IDE Master VS Slave settings

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I have been under the impression that setting drives as Master or Slave
doesn't make a difference in drive performance. I mean, the "Master"
doesn't really "Master" anything at all, right? Its just like calling them
A and B, or 0 and 1, or X, and Y, etc. Can anybody shed some light on this?

Thanks,
--Dan

 

[cjt]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

dg wrote:

> I have been under the impression that setting drives as Master or Slave
> doesn't make a difference in drive performance. I mean, the "Master"
> doesn't really "Master" anything at all, right? Its just like calling them
> A and B, or 0 and 1, or X, and Y, etc. Can anybody shed some light on this?
>
> Thanks,
> --Dan
>
>

I think that's right.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

In article <oB6oc.47311$na5.41362
@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>, dan_gus@hotmail.com
says...
> I have been under the impression that setting drives as Master or Slave
> doesn't make a difference in drive performance. I mean, the "Master"
> doesn't really "Master" anything at all, right? Its just like calling them
> A and B, or 0 and 1, or X, and Y, etc. Can anybody shed some light on this?
>

The "master" device gets priority over the "slave" if
both want to use the bus at the same time... at least,
that's what I gleaned from a few minutes of googling.
No concrete link behind that assertion... so take that
with a large grain of salt.

It definitely has to do with the protocol that the two
devices employ so that they don't talk over-top of each
other.

http://thef-nym.sci.kun.nl/cgi-pieterh/atazip/atafq-
5.html#ss5.1

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote in message newsB6oc.47311$na5.41362@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com
> I have been under the impression that setting drives as Master or Slave
> doesn't make a difference in drive performance.

> I mean, the "Master" doesn't really "Master" anything at all, right?

Actually, it does in some stages such as drive POST.
The slave reports OK through master.

> Its just like calling them A and B,

> or 0 and 1,

That's the one.

> or X, and Y, etc. Can anybody shed some light on this?
>
> Thanks,
> --Dan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Toshi1873" <toshi1873@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1b0b0648330dcfec9898d2@news-50.giganews.com
> In article <oB6oc.47311$na5.41362 @newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>, dan_gus@hotmail.com says...
> > I have been under the impression that setting drives as Master or Slave
> > doesn't make a difference in drive performance. I mean, the "Master"
> > doesn't really "Master" anything at all, right? Its just like calling them
> > A and B, or 0 and 1, or X, and Y, etc. Can anybody shed some light on this?
> >
>
> The "master" device gets priority over the "slave" if
> both want to use the bus at the same time... at least,
> that's what I gleaned from a few minutes of googling.
> No concrete link behind that assertion...

> so take that with a large grain of salt.

Yes, you'd better.

>
> It definitely has to do with the protocol that the two
> devices employ so that they don't talk over-top of each
> other.

That assumes an initiator role for IDE devices.
There ain't.

>
> http://thef-nym.sci.kun.nl/cgi-pieterh/atazip/atafq-
> 5.html#ss5.1

Can't even post a URL correctly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:

>>
>> http://thef-nym.sci.kun.nl/cgi-pieterh/atazip/atafq-
>> 5.html#ss5.1
>
> Can't even post a URL correctly.


I am sure you can work it out.