Western Digital + LiteOn master/slave problems

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

I am trying to get WD800JB and LiteOn LTR 48246S to work together as
secondary master and secondary slave respectively. The problem is that
the auto-detection of the drives during POST just hangs forever (or for
a long time at least). If I switch the drives so that LiteOn is master
and WD is slave, everything works. I think I have tried all possible
combinations of jumper settings.

Does anybody know a solution?

/David
14 answers Last reply
More about western digital liteon master slave problems
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:01:09 +0200, David Rasmussen
    <david.rasmussen@gmx.net> wrote:

    >I am trying to get WD800JB and LiteOn LTR 48246S to work together as
    >secondary master and secondary slave respectively. The problem is that
    >the auto-detection of the drives during POST just hangs forever (or for
    >a long time at least). If I switch the drives so that LiteOn is master
    >and WD is slave, everything works. I think I have tried all possible
    >combinations of jumper settings.
    >
    >Does anybody know a solution?
    >
    >/David


    Sometimes two drives just won't get along, but that is very
    rare these days. More likely you simply need to try a
    different jumper configuration.

    Did you try jumpering both as Cable Select?

    Why not leave the LiteOn as master? Cable routing is
    probably easier like that too, since HDDs are usually lower
    in the case than the optical drive. If your HDD is not in a
    case position to do this, and you MUST have it as master for
    some reason, can you simply relocate the drive?

    Try other combinations of jumpers for either and both drives
    again, and inspect the jumpers... while it is very rare,
    sometimes jumpers are defective.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    As a general rule you should NOT combine a modern harddrive and an optical
    drive on the same IDE channel. The harddrive is much faster than the
    optical drive in data transfer normally, but combining them on the same IDE
    channel makes the harddrive run at the same slow speed of the optical drive.
    Harddrives should be together, and optical drives should be together.

    --
    DaveW


    "David Rasmussen" <david.rasmussen@gmx.net> wrote in message
    news:413c89c6$0$173$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
    >I am trying to get WD800JB and LiteOn LTR 48246S to work together as
    >secondary master and secondary slave respectively. The problem is that the
    >auto-detection of the drives during POST just hangs forever (or for a long
    >time at least). If I switch the drives so that LiteOn is master and WD is
    >slave, everything works. I think I have tried all possible combinations of
    >jumper settings.
    >
    > Does anybody know a solution?
    >
    > /David
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    DaveW wrote:
    > As a general rule you should NOT combine a modern harddrive and an optical
    > drive on the same IDE channel. The harddrive is much faster than the
    > optical drive in data transfer normally, but combining them on the same IDE
    > channel makes the harddrive run at the same slow speed of the optical drive.
    > Harddrives should be together, and optical drives should be together.
    >

    Yeah, but I have 3 hard drives and 1 optical drive. And 2 controllers
    with one master and one slave each. So...

    /David
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 01:28:39 +0200, David Rasmussen
    <david.rasmussen@gmx.net> wrote:

    >DaveW wrote:
    >> As a general rule you should NOT combine a modern harddrive and an optical
    >> drive on the same IDE channel. The harddrive is much faster than the
    >> optical drive in data transfer normally, but combining them on the same IDE
    >> channel makes the harddrive run at the same slow speed of the optical drive.
    >> Harddrives should be together, and optical drives should be together.
    >>
    >
    >Yeah, but I have 3 hard drives and 1 optical drive. And 2 controllers
    >with one master and one slave each. So...
    >
    >/David

    Well it's not true regardless, DaveW just keeps repeating
    this nonsense with no evidence of it.

    Benchmarks bear out that it isn't true, anyone can test this
    for themselves... doesn't even need to be a thorough
    benchmark, just the first moment you get a burst rate it can
    be seen that the "same slow speed" is NOT being used.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    Have you considered adding another controller card? This would take the
    optical drive off the same channel as the hard drive.
    "David Rasmussen" <david.rasmussen@gmx.net> wrote in message
    news:413c89c6$0$173$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
    >I am trying to get WD800JB and LiteOn LTR 48246S to work together as
    >secondary master and secondary slave respectively. The problem is that the
    >auto-detection of the drives during POST just hangs forever (or for a long
    >time at least). If I switch the drives so that LiteOn is master and WD is
    >slave, everything works. I think I have tried all possible combinations of
    >jumper settings.
    >
    > Does anybody know a solution?
    >
    > /David
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    Strictly speaking, he is right. But since even modern drives are unlikely
    to fill an ATA-100 bus and certainly won't fill an ATA-133 bus (if you know
    different and have a soruce to show me, I'll recant) it's no great loss to
    stick it on the same channel as an ATA-66 optical. If the optical is
    ATA-100 or better (not seen any first-hand that are, but inevitably will
    happen sooner or later) great!

    If you want the comfort of knowing that your hardware can potentially fill
    the bus at a full (S)ATA 150 rate then by all means keep them separate (I
    do) but it WON'T come anywhere near doing so in reality.

