I have frequently read about SCSI being another way(than the IDE) to attach drives and peripherals ..
what i dont really get is what is the 'big diffrence' between the IDE and the SCSI?
and in what way is the IDE better and thus more common..?
what does it mean when a HD is an ATA?
I have many partitions for my HD ( C:, D:, E:,F:, & G:).. the C: and D: Are about 4.6 GB only while the E: F: & G: are 9.3 GB each.. My ques is ...Can i re-arrange the partitions in a way that i let the C and D have the most size and the other partitions have the least.. or Is there a way i could just divide the total 40 GB equally between partitions?
First- the easy one:
There are many utilities which you can use to manipulate your partitions; most cost $$, but you can find free or trial versions of some. Have a look at these links for more info:
OK, SCSI- some pros and cons:
Like IDE/ATA, SCSI is indeed a technology for connecting storage devices, but it is an entirely different beast altogether. There are many benefits to SCSI, but quite honestly your average user isn't going to notice them; in fact, for the tasks that a normal user asks of their computer, IDE/ATA can actually be faster. When it comes to higher-end systems such as heavy-load servers or digital multimedia workstations however, SCSI is the way to go. *Note that the advent of Serial ATA (SATA) shrinks the performance gap between ATA and SCSI technologies.
- IDE/ATA technology only allows for 2 devices (master and slave) on a given channel. SCSI allows up to 15 devices per channel (16 technically, but the SCSI controller itself counts as one of the devices).
- The maximum length of standard ATA (PATA) ribbon cable is 18", the max length of a SATA cable is 1 meter, but the maximum length of a SCSI chain is 12 meters (and can be extended with repeaters). This makes SCSI really the only option for external "drive farm" racks (such as those produced by Rorke Data) used on large servers or audio/video workstations.
- SCSI has a richer command set than IDE, which allows it to "multitask" better than IDE/ATA. Basically, this means that a SCSI host controller can handle multiple requests to/from attached devices on a given bus more efiiciently that can an ATA controller. ATA technology works in such a way that the ATA controller cannot process requests from any other devices on the bus until it is done communicating with whatever device it is currently communicating with. This is what can make IDE more efficient in a normal environment though, because on a basic home/small office system, it's unlikely that the controller would need to service many requests from multiple devices at (essentially) the same time. The overhead incurred by SCSI's "enhanced" features in such a situation would actually cause a performance hit.
- On a very practical level, IDE/ATA technology is simply less expensive to implement all the way around. That, and the fact that ATA advances have brought it closer to SCSI performance, are reasons why Apple (who were champions of SCSI for ages) decided to switch to ATA technology in their newer Macs- they finally realized that Joe or Jane Average User wasn't going to benefit from SCSI.