Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Hard disc caddy

Last response: in Systems
Share
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
June 20, 2005 12:14:07 PM

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

I'd like to add an old hard disc caddy to a newer system that has an
80-pin IDE cable. The internal cable in the caddy is only 40-pin. Will
this discontinuity create any strange issues? I intend to use an old
1.2GB HDD, so I'm not concerned about heat or speed.

The existing slave connector is out of reach of the caddy. Is it just
a simple matter to remove and reposition this connector? I routinely
do this with 40-pin cables by reclamping them in a vice, but I'm not
sure how easy this is to do with finer pitch 80-pin ribbon.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

More about : hard disc caddy

Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
June 20, 2005 12:14:08 PM

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

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 08:14:07 +1000, Franc Zabkar
<fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:

>I'd like to add an old hard disc caddy to a newer system that has an
>80-pin IDE cable. The internal cable in the caddy is only 40-pin. Will
>this discontinuity create any strange issues? I intend to use an old
>1.2GB HDD, so I'm not concerned about heat or speed.

In that case, no it should be fine, the 80 conductor cable
will simply be more immune to noise, should work fine.



>
>The existing slave connector is out of reach of the caddy. Is it just
>a simple matter to remove and reposition this connector? I routinely
>do this with 40-pin cables by reclamping them in a vice, but I'm not
>sure how easy this is to do with finer pitch 80-pin ribbon.

It's the same general concept, but with a 3rd (center) row
iof insulation displacement pins for the grounds. The
problem is that it becomes much more precision oriented,
fiddly to get them all lined up perfectly. It's far easier
to do to a 40 conductor cable so if you had a spare
40-conductor cable and didn't need 80 conductor (for the
master device?) then you might just use one instead.
Otherwise you could try repositioning the cable but I would
rather buy another cable than risk it, as a poor connection
may not show up for a period of time, oxidation or movement
of the cable, thermal changes- whichever...

It's significantly more difficult to get the 80 conductor
cable connectors clamped on in perfect positions, let alone
visually confirm that it looks right- and I'd think it quite
tedious to check ersistance on every pin before using it.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
June 20, 2005 10:47:16 PM

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

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 23:05:10 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> put finger to
keyboard and composed:

>On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 08:14:07 +1000, Franc Zabkar
><fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>I'd like to add an old hard disc caddy to a newer system that has an
>>80-pin IDE cable.

>>The existing slave connector is out of reach of the caddy. Is it just
>>a simple matter to remove and reposition this connector? I routinely
>>do this with 40-pin cables by reclamping them in a vice, but I'm not
>>sure how easy this is to do with finer pitch 80-pin ribbon.
>
>It's the same general concept, but with a 3rd (center) row
>iof insulation displacement pins for the grounds. The
>problem is that it becomes much more precision oriented,
>fiddly to get them all lined up perfectly. It's far easier
>to do to a 40 conductor cable so if you had a spare
>40-conductor cable and didn't need 80 conductor (for the
>master device?) then you might just use one instead.

The caddy will be a primary slave, so the cable will need to be
80-pin. I'm not sure if I can buy a ready made cable with the
connectors in reachable positions, but I'll see what I can find at the
next market. Thanks.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
June 20, 2005 10:47:17 PM

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

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 18:47:16 +1000, Franc Zabkar
<fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 23:05:10 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> put finger to
>keyboard and composed:
>
>>On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 08:14:07 +1000, Franc Zabkar
>><fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>I'd like to add an old hard disc caddy to a newer system that has an
>>>80-pin IDE cable.
>
>>>The existing slave connector is out of reach of the caddy. Is it just
>>>a simple matter to remove and reposition this connector? I routinely
>>>do this with 40-pin cables by reclamping them in a vice, but I'm not
>>>sure how easy this is to do with finer pitch 80-pin ribbon.
>>
>>It's the same general concept, but with a 3rd (center) row
>>iof insulation displacement pins for the grounds. The
>>problem is that it becomes much more precision oriented,
>>fiddly to get them all lined up perfectly. It's far easier
>>to do to a 40 conductor cable so if you had a spare
>>40-conductor cable and didn't need 80 conductor (for the
>>master device?) then you might just use one instead.
>
>The caddy will be a primary slave, so the cable will need to be
>80-pin. I'm not sure if I can buy a ready made cable with the
>connectors in reachable positions, but I'll see what I can find at the
>next market. Thanks.
>
I'm pretty sure, from my own setup that's practically the same, that
the use of the 40 strand cable in the caddy will knock back the speed
to the lowest common denominator on the ide cable.
A simple hard drive throughput test utility will show you if this is
happening.
I ended up putting my caddy on the secondary ide line, setting the
removable drives to masters and putting an extended partition on them
so as to have them show as the last partition on the system.

