Configuration of 2 HDD's

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

My pc currently has 1 HDD, a CD-RW and DVD drive.
Am about to get a second HDD.
Using XP Home.

Configuration suggested to me is to have the C: drive on IDE 0, with CD-RW
as slave, and 2nd HDD on IDE 1 cable, with DVD drive as slave.

Alternative is to have 2nd HDD as "slave" to C:, on IDE 0, with the CD/DVD
on IDE1

Which is best? 2nd HDD is 7200 rpm 120 GB (primary C: is 7200 40GB, and I
will NOT be swapping the drives/OS over).

Len.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

My recommendation is to install both harddrives on EIDE 1 with the CDRW as
primary on cable two and the DVD as slave on cable 2.

Sometimes DVD and CDRW drives doesn't seem to like each other in which case
you can change the configuration

--
Jon Hildrum
DTS MVP
Jon_Hildrum@msn.com
www.hildrum.com
"yabbadoo" <lsdolby@ignore.ntlwor.com> wrote in message
news:ukPDZynFFHA.3120@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> My pc currently has 1 HDD, a CD-RW and DVD drive.
> Am about to get a second HDD.
> Using XP Home.
>
> Configuration suggested to me is to have the C: drive on IDE 0, with CD-RW
> as slave, and 2nd HDD on IDE 1 cable, with DVD drive as slave.
>
> Alternative is to have 2nd HDD as "slave" to C:, on IDE 0, with the
CD/DVD
> on IDE1
>
> Which is best? 2nd HDD is 7200 rpm 120 GB (primary C: is 7200 40GB, and I
> will NOT be swapping the drives/OS over).
>
> Len.
>
>

 

[anna]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"yabbadoo" <lsdolby@ignore.ntlwor.com> wrote in message
news:ukPDZynFFHA.3120@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> My pc currently has 1 HDD, a CD-RW and DVD drive.
> Am about to get a second HDD.
> Using XP Home.
>
> Configuration suggested to me is to have the C: drive on IDE 0, with CD-RW
> as slave, and 2nd HDD on IDE 1 cable, with DVD drive as slave.
>
> Alternative is to have 2nd HDD as "slave" to C:, on IDE 0, with the
> CD/DVD on IDE1
>
> Which is best? 2nd HDD is 7200 rpm 120 GB (primary C: is 7200 40GB, and I
> will NOT be swapping the drives/OS over).
>
> Len.

Len:
As you've already discovered, you can make book on the fact that you'll get
responses to your query that will cover the gamut on where to connect your
four IDE devices. And guess what? They'll all be correct. Friends and I have
made detailed experiments re connecting IDE/ATAPI devices to this or that
IDE channel and varying their Master/Slave relationships in every
conceivable configuration. In our tests, in nearly every case, we discerned
no perceptible differences in data transfer rates or speed enhancements of
any kind, regardless of how the devices were configured and/or connected. I
say "nearly in every case" because we did come across some motherboards that
would allow a HD to be booted *only* from a Primary Master position.

But don't take my word, or anyone else's word for it. Experiment for
yourself. It's relatively simple to connect your IDE/ATAPI devices in
various configurations and perform speed tests to determine if there's any
appreciable differences resulting from one configuration over another. In
each instance, measure the speed of the day-to-day tasks you ordinarily
carry out, e.g., accessing programs, copying/moving files, photo/graphics
editing, burning CDs, and the like. It's conceivable that you may have some
special function(s) that favor this or that configuration.
Art

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

It depends on how old your motherboard and the CD/DVD drives are. Anything
from the last couple of years it won't matter how you hook them up. Older
than that you may have to experiment to determine the best configuration.
With older hardware it is usually best to hook up the hard drives on the
same cable. Some older CD-RW drives don't burn well when set up as a slave.
Likewise some older DVD-ROM drives don't like being set as a slave.
Hopefully your system is new enough that you can just hook up the new drive
anywhere.

