home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: nntp.net-link.net!news
- From: mikew@net-link.net (Mike Williams)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
- Subject: Re: EIDE vs. IDE , was: Reports from CeBit
- Date: 23 Mar 1996 10:28:10 GMT
- Organization: DC Productions
- Message-ID: <4j0jnq$et9@leol.net-link.net>
- References: <31528009.71A2@plea.se> <4j09jc$eu4@kaon.kuai.se>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: p5-23.net-link.net
- Mime-Version: 1.0
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
- X-NewsSoftware: GRn 2.1 Feb 19, 1994
-
-
- In article <4j09jc$eu4@kaon.kuai.se> flex@kuai.se (Anders Karlsson) writes:
- > In a message of 22 Mar 96 Jonas Elfstrom wrote to :
- >
- > JE> I thought that EIDE was two separate (a bit faster) IDE interfaces.
- >
- > Not AFAIK. Ask Hazy if you really want to dig deep into the electronic
- > part of this. The thing I know is that EIDE handles twice as many HD's
- > as IDE and can get up to 11-13 MB/second in datarate. Pretty OK for
- > a low-end machine...
-
- Actually I think you're both right. EIDE boards drive 4 drives, but they list
- it as two controllers. On a PC you can disable the secondary controller if
- there's nothing connected to it. They are really two separate controllers: you
- still set Master / Slave on a per controller basis.
-
- However, each controller usually supports mode 3 and sometimes mode 4 transfers.
- I don't have any idea what that means, except that it's quite a bit faster than
- standard IDE, which I think is mode 2. EIDE was an improvement to basic IDE.
- The two things they needed to improve were number of drives and speed of the
- drives. Since the circuitry in an IDE controller is minimal, they just duplicated
- it to get the third and fourth drive.
-
- --
- .signature under construction
-