Might be worth splashing out on an ATA66+ compatible caddy - they pop
up on ebay for less than a tenner.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
June 20, 2005 10:47:18 PM

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

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:49:39 +0100, Stephen Howard
<seesigfor@email.uk> wrote:


>>
>I'm pretty sure, from my own setup that's practically the same, that
>the use of the 40 strand cable in the caddy will knock back the speed
>to the lowest common denominator on the ide cable.
>A simple hard drive throughput test utility will show you if this is
>happening.
>I ended up putting my caddy on the secondary ide line, setting the
>removable drives to masters and putting an extended partition on them
>so as to have them show as the last partition on the system.
>
>Might be worth splashing out on an ATA66+ compatible caddy - they pop
>up on ebay for less than a tenner.

Not an issue at the moment as his old drive would be ATA33
at most.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
June 20, 2005 10:47:19 PM

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

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:47:58 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:49:39 +0100, Stephen Howard
><seesigfor@email.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>I'm pretty sure, from my own setup that's practically the same, that
>>the use of the 40 strand cable in the caddy will knock back the speed
>>to the lowest common denominator on the ide cable.
>>A simple hard drive throughput test utility will show you if this is
>>happening.
>>I ended up putting my caddy on the secondary ide line, setting the
>>removable drives to masters and putting an extended partition on them
>>so as to have them show as the last partition on the system.
>>
>>Might be worth splashing out on an ATA66+ compatible caddy - they pop
>>up on ebay for less than a tenner.
>
>Not an issue at the moment as his old drive would be ATA33
>at most.

It's an issue if the primary master is of better spec - both drives
would default to the lowest speed.
Obviously this isn't a problem if the caddy is only connected for
backing up - but I find I tend to pop it in first thing and remove it
on shutdown, which means it's active all day.

Another consideration might be whether, in spite of having an ATA66+
compatible caddy, the fitting of a sub ATA66 drive would lower the
default IDE setting.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
June 20, 2005 11:39:12 PM

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

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:29:44 +0100, Stephen Howard
<seesigfor@email.uk> wrote:


>>>Might be worth splashing out on an ATA66+ compatible caddy - they pop
>>>up on ebay for less than a tenner.
>>
>>Not an issue at the moment as his old drive would be ATA33
>>at most.
>
>It's an issue if the primary master is of better spec - both drives
>would default to the lowest speed.

They will not default to a lower speed from this situation.
The drive in the caddy is forced by it's own technology to
run in ATA33 mode, but the motherboard itself senses the
cable to determine if 80 conductor. It should not matter
than the caddy has only 40 conductor internally.


>Obviously this isn't a problem if the caddy is only connected for
>backing up - but I find I tend to pop it in first thing and remove it
>on shutdown, which means it's active all day.
>
>Another consideration might be whether, in spite of having an ATA66+
>compatible caddy, the fitting of a sub ATA66 drive would lower the
>default IDE setting.

No, each drive would operate at the maximum speed supported
by the IDE controller. The IDE setting is not lowered by
these things, only by whether the 80 conductor cable is
plugged into the board, what the drive reports it's cable of
and the max the board itself supports. Within these
boundaries, the drives can operate at different ATA speeds.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
June 21, 2005 7:18:09 PM

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

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:39:12 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:29:44 +0100, Stephen Howard
><seesigfor@email.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Might be worth splashing out on an ATA66+ compatible caddy - they pop
>>>>up on ebay for less than a tenner.
>>>
>>>Not an issue at the moment as his old drive would be ATA33
>>>at most.
>>
>>It's an issue if the primary master is of better spec - both drives
>>would default to the lowest speed.
>
>They will not default to a lower speed from this situation.
>The drive in the caddy is forced by it's own technology to
>run in ATA33 mode, but the motherboard itself senses the
>cable to determine if 80 conductor. It should not matter
>than the caddy has only 40 conductor internally.
>
>
>>Obviously this isn't a problem if the caddy is only connected for
>>backing up - but I find I tend to pop it in first thing and remove it
>>on shutdown, which means it's active all day.
>>
>>Another consideration might be whether, in spite of having an ATA66+
>>compatible caddy, the fitting of a sub ATA66 drive would lower the
>>default IDE setting.
>
>No, each drive would operate at the maximum speed supported
>by the IDE controller. The IDE setting is not lowered by
>these things, only by whether the 80 conductor cable is
>plugged into the board, what the drive reports it's cable of
>and the max the board itself supports. Within these
>boundaries, the drives can operate at different ATA speeds.