Kerry Brown
KDB Systems

"yabbadoo" <lsdolby@ignore.ntlwor.com> wrote in message
news:ukPDZynFFHA.3120@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> My pc currently has 1 HDD, a CD-RW and DVD drive.
> Am about to get a second HDD.
> Using XP Home.
>
> Configuration suggested to me is to have the C: drive on IDE 0, with CD-RW
> as slave, and 2nd HDD on IDE 1 cable, with DVD drive as slave.
>
> Alternative is to have 2nd HDD as "slave" to C:, on IDE 0, with the
> CD/DVD on IDE1
>
> Which is best? 2nd HDD is 7200 rpm 120 GB (primary C: is 7200 40GB, and I
> will NOT be swapping the drives/OS over).
>
> Len.
>

 

[bar]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

The reason for setting IDE0 with System Files HDD and one Optical then IDE1
with Data / Applications HDD and second optical is purely performance related.

One has the system SWAP file causing constant read / write activity on the C
Drive and thus if your Data is on D Drive then you have a second IDE path to
access.

Same goes for CD / DVDs. Data can be written to cache [or temp] file on C
Drive before being written to the burner on IDE1. It can read from IDE0 and
write to IDE1 reducing conflicts and or waiting.

Now this presupposes that your IDE cable allows that you can physically
connect the drives in such a manner. Some IDE cable are too short to
accomodate this in mini or full tower cases.

"Jon_Hildrum" wrote:

> My recommendation is to install both harddrives on EIDE 1 with the CDRW as
> primary on cable two and the DVD as slave on cable 2.
>
> Sometimes DVD and CDRW drives doesn't seem to like each other in which case
> you can change the configuration
>
> --
> Jon Hildrum
> DTS MVP
> Jon_Hildrum@msn.com
> www.hildrum.com
> "yabbadoo" <lsdolby@ignore.ntlwor.com> wrote in message
> news:ukPDZynFFHA.3120@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > My pc currently has 1 HDD, a CD-RW and DVD drive.
> > Am about to get a second HDD.
> > Using XP Home.
> >
> > Configuration suggested to me is to have the C: drive on IDE 0, with CD-RW
> > as slave, and 2nd HDD on IDE 1 cable, with DVD drive as slave.
> >
> > Alternative is to have 2nd HDD as "slave" to C:, on IDE 0, with the
> CD/DVD
> > on IDE1
> >
> > Which is best? 2nd HDD is 7200 rpm 120 GB (primary C: is 7200 40GB, and I
> > will NOT be swapping the drives/OS over).
> >
> > Len.
> >
> >
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Jon, BAR - thank you.
Len.

"yabbadoo" <lsdolby@ignore.ntlwor.com> wrote in message
news:ukPDZynFFHA.3120@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> My pc currently has 1 HDD, a CD-RW and DVD drive.
> Am about to get a second HDD.
> Using XP Home.
>
> Configuration suggested to me is to have the C: drive on IDE 0, with CD-RW
> as slave, and 2nd HDD on IDE 1 cable, with DVD drive as slave.
>
> Alternative is to have 2nd HDD as "slave" to C:, on IDE 0, with the
> CD/DVD on IDE1
>
> Which is best? 2nd HDD is 7200 rpm 120 GB (primary C: is 7200 40GB, and I
> will NOT be swapping the drives/OS over).
>
> Len.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Anna, Terry, Trent - thanks. At present a theoretical question, I don't get
the new drive till end of this week, butr it's good to know that it needs no
special set-up. I'd hoped to have the 2 HDD's on different IDE's, so all I
now need to know is - on IDE 1 (second HDD) should it be set to "master" or
"slave" on that ribbon cable?

My m/b is a 3 year-old ASUS A7V266E manufactured 23/1/2002 (per Everest
report), Athlon1800+ chip (1.533Ghz).

