Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images

on 11/14/01 5:11 AM, Charles Knox at cknox@netspace.net.au wrote:

> At 12:35 AM 14/11/01 -0600, you wrote:
>>> With two disks, you would be correct; but in this case, the two disks are
>>> going to act as one, so both must be set to be masters.
>> Right, but they are on separate IDE channels (channels 3 & 4) if I am
>> understanding things correctly which is what lets them read and right
>> simultaneously in parallel which is not the case if they were both on the
>> same channel.  I also do not think it is possible to have to master drives
>> on the same channel so you cannot have the jumpers on both drives set for
>> master drive if they are connected to the same cable and channel.  The same
>> RAID array using two IDE channels maybe.  Am I understanding things
>> correctly?
> I think if you are using two drives on each channel you'd need to set all
> four to cable select?
> I have a two-drive Raid-0 setup on ports 3 & 4, attached to the end
> connectors on UDMA cables and that's how they're configured -- if I add two
> more drives configured the same way they'll be attached to the intermediate
> connectors.
> The raid controller should then recognise them as a single drive just as it
> does the primaries.
> I'm also of the opinion that two drives set to master on the same cable
> would conflict -- that's what cable select (not recommended for
> conventional IDE setups, BTW) is all about.
I was unable to find the tutorial I was remembering for LAURIE, so I will
acquiesce. I meely answered what I thought to be true from a web article I
had read.

Jim Snyder


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.