This is the sort of question that seems to draw heated responses for some reason.
My own gut feel is that, these days, hard drives are so fast it really doesn't make much difference. I think if you were to try various combinations and note the time it takes to do tasks, the times wouldn't vary by more than perhaps 1%. I could be wrong.
I was always under the impression that each IDE is independent, but devices on the same IDE are not. What I mean is that each IDE can read or write, but not read and write. So if you are doing an 'On-the-fly' copy of two devices on the same IDE you are more likely to get an underrun error, wheras devices on separate IDE's will be fine, While one IDE is writing(data in), the other is reading(data out).
John, you are correct. That's why you would want the hard drive on the Primary IDE and the DVD writer on the secondary IDE (At least that's how I have mine...).
Also in these days of ATA 100/133 hard drives you don't want a relatively slow ATA 33 burner on the same channel, possibly limiting the hard drive's performance.
I like things really seperated. Boot drive on IDE-1. I also keep programs on that drive. DVD-R & CDRW on IDE-2 in master-slave setup. Both video drives (capture and edit) on separate IDE's on a Promise Ultra100 controller. Essentially, all drives, except the DVD-R & CDRW, are on their own channel. P4 1.8g, never a dropped frame in VV; hours and hours of capture.
Thanks.
Many replies. I like 2Road's approach although I won't invest in an IDE controller if things work smooth for me.
Anyhow, I'll do the following:
IDE1/Primary - 40G Boot drive
IDE1/Secondary - 120G Video drive
IDE2/Primary - DVD burner
IDE2/Secondary -