Thanks again, Len
"yabbadoo" <lsdolby@ignore.ntlwor.com> wrote in message
news:erhY0NpFFHA.3504@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Jon, BAR - thank you.
> Len.
>
> "yabbadoo" <lsdolby@ignore.ntlwor.com> wrote in message
> news:ukPDZynFFHA.3120@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> My pc currently has 1 HDD, a CD-RW and DVD drive.
>> Am about to get a second HDD.
>> Using XP Home.
>>
>> Configuration suggested to me is to have the C: drive on IDE 0, with
>> CD-RW as slave, and 2nd HDD on IDE 1 cable, with DVD drive as slave.
>>
>> Alternative is to have 2nd HDD as "slave" to C:, on IDE 0, with the
>> CD/DVD on IDE1
>>
>> Which is best? 2nd HDD is 7200 rpm 120 GB (primary C: is 7200 40GB, and I
>> will NOT be swapping the drives/OS over).
>>
>> Len.
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

yabbadoo wrote:

>My pc currently has 1 HDD, a CD-RW and DVD drive.
>Am about to get a second HDD.
>Using XP Home.
>
>Configuration suggested to me is to have the C: drive on IDE 0, with CD-RW
>as slave, and 2nd HDD on IDE 1 cable, with DVD drive as slave.
>
>Alternative is to have 2nd HDD as "slave" to C:, on IDE 0, with the CD/DVD
>on IDE1

I would have the HDDs separate as the masters. That means that copying
files from one to the other is faster because transfers can go on on
both at once

Put the burner on the cable with the HDD you are less likely to burn
from


--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K. Alexn@mvps.D8E8L.org (remove the D8 bit)

 

[anna]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

> yabbadoo wrote:
>
>>My pc currently has 1 HDD, a CD-RW and DVD drive.
>>Am about to get a second HDD.
>>Using XP Home.
>>
>>Configuration suggested to me is to have the C: drive on IDE 0, with CD-RW
>>as slave, and 2nd HDD on IDE 1 cable, with DVD drive as slave.
>>
>>Alternative is to have 2nd HDD as "slave" to C:, on IDE 0, with the
>>CD/DVD
>>on IDE1


"Alex Nichol" <alexn.mvpdts@ntlworld.delete.com> wrote in message
news:sqtg11l4j24f4mgljrd5228ts49pdak6kn@4ax.com...
> I would have the HDDs separate as the masters. That means that copying
> files from one to the other is faster because transfers can go on on
> both at once
>
> Put the burner on the cable with the HDD you are less likely to burn
> from
> --
> Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
> Bournemouth, U.K. Alexn@mvps.D8E8L.org (remove the D8 bit)

yabbaddoo...
As I responded in a prior post...
As you've already discovered, you can make book on the fact that you'll get
responses to your query that will cover the gamut on where to connect your
four IDE devices. And guess what? They'll all be correct. Friends and I have
made detailed experiments re connecting IDE/ATAPI devices to this or that
IDE channel and varying their Master/Slave relationships in every
conceivable configuration. Using "modern" devices, i.e., those manufactured
within the past four years, our tests revealed that in nearly every case, we
could discern *no* perceptible differences in data transfer rates or speed
enhancements of any kind, regardless of how the devices were configured
and/or connected. I say "nearly in every case" because we did come across
some motherboards that would allow a HD to be booted *only* from a Primary
Master position. But aside from that one anomaly, it simply made no
difference in performance as to how the devices were connected/configured.

But don't take my word, or anyone else's word for it. Experiment for
yourself. It's relatively simple to connect your IDE/ATAPI devices in
various configurations and perform speed tests to determine if there's any
appreciable differences resulting from one configuration over another. In
each instance, measure the speed of the day-to-day tasks you ordinarily
carry out, e.g., accessing programs, copying/moving files, photo/graphics
editing, burning CDs, and the like. It's conceivable that you may have some
special function(s) that favor this or that configuration.
Anna

 

[anna]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 11:30:31 -0000, "yabbadoo"
> <lsdolby@ignore.ntlwor.com> wrote:
>
>>Anna, Terry, Trent - thanks. At present a theoretical question, I don't
>>get
>>the new drive till end of this week, butr it's good to know that it needs
>>no
>>special set-up. I'd hoped to have the 2 HDD's on different IDE's, so all
>>I
>>now need to know is - on IDE 1 (second HDD) should it be set to "master"
>>or >>"slave" on that ribbon cable?



