
>
> Bob
>
> Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> With the degree of computer wisdom on this list I'm surprised that no
> one has stood up and said definitively... "it is thus, because..."
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>
>>I don't know which is faster either. Could be the DVD drive for all I
>>know. But I don't think the issue here is so much speed as it is
>>frequency of usage and what two things would benefit most from some
>>degree of parallelism.
>>
>>Chuck Norcutt
>
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates
> starting at 1¢/min.
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|