Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : TA-Quotes Plus -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ftth who wrote (4395)	6/14/1998 4:21:00 PM
From: Bob Jagow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11149

Dave, Separate drives would help on a single processor, IDE hard drive system because their heads are in place for subsequent reads. Not sure what single processor has to do with it. I run QP2 on a dual-processor NT box and QPV on a networked win95 box. Bob

To: ftth who wrote (4395)	6/14/1998 4:58:00 PM
From: Spots	Respond to of 11149

Two separate IDE drives should help considerably because of access arm movements regardless of drives (assuming nothing else is beating up the disks at the time, in which case nothing's going to help much). If they are on different controllers, another increment. If they are Ultra SCSI or capable of PIO mode <something or other, I think 3 or higher>, and the controller supports PCI bus mastering DMA, that should help consdiderably even if they are on the same controller, and even more on different controllers. Finally, if they are on a caching IDE controller, another big increment is possible. Some of the later IDE solutions could probably beat earlier SCSI ones, though at the same level of technology (i.e., age <G>) SCSI should be better. Price performance, now, that's another question <G>. Spots