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
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....?
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?
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).
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.
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!
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
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.
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
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...)
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 :-( )
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).
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
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 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.
 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.
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.