"Trent©" <trentsauder@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lnpi11te7ant1f3nj0anbttdq2nu388knj@4ax.com...
> It depends on how you WANT it set!! You can set it either to master
> or to slave.
>
> If its set to master, you should have a slave attached (depending on
> the manufacturer...(check the literature and/or drive for precise
> instructions).
>
> If you set it to slave, you should have a master attached to that
> cable.
>
> Good luck.
>
>
> Have a nice one...
> Trent


Trent:
I may have misunderstood what you've stated, but if you're saying that it is
necessary to have a IDE device present that is connected and configured as
Slave whenever a device is connected and configured as Master on an IDE
cable, this is simply not so. It's entirely possible to have a device
connected/configured as Master without any Slave being present on that IDE
cable. The same is true when a device is connected/configured as Slave;
there's no need to have a Master device connected/configured on that IDE
cable. Obviously it would be an odd situation (to say the least!) where a
IDE device would be connected/configured as a Slave when no Master was
present.

Let me repeat my previous posting...
As you've already discovered, you can make book on the fact that you'll get
responses to your query that will cover the gamut on where to connect your
four IDE devices. And guess what? They'll all be correct. Friends and I have
made detailed experiments re connecting IDE/ATAPI devices to this or that
IDE channel and varying their Master/Slave relationships in every
conceivable configuration. Using "modern" devices, i.e., those manufactured
within the past four years, our tests revealed that in nearly every case, we
could discern *no* perceptible differences in data transfer rates or speed
enhancements of any kind, regardless of how the devices were configured
and/or connected. I say "nearly in every case" because we did come across
some motherboards that would allow a HD to be booted *only* from a Primary
Master position. But aside from that one anomaly, it simply made no
difference in performance as to how the devices were connected/configured.

But don't take my word, or anyone else's word for it. Experiment for
yourself. It's relatively simple to connect your IDE/ATAPI devices in
various configurations and perform speed tests to determine if there's any
appreciable differences resulting from one configuration over another. In
each instance, measure the speed of the day-to-day tasks you ordinarily
carry out, e.g., accessing programs, copying/moving files, photo/graphics
editing, burning CDs, and the like. It's conceivable that you may have some
special function(s) that favor this or that configuration.
Anna

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Alex, Anna, and everyone - thank you all for your input. With luck, I have a
"standard" 3 year old Asus motherboard (it's jumperless) and the "new" HDD
will be also "standard" (it's a gift, not new, and won't see it till the
weekend).
I plan on doing what my first inclination was, i.e. the 2 HDD's as masters
on different IDE's, with the 2 optical drives as slaves - it seemed logical,
and all I asked was whether it was correct.

Unusually, it seems that whatever the set-up, it will be correct - personal
preference (if I read the responses correctly and don't have non-standard
kit). Will post "success" if and when ....

Thanks, everyone!
Sincerely, Len.

"Alex Nichol" <alexn.mvpdts@ntlworld.delete.com> wrote in message
news:sqtg11l4j24f4mgljrd5228ts49pdak6kn@4ax.com...
> yabbadoo wrote:
>
>>My pc currently has 1 HDD, a CD-RW and DVD drive.
>>Am about to get a second HDD.
>>Using XP Home.
>>
>>Configuration suggested to me is to have the C: drive on IDE 0, with CD-RW
>>as slave, and 2nd HDD on IDE 1 cable, with DVD drive as slave.
>>
>>Alternative is to have 2nd HDD as "slave" to C:, on IDE 0, with the
>>CD/DVD
>>on IDE1
>
> I would have the HDDs separate as the masters. That means that copying
> files from one to the other is faster because transfers can go on on
> both at once
>
> Put the burner on the cable with the HDD you are less likely to burn
> from
>
>
> --
> Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
> Bournemouth, U.K. Alexn@mvps.D8E8L.org (remove the D8 bit)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:03:39 -0500, Trent© <trentsauder@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>>This is simply not so. I've installed hundreds, repeat, hundreds! of
>>different model hard drives over the years from virtually every manufacturer
>>of hard drives and I have NEVER encountered even a single instance where a
>>hard drive that was connected/configured as Master refused to boot because
>>no Slave device was connected on its IDE cable.
>>
>
>Are you saying that you installed hundreds of drives...jumpered as
>master...with no slave attached? Why would you do that?