Thanks for the clarification.

It just occurred to me - you can't always fit a sub ATA66 caddy to an
80 strand cable, the cable usually has a pin blanked out, and the
caddy connector is fully populated.
I think the OP might have to use the secondary ide channel with a 40
strand cable, or buy a faster spec'd caddy.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
June 21, 2005 8:44:56 PM

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

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:18:09 +0100, Stephen Howard
<seesigfor@email.uk> wrote:


>It just occurred to me - you can't always fit a sub ATA66 caddy to an
>80 strand cable, the cable usually has a pin blanked out, and the
>caddy connector is fully populated.
>I think the OP might have to use the secondary ide channel with a 40
>strand cable, or buy a faster spec'd caddy.

OEM systems like Dells' often used a blanked cable, back in
the ATA33 days... typical solution is use a very fine drill
bit or heated needle to pierce the blanked pin- it's not
solid all the way through, usually, just a thin top
covering... or rip the pin out of the enclusure but that
seems like slightly higher risk of being problematic.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
June 21, 2005 8:49:30 PM

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

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:47:58 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> put finger to
keyboard and composed:

>On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:49:39 +0100, Stephen Howard
><seesigfor@email.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>I'm pretty sure, from my own setup that's practically the same, that
>>the use of the 40 strand cable in the caddy will knock back the speed
>>to the lowest common denominator on the ide cable.
>>A simple hard drive throughput test utility will show you if this is
>>happening.
>>I ended up putting my caddy on the secondary ide line, setting the
>>removable drives to masters and putting an extended partition on them
>>so as to have them show as the last partition on the system.
>>
>>Might be worth splashing out on an ATA66+ compatible caddy - they pop
>>up on ebay for less than a tenner.
>
>Not an issue at the moment as his old drive would be ATA33
>at most.

Sorry, I should have given more details. My old 40-pin system is a
socket 7 setup with ATA33 IDE. My new system is an Athlon XP 2500+
with 80-pin UDMA133. I wish to exchange data between the two.

One of the reasons for my concern is that the caddy, with its short
internal cable, will look like an unterminated stub whenever the drive
is removed.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
June 21, 2005 8:49:31 PM

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

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 16:49:30 +1000, Franc Zabkar
<fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:


>>Not an issue at the moment as his old drive would be ATA33
>>at most.
>
>Sorry, I should have given more details. My old 40-pin system is a
>socket 7 setup with ATA33 IDE. My new system is an Athlon XP 2500+
>with 80-pin UDMA133. I wish to exchange data between the two.

OK, what I was getting at was the method of transportation-
the intent to use an old
1.2GB HDD, means it would be ATA33 capable at most.



>
>One of the reasons for my concern is that the caddy, with its short
>internal cable, will look like an unterminated stub whenever the drive
>is removed.

So this cable remains in the system when the caddy is
removed, rather than the cable being inside the removable
portion? If so, that is a potential issue but given that
it's short I would expect it to still work. After all,
plenty of people have used cables with only the middle
connector occupied, leaving the end floating.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
June 21, 2005 8:49:31 PM

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

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 16:49:30 +1000, Franc Zabkar
<fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:47:58 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> put finger to
>keyboard and composed:
>
>>On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:49:39 +0100, Stephen Howard
>><seesigfor@email.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>I'm pretty sure, from my own setup that's practically the same, that
>>>the use of the 40 strand cable in the caddy will knock back the speed
>>>to the lowest common denominator on the ide cable.
>>>A simple hard drive throughput test utility will show you if this is
>>>happening.
>>>I ended up putting my caddy on the secondary ide line, setting the
>>>removable drives to masters and putting an extended partition on them
>>>so as to have them show as the last partition on the system.
>>>
>>>Might be worth splashing out on an ATA66+ compatible caddy - they pop
>>>up on ebay for less than a tenner.
>>
>>Not an issue at the moment as his old drive would be ATA33
>>at most.
>
>Sorry, I should have given more details. My old 40-pin system is a
>socket 7 setup with ATA33 IDE. My new system is an Athlon XP 2500+
>with 80-pin UDMA133. I wish to exchange data between the two.
>
>One of the reasons for my concern is that the caddy, with its short
>internal cable, will look like an unterminated stub whenever the drive
>is removed.
>
It won't matter at all.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
June 22, 2005 7:54:48 AM

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

"Stephen Howard" <seesigfor@email.uk> wrote in message
news:hu7gb1tg65n6v2b02o10sci8qge2h31fki@4ax.com...

