Can't recognise hard drive as master

[Dave]

I've installed a new, bigger, hard drive in my system. Cloned the old
drive. I'm using XP. Seems to be working OK. New drive is a seagate 160
GB.

However, the BIOS will only detect the new drive when I jumper it as
slave. It doesn't seem to like it jumpered as master. Why would this be
?

By the way, the old drive is unplugged, I'm not going to use it. So I
thought I should set the new drive up as a master.

As I say, seems to work fine as a slave. Is there any problem running a
single hard drive as a slave ? Any clues as to why it can't be
recognised as a master ?

 

[Bob]

I've installed a new, bigger, hard drive in my system. Cloned the old
drive. I'm using XP. Seems to be working OK. New drive is a seagate 160
GB.

However, the BIOS will only detect the new drive when I jumper it as
slave. It doesn't seem to like it jumpered as master. Why would this be
?

By the way, the old drive is unplugged, I'm not going to use it. So I
thought I should set the new drive up as a master.

As I say, seems to work fine as a slave. Is there any problem running a
single hard drive as a slave ? Any clues as to why it can't be
recognised as a master ?

What position on the cable do you have it installed? Try putting the
end of the cable in.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arild_Bj=F8rk?=]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Dave skrev:

I've installed a new, bigger, hard drive in my system. Cloned the old
drive. I'm using XP. Seems to be working OK. New drive is a seagate 160
GB.

However, the BIOS will only detect the new drive when I jumper it as
slave. It doesn't seem to like it jumpered as master. Why would this be
?

I've noticed this some years ago. Just leave the jumper i cable select
position if its the only drive.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCoeEjn1hjZcCMxG0RA0SDAJ0XwGKUA3PJ+8ssqevWeMTTch4rdQCfTg6U
zHa6jRUnp+kyhYgUDczaiIs=
=80+Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Rod Speed]

I've installed a new, bigger, hard drive in my system.
Cloned the old drive. I'm using XP. Seems to be
working OK. New drive is a seagate 160 GB.

However, the BIOS will only detect the new drive
when I jumper it as slave. It doesn't seem to like
it jumpered as master. Why would this be ?

By the way, the old drive is unplugged, I'm not going to use it.
So I thought I should set the new drive up as a master.

Is there another drive on the ribbon
cable too, likely not from the below.

As I say, seems to work fine as a slave. Is there
any problem running a single hard drive as a slave ?
Any clues as to why it can't be recognised as a master ?

There's three main reasons that you get that result.

The most common one is using a modern 80 wire ribbon cable,
and using the middle connector for the drive. Some motherboards
dont handle that very well, basically assuming cable select is used
even when the drive is jumpered using the master and slave jumpers.

The fix in that situation is to just go with the flow, jumper the
drive as cable select, and use the end connector for the drive.

You can also get some odd results if you have an 80 wire
cable in backwards, with the end connector thats intended
for a drive used in the motherboard connector. The blue
connector should be plugged into the motherboard.

You can also get the result you are seeing with a bad 80 wire ribbon cable.

 

[Dave]

Is there another drive on the ribbon
cable too, likely not from the below.

No other drive, I've got the old drive unplugged for now.

There's three main reasons that you get that result.

The most common one is using a modern 80 wire ribbon cable,
and using the middle connector for the drive.

Just tried both connectors a couple of times each, with same result.

Some motherboards
dont handle that very well, basically assuming cable select is used
even when the drive is jumpered using the master and slave jumpers.

The fix in that situation is to just go with the flow, jumper the
drive as cable select, and use the end connector for the drive.

Cant get that to work.

You can also get some odd results if you have an 80 wire
cable in backwards, with the end connector thats intended
for a drive used in the motherboard connector. The blue
connector should be plugged into the motherboard.

Yeah, it is.

You can also get the result you are seeing with a bad 80 wire ribbon cable.

Yeah maybe that is it then. I've had this cable for over three years. In that
time, with just the one drive on it, the loose end of cable was tied with a
elastic band. And the cable was sort of crimped up, a bit bent here and
there. Could that lead to a damaged cable over time ?

 

[Rod Speed]

No other drive, I've got the old drive unplugged for now.


Just tried both connectors a couple of times each, with same result.


Cant get that to work.


Yeah, it is.


Yeah maybe that is it then. I've had this cable for over three years. In that
time, with just the one drive on it, the loose end of cable was tied with a
elastic band. And the cable was sort of crimped up, a bit bent here and
there. Could that lead to a damaged cable over time ?

Its more usually damaged by getting it off the old drive,
pulling on the ribbon itself rather than on the body of
the connector that goes into the drive connector.

It could always have been bad, one wire not making good
contact, and that has got disturbed with the drive changing,
or the new drive is more fussy about it with master/slave detection.

 

[Rod Speed]

Thats evidence of a bad cable.

Its more usually damaged by getting it off the old drive,
pulling on the ribbon itself rather than on the body of
the connector that goes into the drive connector.

It could always have been bad, one wire not making good
contact, and that has got disturbed with the drive changing,
or the new drive is more fussy about it with master/slave detection.

 

[Peter]

No other drive, I've got the old drive unplugged for now.

What happens if you connect the old drive back.
Can it be seen as a master again?

 

[Dave]

What happens if you connect the old drive back.
Can it be seen as a master again?

Yeah that works. I'm gonna try a new cable tomorrow and check how that
works with the new drive.

 

[Dave]

Thats evidence of a bad cable.

Thanks. I'm gonna try a new cable tomorrow and see how that goes.

 

[Peter]

What happens if you connect the old drive back.

Yeah that works. I'm gonna try a new cable tomorrow and check how that
works with the new drive.

If it works, why do you think it is a cable problem?

 

[Dave]

Thanks. I'm gonna try a new cable tomorrow and see how that goes.

Well, new cable and it's working as master. BIOS detected straight away. Using
cable select jumpering.

 

[Dave]

If it works, why do you think it is a cable problem?

Don't know for sure. Could be combination of cable and drive ? Just tried
a new cable and the BIOS detected it as master straight away. Using cable
select.

 

[Rod Speed]

Well, new cable and it's working as master. BIOS
detected straight away. Using cable select jumpering.

Thanks for the feedback, too rare in my opinion.

Likely the original cable is bad with the cable
select line being the one not making good contact.

It may well have been that all alone, the little prong
things that bite into the ribbon and connect to the
wire can get bent when the cable is made.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Is there another drive on the ribbon
cable too, likely not from the below.


There's three main reasons that you get that result.

The most common one is using a modern 80 wire ribbon cable,
and using the middle connector for the drive.

Some motherboards dont handle that very well,

basically assuming cable select is used

as if it would make any difference

even when the drive is jumpered using the master and slave jumpers.

Bare nonsense.
If they were expecting (rather than assuming) cable
select, they would issue an error message to that effect.
Cable select is just a grounded line on the end connector and open
on the middle connector. Bios can query the drive whether it is
using M/S or CS for setting drive ID.
But obviously in that case it can address the drive already.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Well, new cable and it's working as master. BIOS
detected straight away. Using cable select jumpering.

Thanks for the feedback, too rare in my opinion.

Likely the original cable is bad with the cable
select line being the one not making good contact.[/QUOTE]

Doesn't explain why the drive didn't want to play while not using
CS at all.

A CS line not making good contact just gives you either M
or S, depending on the exact moment the drive looks at it
at initialization time. After that it doesn't matter.

 

[Rod Speed]

Doesn't explain why the drive didn't want to play while not using CS at all.

Corse it does.

A CS line not making good contact just gives
you either M or S, depending on the exact
moment the drive looks at it at initialization time.

Its more complicated than that.

 

[Rod Speed]

as if it would make any difference

Corse it does.

Bare nonsense.

We'll see...

If they were expecting (rather than assuming) cable
select, they would issue an error message to that effect.
Wrong.

Cable select is just a grounded line on the
end connector and open on the middle connector.
Duh.

Bios can query the drive whether it is
using M/S or CS for setting drive ID.

But obviously in that case it can address the drive already.

Have fun explaining the fact that a new cable fixed the problem.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Corse it does.



We'll see...

Oh yeah? Any time soon?

Duh.

Yup, Duh.
So obviously no logic on the part of the hostbus adapter involved,
as you appear to imply. No difference in behaviour other than
bios routines looking for telltale signs on the drive themselves.
It would be quite foolish to look for a M/S setting for the sole
purpose of doing a disappearing act.

Have fun explaining the fact that a new cable fixed the problem.

So it was something else.
A Master checks for a Slave by monitoring some lines (DASP, PIAG)
during initialization. A slave does not.
Defects in those lines are likelier candidates for a Master to fail.

 

[Rod Speed]

Oh yeah? Any time soon?


Yup, Duh.
So obviously no logic on the part of the hostbus adapter involved,
as you appear to imply. No difference in behaviour other than
bios routines looking for telltale signs on the drive themselves.
It would be quite foolish to look for a M/S setting for the sole
purpose of doing a disappearing act.

Have fun explaining the fact that a new cable fixed the problem.

So it was something else.
A Master checks for a Slave by monitoring some lines (DASP, PIAG)
during initialization. A slave does not.
Defects in those lines are likelier candidates for a Master to fail.

Have fun explaining the fact that a new cable fixed the problem.