I've isntalled plenty of drives where the master setting was the same
as a drive that was a "single" drive, ie no other drive was on that
channe.

 

[anna]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:03:39 -0500,
>>>This is simply not so. I've installed hundreds, repeat, hundreds! of
>>>different model hard drives over the years from virtually every
>>>manufacturer
>>>of hard drives and I have NEVER encountered even a single instance where
>>> >>>a hard drive that was connected/configured as Master refused to boot
>>> >>>because no Slave device was connected on its IDE cable.

Trent© <trentsauder@hotmail.com wrote:
>>Are you saying that you installed hundreds of drives...jumpered as
>>master...with no slave attached? Why would you do that?


"NobodyMan" <none@none.net> wrote in message
news:f13n119455psq9ue2bf79kh7rsfs2t8bj1@4ax.com...
> I've installed plenty of drives where the master setting was the same
> as a drive that was a "single" drive, ie no other drive was on that
> channel.

Since I'm the one who wrote what Trent is questioning, allow me the
privilege of responding to Trent's question...
Is it so inconceivable to you that you can't understand that we built many,
many computers where there were only two IDE devices connected, i.e., a hard
drive and a CD/DVD-ROM (or CD/DVD burner)? So that the hard drive was
connected as Primary Master and the ATAPI device as Primary Slave. And there
were no problems whatsoever with the hard drive booting, lonely as its
position may be as the only device on the IDE cable.
Anna

 

[anna]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

> "Anna" wrote:
>> ...we built many, many computers where there were only two IDE devices
>> connected,
>> i.e., a hard drive and a CD/DVD-ROM (or CD/DVD burner)? So that
>> the hard drive was connected as Primary Master and the ATAPI device
>> as Primary Slave.
>> And there were no problems whatsoever with the hard drive booting,
>> lonely as its position may be as the only device on the IDE cable.
>> Anna



"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
news:tNKdnbWYZ6mMQoHfRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
> Anna, you've just described a scenario with 2 devices on the same
> cable/channel - the Primary channel.
> *TimDaniels*

Yes, you're right Timothy. I misspoke (mistyped?). Of course the second
IDE/ATAPI device was connected as Master on the Secondary IDE channel. Sorry
for the error. My conclusion, of course, remains as written.
Anna

 

[anna]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:09:50 -0500, "Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote:
>
>>Yes, you're right Timothy. I misspoke (mistyped?). Of course the second
>>IDE/ATAPI device was connected as Master on the Secondary IDE channel.
>>Sorry for the error. My conclusion, of course, remains as written.
>>Anna


"Trent©" <trentsauder@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:so2t11dr304fm93h5ca9asfjdeaj8nkeil@4ax.com...
> Try it again...just for grins...
> Take a WD...that has separate jumpers for 'master' and for 'single
> drive '.
> First try it as 'master'...get back to us.
> Then try it as 'single'...then get back to us.
> Then try a WD that has a combo setting for 'master OR single drive'.
> Then get back to us.

> An IDE drive set to MASTER must has a slave attached.
>
> Final post by me on this.
> Have a nice one...
> Trent

Trent:
Let me join you in also making this my final post on this (interminable?)
subject, but allow me this parting shot...

Of course, of course! if we were connecting a WD HD that was designed with a
Single jumper setting and we were installing that HD as a single device as
Master with no other IDE/ATAPI device on that IDE channel, then obviously we
would jumper the drive as Single. What other course should we take?
Naturally, if that drive was INCORRECTLY jumpered as Master (instead of
Single) and no other drive was connected as Slave on that IDE cable, then of
course, problems could arise preventing that HD from booting. (Incidentally,
we ran across many, many instances where a WD was connected as a single
device, but was jumpered inadvertently as Master instead of Single, and
guess what? It booted. But, of course, that was an anomaly; it should have
been jumpered as Single).

So again, for the last time I will unequivocally state...
There is absolutely no need for a Slave device to be present on an IDE cable
that contains a hard drive that is correctly connected as Master for that
hard drive to boot.
Anna