HDD - Primary or Secondary, Master or Slave? 3

[Andy3L]

Hello,

I have 3 hard drive disks (one containing the OS, the other 2 just hold data) and a CD-RW.

My machine is 'old' (P3 + about 750Mb RAM) & uses ribbon cables to connect drives to the motherboard; it can handle 4 devices (2 primary and 2 secondary).

My question is how should I set up the 4 drives for optimum performance? Currently the HDD with the OS is the primary master but what about the other 2 HDDs and my CD-RW - what should be the Primary Slave and which devices should be the Secondary Master and Slave?

Also, does it matter whether the Master or Slave is the middle or end/furthest connection on the ribbon?

Thank you very much,
Andy

 

[kjv1611]

I would think for most users, this would be best:

Your OS Hard drive as primary on one ribbon (as you have so far), and one other HD on the secondary position.

The optical drive as the primary on the other device, and the 3rd hard drive connected there in secondary position.

I'm assuming that the user will only be using the extra 2 hard drives for storage for this scenario.

--

"If to err is human, then I must be some kind of human!" -Me

 

[deepgrewal22]

I would set it up this way:

Primary Master
HDD(1) with OS
Primary Slave
HDD(2)

Secondary Master
CD RW
Secondary Slave
HDD(3)

Just make sure that you consult with the manufacturer and check jumper diagrams to make sure you have set the drive jumpers to reflect the configuration above.

Depending on the cable it can matter. For a PC that is a Pentium 3, however, it probably won't. I usually put the Master drive at the very end of the cable, Slave in the middle of the cable, and of course the final end connects to your IDE ports (usually on the motherboard).

Deep Grewal
"Microsoft Works" - oxymoron

 

[kjv1611]

Yeah, that's what I meant. I was thinking "primary/secondary" per cable - duh on my part... so it was master/slave on primary (with the OS one), and master/slave on secondary with the optical drive... wow, it's already past 8am, and it's NOT Monday? Okay, there must be some reason my brain isn't awake yet...

--

"If to err is human, then I must be some kind of human!" -Me

 

[Freestone]

Position on the cable matters when using Cable Select or when there is only 1 device on the ribbon cable.

When using Cable Select, the Master drive is the drive located at the end of the cable. The slave is the drive on the middle connector.

And when there is only one device on the cable, it is recommended it be placed on the end of the ribbon cable to help with noise reduction. Don't press me for an exact pointer to where I read that, though I think it was from The PC Guide series of online articles.

 

[cdogg]

That is entirely correct.
The master device should be positioned on the end of the IDE cable, and the slave should be in the middle. Although this is really only required for cable select configurations, it is still strongly recommended in master/slave configurations too where you're setting the jumpers. This is because some IDE devices on the same cable may not "play well" together with the IDE controller, unless they are positioned in traditional fashion.

As for the position of the devices on both channels, I would go with Deep's suggestion...

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein
[tab][navy]For posting policies, click [/navy]here.

 

[kmcferrin]

I'm not sure if "modern" IDE controllers have this issue, but back in the day we used to say that you should separate your IDE devices by transfer modes. Put all your PIO devices on one channel, and DMA/UDMA devices on another. That was because the IDE interface slowed down to the lowest common denominator, i.e., having your PIO mode 4 CD-ROM on the same channel as a UDMA hard disk would cause them both to transfer at PIO4 speeds. Like I said, "modern" IDE controllers may not have this problem anymore, but then the system is question doesn't sound particularly current.

 

[deepgrewal22]

I remember that old rule. With 3 HDD, 1 CDRW, and only 2 IDE Channels, there aren't too many possibilities (especially, if ALL devices are to be installed).

Deep Grewal
"Microsoft Works" - oxymoron

 

[kjv1611]

Hmmm, I've got a thought (never tried it, and never will), but it's a thought just the same.

What about this?

Primary
M = OS HD
S = Nothing

Secondary
M = HD2
S = HD3

Floppy/FD
M = Optical (with adapter if exists, or red-neck ingenuity)

Would that work?

--

"If to err is human, then I must be some kind of human!" -Me

 

[deepgrewal22]

That's original! There may be a loss in speed since there are more pins/wires in an IDE cable as opposed to the FDD cable. Also the mobo may be physically configured differently on the breadboard level in terms of data transfer rates for FDD and IDE. But pretty creative!

Deep Grewal
"Microsoft Works" - oxymoron

 

[cdogg]

That was because the IDE interface slowed down to the lowest common denominator...

Nah, that hasn't been the case in almost a decade. Practically every motherboard manufactured after 1998 (in the Pentium II-era and beyond) use advanced IDE controllers that support IDT (Independent Device Timing). IDT allows for PIO and UDMA modes to run without impacting the other device on the same IDE cable.

http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/if/ide/conf_Timing.htm

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein
[tab][navy]For posting policies, click [/navy]here.

 

[Andy3L]

Thank you all - you have blinded me with science

 

[kmcferrin]

Nah, that hasn't been the case in almost a decade. Practically every motherboard manufactured after 1998 (in the Pentium II-era and beyond) use advanced IDE controllers that support IDT (Independent Device Timing). IDT allows for PIO and UDMA modes to run without impacting the other device on the same IDE cable.

Apparently I am now officially old.

 

[kjv1611]

[ROFL2] @ "apparently I am now officially old."

Well, I didn't mess with my first computer at all, really, until 1994 or 95... it was my 11th grade year, and it was an amazing computer with awe inspiring specs!

Pentium 1 processor at a whopping 75 Mhz
RAM? Don't remember, but I know my dad upgraded it after a couple years.
Hard drive - not sure, but I think it was something like 900 MB - Whoa!

Now, by the time I actually started tinkering with the guts of a computer, AMD hadn't long started offering 1Ghz processors!

--

"If to err is human, then I must be some kind of human!" -Me

 

[kmcferrin]

Heck, that's nothing. My first PC had 16KB of RAM and an 890 KHz (yes, that's .89 of 1 MHz!) MOS 7501 CPU. And instead of disk drives we stored everything on tape. Now those were the days!

 

[kjv1611]

Ooooo..

"Hey, honey, guess what?! I just finished my program and got it to say 'Hello world!' Wow, isn't that great?! And it ONLY took me 2 days to finish it!"

<snicker>

I can only imagine what the next 10 years may bring in the computing world. My son will be almost 11 years old by that time, and there is just no telling what technology he'll be able to play with! Scary thoughts - well in some ways, and just plain neat-o in other ways. [smle]

--

"If to err is human, then I must be some kind of human!" -Me