    John
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 11:22:35 +0000 (UTC), "Gaidheal"
    <some.one@some.isp.net> wrote:

    >Strictly speaking, he is right. But since even modern drives are unlikely
    >to fill an ATA-100 bus and certainly won't fill an ATA-133 bus (if you know
    >different and have a soruce to show me, I'll recant) it's no great loss to
    >stick it on the same channel as an ATA-66 optical. If the optical is
    >ATA-100 or better (not seen any first-hand that are, but inevitably will
    >happen sooner or later) great!
    >
    >If you want the comfort of knowing that your hardware can potentially fill
    >the bus at a full (S)ATA 150 rate then by all means keep them separate (I
    >do) but it WON'T come anywhere near doing so in reality.
    >


    No, strictly speaking or speaking any way you like, it's not
    right, and hasn't been for a decade.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    Depends greatly on what you think we are arguing over.....

    The entire channel WILL drop to the lowest spec supported by both devices.
    That simple. As for "can't mix optical with non-optical" - that obviously
    is not the case. Wasn't for very long, either, though it tended to be
    sub-optimal.

    John
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:20:47 +0000 (UTC), "Gaidheal"
    <some.one@some.isp.net> wrote:

    >Depends greatly on what you think we are arguing over.....
    >
    >The entire channel WILL drop to the lowest spec supported by both devices.
    >That simple.

    No, it won't.
    It switches to lower speed ONLY when accessing the slower
    interfaced device. This has been proven time and time
    again, stop wasting our time and test it for yourself.

    The interface of faster device will operate in fastest mode
    supported by the device or the controller, whichever is
    lower.

    In other words, given an ATA100 channel with an ATA33 CDROM,
    an ATA133 HDD, the CDROM will operate in ATA33 mode but the
    HDD in ATA100 mode. This is VERY easy to test, prove.


    > As for "can't mix optical with non-optical" - that obviously
    >is not the case. Wasn't for very long, either, though it tended to be
    >sub-optimal.

    The overhead of having ATAPI device on a channel is very,
    very slight... not noticable in use.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    Well, last time I did test it, which is years ago, that was definitely not
    the case. If it has improved (and I don't doubt you, but might have to see
    it for myself anyway!) then that's good. But I do certainly remember
    demonstrating to a customer why I had installed their drive as a master and
    moved an optical device to make it slave to a another optical device on the
    secondary channel. There was CONSIDERABLE improvement in performance
    overall, not only data throughput.

    I do accept however, that the last time I did any such thing was about 4
    (IMS) years ago.

    John

    P.S. I never said the overhead was significant for having an ATAPI device
    on the channel... what made you raise that strawman?
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:28:58 +0000 (UTC), "Gaidheal"
    <some.one@some.isp.net> wrote:

    >Well, last time I did test it, which is years ago, that was definitely not
    >the case. If it has improved (and I don't doubt you, but might have to see
    >it for myself anyway!) then that's good. But I do certainly remember
    >demonstrating to a customer why I had installed their drive as a master and
    >moved an optical device to make it slave to a another optical device on the
    >secondary channel. There was CONSIDERABLE improvement in performance
    >overall, not only data throughput.
    >
    >I do accept however, that the last time I did any such thing was about 4
    >(IMS) years ago.
    >
    >John
    >
    >P.S. I never said the overhead was significant for having an ATAPI device
    >on the channel... what made you raise that strawman?
    >

    All contemporary chipsets of 4 years ago also supported
    independant device timing, a board that didn't would have to
    have either A) buggy bios B) been much older at the time
    C) 80 conductor cable wasn't used D) CDROM was in PIO
    mode.

    I mentioned the ATAPI issue because it is related, nothing
    more or less.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    Now that you mention it; would have been the cables - most of the builds I
    saw used the older cables until about 2 years ago, actually, maybe 3.

    As for the ATAPI question.. I really don't think it was relevant, actually,
    but whatever ;¬)

    John

    P.S. My 'arguing' with you should not be taken as a sign I don't value your
    knowledge / input - just in case I gave that impression. I simply state my
    opinion and what I base it on... if I am in error I'll take the flak.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 00:40:50 +0000 (UTC), "Gaidheal"
    <some.one@some.isp.net> wrote:

    >Now that you mention it; would have been the cables - most of the builds I
    >saw used the older cables until about 2 years ago, actually, maybe 3.
    >
    >As for the ATAPI question.. I really don't think it was relevant, actually,
    >but whatever ;¬)
    >
    >John
    >
    >P.S. My 'arguing' with you should not be taken as a sign I don't value your
    >knowledge / input - just in case I gave that impression. I simply state my
    >opinion and what I base it on... if I am in error I'll take the flak.
    >

    The ATAPI issue was of relevance after introduction of the
    "Optical" drives to the discussion, which are ATAPI.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    The optical drives were mentioned right at the start by the original poster.
    Raising the question of overhead in a reply to my posts was an utter
    irrelevance - as I said.

    John
Ask a new question

Read More

Homebuilt Liteon Western Digital Systems