WEIRDEST computer problem ever...WTF???

[SNAAAKE]

umm...
Kinda OT but here goes.

I have 2 hds on my system.
master drive is 80gb and slave is 120gb.
and a Liteon burner.
Now I set the jumper on the 80 as master and installed XP pro and set the jumper on the 120 as slave.
So can't have 2 HDs on same IDE port ?  
when my computer starts...it says "disk drive fail"

THEN.
I tried IDE socket 1 for the 80 gb master drive alone.
and my burner and 120gb slave drive is on IDE socket 2.

NOW,here is the problem again.
The computer can't detect the burner for some reason.

 WTF ? ? ?  

However,the computer CAN detect the burner when I pull out the IDE cable from the 120GB slave drive.

ANYONE has any clue ?
(Yes I know my English is funny but we all know that)  

[pointdablame]

did you try going into your BIOS and auto-detecting the drives. Even if they show up correctly, re-detecting them can sometimes clear up problems. I'd also try another IDE cable just to rule that out.

[u_rebelscum]

Not sure if you did this, but make the the master drive is on the end of the cable and the slave drive is plugged in the middle.

But, yes check the BIOS.  This is where most problems occur.

[night]

take the jumper off the WD and put it on a channel by itself (taking a guess here )

[JustMichael]

It sounds like you are using ide cables that support "Cable Select."  What this means is that the connector on the end is for the master device and the middle one is for the slave device.  If your drives are set opposite to this they won't be detected.  While using these cables it is much easier to set the drive jumpers to "cable select" and then they will work just as they are plugged in.  The drive hooked to the end will be the master and the one hooked to the middle will be the slave.

[SNAAAKE]

HEY HEY ! !  
The "middle one is for the slave device" WORKED !
Thanks everyone  

Live and learn.How lame am I, didnt know .

[zowiebowie]

Surely that's not the weirdest computer problem ever though?  

I must say, I remember some pretty horrible weird problems back when I was using the original IBM PCs...  trying to get hardware to talk to each other was a nightmare. So many hours sweating over a badly written manual, no 'Internet' to speak of.... *shudder*

In comparison to those dark days, I love modern PCs!

[Smittydc]

a related note: it's best to have your burner and the drive with the MP3s (or other frequently burned info) on different IDE channels -- they will communicate faster that way.

[Vol]

With ATA-66/100/133 cables I've always found it best to use cable select.

I would suggest you set all drives to the CS (cable select) jumper.

Put your main hard drive on the primary IDE controller on the last plug on the cable (which should make it master).

Put your CDROM on the secondary IDE controller on the middle plug on the cable (which should make it slave).

Put your second hard drive on the secondary IDE controller on the last plug on the cable (which should make it master).

You also have to consider  how you will be moving files and accessing files.

Essentially you do not want to put the two most accessed drives on the same IDE channel as only one will be able to read or write at a time.  To further illustrate:  if you copy a file from primary IDE master to primary IDE slave data is read from the master into system memory, then data is written to the slave from system memory.  However, if you were to copy from a drive on the primary IDE channel to a drive on the secondary IDE channel, the source drive can read at the same time the destination drive is writing.  Theoretically cutting the copy process time in half (in reality its about 3/4 or so but still faster).

[SNAAAKE]

With ATA-66/100/133 cables I've always found it best to use cable select.

I would suggest you set all drives to the CS (cable select) jumper.

Put your main hard drive on the primary IDE controller on the last plug on the cable (which should make it master).

Put your CDROM on the secondary IDE controller on the middle plug on the cable (which should make it slave).

Put your second hard drive on the secondary IDE controller on the last plug on the cable (which should make it master).

You also have to consider  how you will be moving files and accessing files.

Essentially you do not want to put the two most accessed drives on the same IDE channel as only one will be able to read or write at a time.  To further illustrate:  if you copy a file from primary IDE master to primary IDE slave data is read from the master into system memory, then data is written to the slave from system memory.  However, if you were to copy from a drive on the primary IDE channel to a drive on the secondary IDE channel, the source drive can read at the same time the destination drive is writing.  Theoretically cutting the copy process time in half (in reality its about 3/4 or so but still faster).

thanks...I switched.  
I had it like both HDs on same IDE.

[railz]

Just a FYI for anyone who has problems with a WD drive in the future - put it on cable select (no jumper on some models) and it will work fine.

Some of the drives are a little quirky about this. I got this tip from WD support.

[Tiger-Heli]

You also have to consider  how you will be moving files and accessing files.

