OT: PC Driving Me Nuts

Page 1 of 3  

Has anyone come across this before.
I am building a PC for a young lady coming to live back in our village, using parts generously donated.
Got an M810L motherboard and fitted it to the PC tower case.
It has 256M installed on the board to start with (Soldered chips) so installed a further 128 Mb to bring it to 384Mb.
Installing a hard drive and a CD drive. Hard drive goes as PriMaster, CD drive goes as SecMaster, except Bios doesn't see the CD drive. However, change round to CD drive PriMaster and hard drive to SecMaster, Bios sees them both.
Boot up on a floppy for testing purposes and the hard drive is drive C and the CD drive is drive D.
I know all the connections are where they should be originally because I followed the book.
Anyone explain this strange phenomenon....?
James
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Does the BIOS allow you to Auto detect HDD or CD/DVD drives attached? I know in my BIOS if somethings not being detected I have an Autoselect/detect option. I know this might sound stupid but what about the jumper settings on the back of both drives?
Redman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:39:59 +0100, "Redman"

Or try the HDD as Master and the CD as slave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On some older chipsets you had to fill the IDE bus in sequence, IE Pri Master then Pri Slave then Sec Master finally Sec Slave, any gaps caused all sorts of problems.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Is that a cable select system? Try master and slave - that works on older MBs.
--
*A fool and his money can throw one hell of a party.

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Also some older systems insisted on the master being at the end of the data cable like cable select even though they were configured as master and slave. That has caught me out a couple of times.
It sounds as if the OP is trying to put the two devices on separate IDE connections whereas he would be better putting both on IDE 1 as master (HDD) and slave (CD).
--
Keith W
Sunbury on Thames
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It happens that Keith W formulated :

I don't know if it is still the case, but on older systems mixing a (slow) CD drive and a HDD on the same bus cable as master and slave would slow the HDD down drastically. Better to have them on separate interfaces and always plugged into the farthest socket on the cable (rather than the middle one) to prevent reflections on the cable.
--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Harry Bloomfield wrote:

That used to be the case before ATAPI devices supported mode 4 and 5 block transfers. They do these days, so its a non issue.
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And people used to complain that SCSI was too complicated ...
--
"The study of theology... is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it
rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

ATAPI is basically SCSI packaged up so it can pass over the ATA interface. ;-)
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That'll be why Linux shares drivers. I always wondered.
--
"The study of theology... is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it
rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yep - same on Solaris.
CD-ROM drives were originally all SCSI, but they weren't originally used on PC's where SCSI was unheard of at the time. When they got cheap enough to start appearing on the PC scene, there some proprietary interfaces (like Soundblaster's one), and SCSI ones except SCSI host adapters were still very expensive. As SCSI adapters came down in price, the proprietry interfaces died, and PC's settled on SCSI CD drives. When PC's got to the point where CD drives were standard fit rather than an optional extra (which is what squeezed the 5.25" floppy drive out of the PC case), the push to force the price down squeezed out the SCSI host adapter by making CD's with ATA interfaces. Trouble was that ATA had a far too simple a command set for accessing the features of CD's which were available through SCSI, so they basically came up with a way to pass SCSI commands over the ATA interface, and ATAPI was born. That became so popular, that vendors all stopped making native SCSI physical interface CD drives (or DVD drives by this point). We now have SATA versions of course, now that SATA has taken over from [P]ATA. I must have a look at what happens when you connect one to a SAS controller. I suspect you end up with SCSI tunnelled over ATA (i.e. ATAPI), tunneled over SAS (serial SCSI). What fun!
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:35:17 +0000, Huge wrote:

I don't know why it got such a bad rep, TBH. I was a happy SCSI user for many years because it Just Worked, compared to IDE which was always so slow and buggy.
I only stopped using it on some of the systems because the cost per MB became so high, but I still find it preferable on any systems that don't require acres of storage space.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Me neither.

Me too.

I don't understand this. The disk mechanicals are exactly the same - these days the controllers are a piggy-back card which plugs into the heads, head solenoid and drive motor. Want an IDE (aka ATA, aka PATA) drive? Plug in the ATA card. Want a SCSI drive? Plug in the SCSI card. Hell, as has just been explained, they're virtually the same thing anyway. So why are SCSI drives 4 times the cost of SATA ones?
--
"The study of theology... is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it
rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I can pay 70-odd quid or less for a 500G SATA drive. Or over 500 quid for the same drive (same model no, everything), wrapped in a Netapp caddy.
My SCSI drives (or rather SAS these days) seem to be different hardware to my SATA ones - RPM differences mainly. But yes, they've got an eye out for the corporate accounts, who don't seem to be so price sensitive, so the SCSI ones get the prices jacked to take advantage of this.
(Netapp - dead good, dead clever, more than eyewateringly expensive - tens of thousands of quid to add NFS support for example...)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

By the way, no matter how expensive, they're *still* better than EMC.
--
"The study of theology... is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it
rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Ah - thanks for that. Shall bear it in mind.
(Actually, we've got the IBM branded one. Don't. You get worse support, because you have to go via a clueless IBM numpty before you get to the people who made the thing :-( )
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And by extension, Dell....

--
Clint Sharp

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So basically the Enterprise has gone SCSI (normally fibre channel or SAS, rather than parallel SCSI which is now dead), and the home/PC market has gone SATA. Cable lengths probably have a lot to do with this split, but it also simplies things in that Enterprise class drives are now only produced in FC and SAS formats, and home/PC class drives are now only produced in SATA formats.
Only Enterprise class SCSI drives are still manufactured, and they have different performance and life expectency from home/PC SATA drives, probably lower manufacturing volumes, and thus it's not surprising they cost more. Incidentally, the Enterprise class disks are much lower capacity than home/PC disks (I think around 500GB max at the moment), as it's not currently possible to achieve Enterprise life expectency and data integrity at the high data densities home/PC disks have reached.
Incidentally, the "disk mechanicals" are not the same. Only quite recently have home/PC SATA drives reached 10,000 RPM, whereas Enterprise disks have been 10,000 and 15,000 RPM for some time. Enterprise disks also have faster seek times, which is less of an issue for home/PC disks which normally run with write-caches enabled (a big no-no in the Enterprise world).
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

I still run mixed ATA/SCSI/SATA systems, and the performance difference on drives is quite noticeable. ATA and SATA seem mostly similar in real word usage, but for a while I was[1] running a 36GB enterprise class UWLVD SCSI drive as a main boot partition, and it would slash WinXP boot times to about a third of their typical.
[1] For some reason I could never get reliable operation on this drive in spite of being a SCSI veteran of many years and trying all the normal tricks. Its predecessor was a 18GB Barracuda which worked flawlessly until it failed under warranty, and the 36GB was its replacement. You would get occasional file corruption - which would then manifest as strange errors or more typically a failure to boot.
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.