> Stephen Howard - {snip} & period restorations

My wife had a hysterectomy. Can you help?
MUHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

I don't know what you guys across the big pond call a
women's period, but it sure is ... as you would say:
a bloody mess !!!! MUHAHAHAHAHAHA

(GARY! Stop yourself)
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
June 22, 2005 5:12:28 PM

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

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 03:54:48 GMT, "Gary C"
<Clem_Kadiddlehopper@Crazy_Googinheimer.com> wrote:

>
>"Stephen Howard" <seesigfor@email.uk> wrote in message
>news:hu7gb1tg65n6v2b02o10sci8qge2h31fki@4ax.com...
>
>> Stephen Howard - {snip} & period restorations
>
>My wife had a hysterectomy. Can you help?

Sure....I can do you a matching vasectomy. I'll go find a chisel...

>MUHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
>
>I don't know what you guys across the big pond call a
>women's period, but it sure is ... as you would say:
>a bloody mess !!!! MUHAHAHAHAHAHA
>
>(GARY! Stop yourself)
>


--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
June 23, 2005 12:11:42 PM

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

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:18:16 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> put finger to
keyboard and composed:

>On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 16:49:30 +1000, Franc Zabkar
><fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>>Not an issue at the moment as his old drive would be ATA33
>>>at most.
>>
>>Sorry, I should have given more details. My old 40-pin system is a
>>socket 7 setup with ATA33 IDE. My new system is an Athlon XP 2500+
>>with 80-pin UDMA133. I wish to exchange data between the two.
>
>OK, what I was getting at was the method of transportation-
>the intent to use an old
>1.2GB HDD, means it would be ATA33 capable at most.
>
>
>
>>
>>One of the reasons for my concern is that the caddy, with its short
>>internal cable, will look like an unterminated stub whenever the drive
>>is removed.
>
>So this cable remains in the system when the caddy is
>removed, rather than the cable being inside the removable
>portion?

The cable is indeed in the caddy. What remains in the system is a stub
consisting of a 3cm PCB. My problem is that the two caddies are of
different brands and therefore not interchangeable. This means I would
need to remove the HD from one caddy and install it in the other. I
had intended to leave the empty caddy in its machine so as not to lose
it.

>If so, that is a potential issue but given that
>it's short I would expect it to still work. After all,
>plenty of people have used cables with only the middle
>connector occupied, leaving the end floating.

I was under the impression that this causes undesirable reflections.
Do you know of any torture test that can measure hard disc error
rates?


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
June 23, 2005 6:35:27 PM

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

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 08:11:42 +1000, Franc Zabkar
<fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:


>>If so, that is a potential issue but given that
>>it's short I would expect it to still work. After all,
>>plenty of people have used cables with only the middle
>>connector occupied, leaving the end floating.
>
>I was under the impression that this causes undesirable reflections.
>Do you know of any torture test that can measure hard disc error
>rates?

It may be undesirable yet people have used their systems for
years like this, and they benchmarked ok. I don't recall
anything that would report the data resends, which would be
what happens if the errors occur. You might simply
benchmark with and without the caddy to see if there's any
difference in scores.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
June 24, 2005 10:32:20 PM

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

On 2005-06-23, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 08:11:42 +1000, Franc Zabkar
><fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>I was under the impression that this causes undesirable reflections.
>>Do you know of any torture test that can measure hard disc error
>>rates?
>
> It may be undesirable yet people have used their systems for
> years like this, and they benchmarked ok. I don't recall
> anything that would report the data resends, which would be
> what happens if the errors occur. You might simply
> benchmark with and without the caddy to see if there's any
> difference in scores.

I seem to recall a MASM listing from at least a decade ago that would
monitor this (for a different reason - when drives weren't as
reliable as they are nowadays) - I think I know which book I read it in
and it's still on my bookshelf. You'd have to boot to DOS (or possibly
safe mode on 95/98/ME) for it to work but should still be able to tell
you if anything untoward is happening. I'll see if I can dig it out.

In any case, the fact that it's worked well in the past doesn't mean
that it will carry on that way - with each new faster disk standard the
cabling becomes more and more critical - witness the price of the latest,
fastest SCSI cables for an illustration of this.

--
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews@sdf.lonestar.org
!