Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (
More info?)
Tim: See my inline comments...
> "Art" <Anonymous@notanisp.com> wrote in message
> news:IZCdnQB5aLB7KYbfRVn-3g@adelphia.com...
>> Our preferred configuration is either setting up both removable drives as
>> Masters (Cable Select is fine)
"Tim" <ixnay@ontheammyspay.com> wrote in message
news:3821p8F5i0k9lU1@individual.net...
> Are you saying that both drives share the "Master" connector of the IDE
> cable, or that both drives have their jumpers set for "Master" using both
> cable connectors? If you used both cable connectors with both drives set
> for "Master", what happens if a person accidentally boots up with both
> drives powered on?
We usually configure the removable drives as follows: The first removable
drive - our day-to-day working drive - is connected/configured as Primary
Master on the primary IDE connector. The second removable drive is connected
as Primary Master on the secondary IDE connector. The system will boot to
the drive connected as PM even when both removable drives are connected and
powered up so no harm is done when both removable drives are connected and
powered up simultaneously. There's nothing sacrosanct about this
configuration. As I previously informed you, we usually use that
configuration since it allows a boot to whatever drive is connected at the
moment whenever the other drive has been powered off. Other configurations
will work just as well.
> Very recently I tested my planned configuration on a rig with the
> motherboard that I wish to use (an Intel D865PERL). The system boots up
> fine
> from either drive without a hitch. So, fingers crossed, there won't be
> any
> weird consequences later on.
Absolutely. Virtually every motherboard we've come across works this way.
But we have found some exceptions, rare as they might be. We came across a
recent Intel MB (I can't recall the specific model) that would *only* allow
a boot from the Primary Master position. So in our configuration setup (see
above) it was necessary to move the second removable HD to the mobile rack
occupying the PM position. Not a big deal, of course. Just a simple pull of
the removable tray's handle and inserting it into the other rack. All of 10
seconds or so.
> With a SCSI system there are problems if the cable is not properly
> terminated. Could leaving unpowered drives on an IDE cable cause similar
> impedence issues? If the system boots, can I be reasonably sure that
> there
> aren't any issues?
We've never run into any problem along those lines with the PATA drives we
employ, but we haven't worked with SCSI drives in a long time. I'm not aware
of any issues with respect to SCSI drives in a removable drives environment.
Art writes...
>> In addition to its ideal use involving multi-users, I'm sure you're aware
> of its value as a near-failsafe backup system using disk imaging programs
> such as Symantec's Norton Ghost or Acronis True Image.
> You're reading my mind. I plan to have a third tray with a drive just for
> backup purposes. Jumpers set for "cable-select", it should boot as the
> slave of whatever "Master" is attached at the time. From there I can make
> a
> disk image to it then restore the slave rack to running the secondary
> system
> drive again.
Yes, we pretty much do the same thing although our configuration may be
different from the one you're planning. Using Ghost (and more recently
Acronis True Image) we directly clone the contents of one drive to the
other. It's simple, relatively quick, and most of all - effective.
> Originally I planned to try such a two-drive/two-system configuration
> using
> the motherboard's serial ATA controllers, but Intel tells me that I can't
> boot from SATA2 if no powered drive is found on SATA1. (bootable serial
> drives must be attached to SATA1) Something tells me that they may be
> wrong,
> but I don't want to invest in the drives to find out.
>
> Thanks for all the help.
>
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram