adding a second HD

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by strand, Apr 2, 2004.

  1. strand

    strand Guest

    My mainboard has 2 Ide connectors.
    Currently I have one HD , a CD drive & a CD-RW drive.
    The two CD drives share a connector - master & slave.
    How should I connect a second HD for best performance?
    I think the two hard drives should be on different connectors and then place
    a CD drive on each ?
    And, second question, will the drive letters arrange themselves
    automatically, with the current HD with Windows (908SE) remaining as C: ?
     
    strand, Apr 2, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. strand

    The Prophecy Guest

    strand wrote:
    > My mainboard has 2 Ide connectors.
    > Currently I have one HD , a CD drive & a CD-RW drive.
    > The two CD drives share a connector - master & slave.
    > How should I connect a second HD for best performance?
    > I think the two hard drives should be on different connectors and
    > then place a CD drive on each ?
    > And, second question, will the drive letters arrange themselves
    > automatically, with the current HD with Windows (908SE) remaining as
    > C: ?


    I would have the two CD Drives on one IDE channel, and the two hard drives
    on the other. The drive letters will stay as is with the new HD taking the
    latest one. (e.g: if the first hard drive was C and the 2 CD drives were D
    and E, the new hard drive would become drive F)
     
    The Prophecy, Apr 2, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. strand

    °Mike° Guest

    If you do a lot of CD writing, you want your CD-RW
    as master, on a different channel from the HD.


    On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 17:12:11 -0500, in
    <Wylbc.21715$>
    strand scrawled:

    >
    >My mainboard has 2 Ide connectors.
    >Currently I have one HD , a CD drive & a CD-RW drive.
    >The two CD drives share a connector - master & slave.
    >How should I connect a second HD for best performance?
    >I think the two hard drives should be on different connectors and then place
    >a CD drive on each ?
    >And, second question, will the drive letters arrange themselves
    >automatically, with the current HD with Windows (908SE) remaining as C: ?
    >


    --
    Basic computer maintenance
    http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
     
    °Mike°, Apr 2, 2004
    #3
  4. strand

    Plato Guest

    strand wrote:
    >
    > My mainboard has 2 Ide connectors.
    > Currently I have one HD , a CD drive & a CD-RW drive.
    > The two CD drives share a connector - master & slave.
    > How should I connect a second HD for best performance?


    Put the new HDD on the same channel as your old drive.

    > I think the two hard drives should be on different connectors and then place
    > a CD drive on each ?
    > And, second question, will the drive letters arrange themselves
    > automatically, with the current HD with Windows (908SE) remaining as C: ?


    Yes


    --
    http://www.bootdisk.com/
     
    Plato, Apr 3, 2004
    #4
  5. strand

    strand Guest

    I am not disputing the advice that I should add the new hard drive to the
    same channel as the existing one but I'd like to know why because it seems
    'logical' that I'd get better performance from the second drive if it were
    on it's own channel ?

    --
    xx
    "strand" <> wrote in message
    news:Wylbc.21715$...
    >
    > My mainboard has 2 Ide connectors.
    > Currently I have one HD , a CD drive & a CD-RW drive.
    > The two CD drives share a connector - master & slave.
    > How should I connect a second HD for best performance?
    > I think the two hard drives should be on different connectors and then

    place
    > a CD drive on each ?
    > And, second question, will the drive letters arrange themselves
    > automatically, with the current HD with Windows (908SE) remaining as C: ?
    >
    >
     
    strand, Apr 3, 2004
    #5
  6. strand

    °Mike° Guest

    Putting the new hard drive on the same channel as
    a CD drive will *reduce* performance; you will also
    get better burning 'on the fly' performance with
    the HDs and CDs on separate channels.


    On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 18:21:27 -0500, in
    <Szmbc.21871$>
    strand scrawled:

    >I am not disputing the advice that I should add the new hard drive to the
    >same channel as the existing one but I'd like to know why because it seems
    >'logical' that I'd get better performance from the second drive if it were
    >on it's own channel ?


    --
    Basic computer maintenance
    http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
     
    °Mike°, Apr 3, 2004
    #6
  7. strand

    Plato Guest

    strand wrote:
    >
    > I am not disputing the advice that I should add the new hard drive to the
    > same channel as the existing one but I'd like to know why because it seems
    > 'logical' that I'd get better performance from the second drive if it were
    > on it's own channel ?


    Not so on modern systems. You're thinking of the past. These days it
    doesnt matter.



    --
    http://www.bootdisk.com/
     
    Plato, Apr 3, 2004
    #7
  8. strand

    Millimeter Guest

    On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 17:12:11 -0500, "strand" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >My mainboard has 2 Ide connectors.
    >Currently I have one HD , a CD drive & a CD-RW drive.
    >The two CD drives share a connector - master & slave.
    >How should I connect a second HD for best performance?
    >I think the two hard drives should be on different connectors and then place
    >a CD drive on each ?
    >And, second question, will the drive letters arrange themselves
    >automatically, with the current HD with Windows (908SE) remaining as C: ?
    >


    Hi Strand,
    I personally put harddrive as master and CD as slave. I have found
    with some legacy equipment that 2 HD's on a single channel will argue
    over who is master, irregardless of jumpers. Same thing goes for
    having 2 CD's on the same channel.

    A second argument could be that I put my swap file on channel 2 HD
    which means windows can write to both drives at the same time whereas
    if they are on the same controller they write concurrently.

    My 2 cents,
    Millimeter
     
    Millimeter, Apr 3, 2004
    #8
  9. strand

    Millimeter Guest

    On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 00:52:06 +0100, °Mike° <>
    wrote:

    >Putting the new hard drive on the same channel as
    >a CD drive will *reduce* performance; you will also
    >get better burning 'on the fly' performance with
    >the HDs and CDs on separate channels.
    >


    I disagree. The cable length is minimal at best and they all have to
    go back to the bus first anyway.

    If you have the read from drive on the channel opposite the write to
    drive, then there will be a small benefit.

    Millimeter

    >
    >On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 18:21:27 -0500, in
    > <Szmbc.21871$>
    > strand scrawled:
    >
    >>I am not disputing the advice that I should add the new hard drive to the
    >>same channel as the existing one but I'd like to know why because it seems
    >>'logical' that I'd get better performance from the second drive if it were
    >>on it's own channel ?
     
    Millimeter, Apr 3, 2004
    #9
  10. strand

    Plato Guest

    Plato, Apr 3, 2004
    #10
  11. strand

    Millimeter Guest

    On 3 Apr 2004 03:18:41 -0600, Plato <|@|.|> wrote:

    >Millimeter wrote:
    >>
    >> A second argument could be that I put my swap file on channel 2 HD
    >> which means windows can write to both drives at the same time whereas
    >> if they are on the same controller they write concurrently.

    >
    >http://www.bootdisk.com/bootlist/145.htm#1


    I've been around for a while so I am not merely rechewing some other
    cows cud.

    Many of my clients are retail production environments and their 486's
    with Dos 5 & Win 3.xx are sufficient for their needs.

    Millimeter
     
    Millimeter, Apr 3, 2004
    #11
  12. strand

    ICee Guest

    Millimeter wrote:
    > On 3 Apr 2004 03:18:41 -0600, Plato <|@|.|> wrote:
    >
    >> Millimeter wrote:
    >>>
    >>> A second argument could be that I put my swap file on channel 2 HD
    >>> which means windows can write to both drives at the same time
    >>> whereas if they are on the same controller they write concurrently.

    >>
    >> http://www.bootdisk.com/bootlist/145.htm#1

    >
    > I've been around for a while so I am not merely rechewing some other
    > cows cud.
    >
    > Many of my clients are retail production environments and their 486's
    > with Dos 5 & Win 3.xx are sufficient for their needs.
    >
    > Millimeter


    With current drives and transfer speeds, it's mo longer necessary to
    have hard drives on separate channels. As Mike first suggested in this
    thread, The disk drive with the system on it must be the Master and the
    second hard drive should be the Slave both on channel 0 (or 1). Optical
    drives on the other IDE port. A CD-R RW, or DVD -R RW jumpered as
    Master and the second drive as Slave on the second IDE channel. If you
    have one optical drive you use most, make it the Master and the other
    drive a Slave.
     
    ICee, Apr 3, 2004
    #12
  13. strand

    strand Guest

    Thanks.
    I installed it on the same cable as the existing HD, leaving the jumper on
    cl which defaulted it as Slave.
    So far so good - bios and windows recognize it and it's ready to use.
    thanks

    --
    xx
    "ICee" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Millimeter wrote:
    > > On 3 Apr 2004 03:18:41 -0600, Plato <|@|.|> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Millimeter wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>> A second argument could be that I put my swap file on channel 2 HD
    > >>> which means windows can write to both drives at the same time
    > >>> whereas if they are on the same controller they write concurrently.
    > >>
    > >> http://www.bootdisk.com/bootlist/145.htm#1

    > >
    > > I've been around for a while so I am not merely rechewing some other
    > > cows cud.
    > >
    > > Many of my clients are retail production environments and their 486's
    > > with Dos 5 & Win 3.xx are sufficient for their needs.
    > >
    > > Millimeter

    >
    > With current drives and transfer speeds, it's mo longer necessary to
    > have hard drives on separate channels. As Mike first suggested in this
    > thread, The disk drive with the system on it must be the Master and the
    > second hard drive should be the Slave both on channel 0 (or 1). Optical
    > drives on the other IDE port. A CD-R RW, or DVD -R RW jumpered as
    > Master and the second drive as Slave on the second IDE channel. If you
    > have one optical drive you use most, make it the Master and the other
    > drive a Slave.
    >
    >
     
    strand, Apr 5, 2004
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bill F
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    379
    Rik Bain
    Dec 9, 2003
  2. Bill F
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    489
    Bill F
    Dec 16, 2003
  3. Jeff Allen
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    541
    Jeff Allen
    Jan 15, 2005
  4. Pichi

    Adding a second HTTPS

    Pichi, Jun 16, 2005, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    425
    Pichi
    Jun 16, 2005
  5. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    4,335
Loading...

Share This Page