Wes Newell wrote in a message to Mike Bilow:
 GF> You should have seen those older clients REALLY scream when
 GF> they insisted on adding a SECOND IDE drive to the server! 
 GF> You KNOW what kind of a performance hit they took then.
 MB> Yes, that's a clear mistake to do.
 WN> OK, I'll bite. I added a second IDE drive (WD 1.6gig) to our
 WN> 3.12 server and didn't notice any slowdown. I did add it to
 WN> the second IDE channel though, so there's only one drive per
 WN> channel. Perhaps this is why there wasn't a decrease in
 WN> performance?
Yes, that does help a lot.  The two devices on an IDE channel -- there's a 
maximum of two -- have a very long latency when trading off which of them is 
active.  In certain configurations, such as mirroring the two drives on a 
single IDE channel, the result will be pathologically slow.
Running two IDE drives, each on their own IDE channel, is not likely to be 
any slower than running a single IDE drive.  However, all of the usual 
disadvantages of IDE with regard to CPU loading and overall speed will still 
apply.  With each IDE drive on its own channel, there will be a significant 
speed penalty relative to running two SCSI drives, even if they are on the 
same SCSI bus.
 
-- Mike
--- 
---------------