Essentially you do not want to put the two most accessed drives on the same IDE channel as only one will be able to read or write at a time.  To further illustrate:  if you copy a file from primary IDE master to primary IDE slave data is read from the master into system memory, then data is written to the slave from system memory.  However, if you were to copy from a drive on the primary IDE channel to a drive on the secondary IDE channel, the source drive can read at the same time the destination drive is writing.  Theoretically cutting the copy process time in half (in reality its about 3/4 or so but still faster).

This is true for moving data if you only have the two HD's, but . . .  I think all CD-Drives are ATA-33, so the HD on the same channel as the CD-Burner now operates at ATA-33, not -66 or -100 or -133.  Might still be faster than sharing with the other HD, but maybe not?

Dunno!

[Spaced Invader]

You also have to consider  how you will be moving files and accessing files.

Essentially you do not want to put the two most accessed drives on the same IDE channel as only one will be able to read or write at a time.  To further illustrate:  if you copy a file from primary IDE master to primary IDE slave data is read from the master into system memory, then data is written to the slave from system memory.  However, if you were to copy from a drive on the primary IDE channel to a drive on the secondary IDE channel, the source drive can read at the same time the destination drive is writing.  Theoretically cutting the copy process time in half (in reality its about 3/4 or so but still faster).

This is true for moving data if you only have the two HD's, but . . .  I think all CD-Drives are ATA-33, so the HD on the same channel as the CD-Burner now operates at ATA-33, not -66 or -100 or -133.  Might still be faster than sharing with the other HD, but maybe not?

Dunno!

Not!
HD's should be on the same IDE channel provided they both operate at the same high bus speed (66/100/133). You are quite correct in pointing out that placing a drive on the same channel as the CD device will force the HD to operate at the much slower bus speed of the CD (33). This does not equal a faster system.

History:
In the days before UDMA drives it was popular to place hard drives on seperate channels on a windows system. This was done to improve system performance. Windows was placed on the first channel and the systems virtual memory cache on the second. This allowed for simultaneous access and faster speeds.

However, this gain does not outweigh the speed lost to a slower bus. In addition, with the large amounts of memory in most modern systems and Windows improved memory cache handling (post 95) it's really a non-issue anyway. In short...HD's on 1st channel and CD's on the 2nd channel.

Of course, opinions vary!  

[Lilwolf]

Common problem.

IDE drives are really MFM drives (any oldschoolers here) that have the controller on the harddrive itself.  The ide controller on your motherboard is basically a passthrough to it.  Thats how they got around all the wierd drive parameters (remeber back when you had a list of ,like 40 drive heads/cylindars combos to pick out).

Anyway...

When you slave one drive... You disable the controller from it's board... And it uses the controller from the other drive.  So any problems between brands... and they wont work.


The best part is that My two maxtors didn't work together for a LONG time.   I had to have them on seperate cables and my cd roms as slaves... Where it would have been better to keep them on one (for me anyway).

I'm not saying I know a solution... but its a common problem.  Best to just play around with them until they are all there.... You might find that just swapping them around will do.

[RacerX]

Surely that's not the weirdest computer problem ever though?  

That's just Snaaake.  Whatever is going on now is always the ____est ever.  But that's why we love him.  

[Spaced Invader]

Common problem.

IDE drives are really MFM drives (any oldschoolers here) that have the controller on the harddrive itself.  The ide controller on your motherboard is basically a passthrough to it.  Thats how they got around all the wierd drive parameters (remeber back when you had a list of ,like 40 drive heads/cylindars combos to pick out).

Anyway...

When you slave one drive... You disable the controller from it's board... And it uses the controller from the other drive.  So any problems between brands... and they wont work.


The best part is that My two maxtors didn't work together for a LONG time.   I had to have them on seperate cables and my cd roms as slaves... Where it would have been better to keep them on one (for me anyway).

I'm not saying I know a solution... but its a common problem.  Best to just play around with them until they are all there.... You might find that just swapping them around will do.

This is also true...some drives just don't like each other. Only solution I know is an extra IDE card (OS sees it as SCSI). The plus is support for up to eight drives or four on their own controller. The minus is cost and loss of a PCI slot. Of course this isn't really a solution...just dancing around the problem. Luckily none of my three multidrive systems have drives that won't play nice. I did "correct" my brothers system with an extra IDE card for the second HD (CD was on the systems second channel to make it bootable).

Anyway, I'm rambeling...eh...sorry...I'll go away now.