Re: Best way to use 2 external writers - 1394 or USB2 ?

[Geoff Wood]

"Logan Shaw" > wrote in message
...

SCSI


geoff

[[email protected]]

"Geoff Wood" -nospam> wrote:

> SCSI

Well, again, this is a laptop, so SCSI would have to go by way of a PC
card adapter, just like Firewire or USB 2.0. The question then still
pends: wouldn't SCSI throughput stay bottlenecked by the PC Card
(cardbus) transfer rate ? And would it help ho have separate adapters,
making use of both cardbus slots instead of hooking it all to a single
card adapter ?

[[email protected]]

"Geoff Wood" -nospam> wrote:

> SCSI

Well, again, this is a laptop, so SCSI would have to go by way of a PC
card adapter, just like Firewire or USB 2.0. The question then still
pends: wouldn't SCSI throughput stay bottlenecked by the PC Card
(cardbus) transfer rate ? And would it help ho have separate adapters,
making use of both cardbus slots instead of hooking it all to a single
card adapter ?

[Eric Gisin]

Cardbus is PCI, 133MB/s. Firewire is SCSI, much better than SCSI-2.

> wrote in message
...
> "Geoff Wood" -nospam> wrote:
>
> > SCSI
>
> Well, again, this is a laptop, so SCSI would have to go by way of a PC
> card adapter, just like Firewire or USB 2.0. The question then still
> pends: wouldn't SCSI throughput stay bottlenecked by the PC Card
> (cardbus) transfer rate ? And would it help ho have separate adapters,
> making use of both cardbus slots instead of hooking it all to a single
> card adapter ?

[Eric Gisin]

Cardbus is PCI, 133MB/s. Firewire is SCSI, much better than SCSI-2.

> wrote in message
...
> "Geoff Wood" -nospam> wrote:
>
> > SCSI
>
> Well, again, this is a laptop, so SCSI would have to go by way of a PC
> card adapter, just like Firewire or USB 2.0. The question then still
> pends: wouldn't SCSI throughput stay bottlenecked by the PC Card
> (cardbus) transfer rate ? And would it help ho have separate adapters,
> making use of both cardbus slots instead of hooking it all to a single
> card adapter ?

[Graham Mayor]

FWIW I have a 48x LiteOn CDR drive in a USB2 box and whether connected to
the on-board USB2 port or to a cardbus USB2 port (Adaptec) there is no
difference in apparent throughput between them on my laptop. (My old laptop
would not work well with the cardbus ports under Windows XP, but was fine
with Windows 2000)

The drive will write at full speed.

I don't currently have the means to test this with two CD drives connected
by USB2, though I have written to the LiteOn with data on a USB2 hard drive,
and from the internal DVD combo drive of the laptop, without problem.

I have not made any comparisons with Firewire.

--
<>>< ><<> ><<>
Graham Mayor
<>>< ><<> ><<>




wrote:
> "Geoff Wood" -nospam> wrote:
>
>> SCSI
>
> Well, again, this is a laptop, so SCSI would have to go by way of a PC
> card adapter, just like Firewire or USB 2.0. The question then still
> pends: wouldn't SCSI throughput stay bottlenecked by the PC Card
> (cardbus) transfer rate ? And would it help ho have separate adapters,
> making use of both cardbus slots instead of hooking it all to a single
> card adapter ?

[Graham Mayor]

FWIW I have a 48x LiteOn CDR drive in a USB2 box and whether connected to
the on-board USB2 port or to a cardbus USB2 port (Adaptec) there is no
difference in apparent throughput between them on my laptop. (My old laptop
would not work well with the cardbus ports under Windows XP, but was fine
with Windows 2000)

The drive will write at full speed.

I don't currently have the means to test this with two CD drives connected
by USB2, though I have written to the LiteOn with data on a USB2 hard drive,
and from the internal DVD combo drive of the laptop, without problem.

I have not made any comparisons with Firewire.

--
<>>< ><<> ><<>
Graham Mayor
<>>< ><<> ><<>




wrote:
> "Geoff Wood" -nospam> wrote:
>
>> SCSI
>
> Well, again, this is a laptop, so SCSI would have to go by way of a PC
> card adapter, just like Firewire or USB 2.0. The question then still
> pends: wouldn't SCSI throughput stay bottlenecked by the PC Card
> (cardbus) transfer rate ? And would it help ho have separate adapters,
> making use of both cardbus slots instead of hooking it all to a single
> card adapter ?

[[email protected]]

Thank you very much for sharing your experience.
So from what you say, Cardbus offers no bottleneck to a single 48x writer.
Very encouraging !


"Graham Mayor" > wrote:
> FWIW I have a 48x LiteOn CDR drive in a USB2 box and whether connected to
> the on-board USB2 port or to a cardbus USB2 port (Adaptec) there is no
> difference in apparent throughput between them on my laptop. (My old laptop
> would not work well with the cardbus ports under Windows XP, but was fine
> with Windows 2000)
>
> The drive will write at full speed.
>
> I don't currently have the means to test this with two CD drives connected
> by USB2, though I have written to the LiteOn with data on a USB2 hard drive,
> and from the internal DVD combo drive of the laptop, without problem.
>
> I have not made any comparisons with Firewire.

[[email protected]]

Thank you very much for sharing your experience.
So from what you say, Cardbus offers no bottleneck to a single 48x writer.
Very encouraging !


"Graham Mayor" > wrote:
> FWIW I have a 48x LiteOn CDR drive in a USB2 box and whether connected to
> the on-board USB2 port or to a cardbus USB2 port (Adaptec) there is no
> difference in apparent throughput between them on my laptop. (My old laptop
> would not work well with the cardbus ports under Windows XP, but was fine
> with Windows 2000)
>
> The drive will write at full speed.
>
> I don't currently have the means to test this with two CD drives connected
> by USB2, though I have written to the LiteOn with data on a USB2 hard drive,
> and from the internal DVD combo drive of the laptop, without problem.
>
> I have not made any comparisons with Firewire.