IDE - must a slave have a master?

[David Cook]

I just built a new machine. I bought the box and power-supply
first, and added in the CDROM/DVD drive, with it configured
as IDE 'slave'. (I did that because I planned to get an IDE hard-drive
and set it as 'master'.)

Long story short, I changed my mind near the end and bought a
'sata' drive instead of the more-common 'IDE' drive.

So, now everything is in place. (All set up, dual-booting Win-XP-Pro
and Linux.) Everything appears to work as expected.

However, then I happened to notice: Hmmm...I now have ONLY
a slave (i.e. the CDROM/DVD drive) on the 1st IDE channel.
(The 'sata' has it's own special-channel...with the red-data cable, right?)

So, does my present configuration meet 'spec'...or in other words, does
it meet common practices and guidelines?

Or, should I go back and move the jumper on the CDROM from 'slave'
over to 'master'?

TIA...

Dave

 

[Grinder]

I just built a new machine. I bought the box and power-supply
first, and added in the CDROM/DVD drive, with it configured
as IDE 'slave'. (I did that because I planned to get an IDE hard-drive
and set it as 'master'.)

Long story short, I changed my mind near the end and bought a
'sata' drive instead of the more-common 'IDE' drive.

So, now everything is in place. (All set up, dual-booting Win-XP-Pro
and Linux.) Everything appears to work as expected.

However, then I happened to notice: Hmmm...I now have ONLY
a slave (i.e. the CDROM/DVD drive) on the 1st IDE channel.
(The 'sata' has it's own special-channel...with the red-data cable, right?)

So, does my present configuration meet 'spec'...or in other words, does
it meet common practices and guidelines?
Nope.

Or, should I go back and move the jumper on the CDROM from 'slave'
over to 'master'?

Yes.

I'm surprised it works in your current configuration.

 

[DaveW]

The CDROM is alone on the IDE channel and is therefore by definition a
Master. Change it.

 

[Mike Walsh]

I just built a new machine. I bought the box and power-supply
first, and added in the CDROM/DVD drive, with it configured
as IDE 'slave'. (I did that because I planned to get an IDE hard-drive
and set it as 'master'.)

Long story short, I changed my mind near the end and bought a
'sata' drive instead of the more-common 'IDE' drive.

So, now everything is in place. (All set up, dual-booting Win-XP-Pro
and Linux.) Everything appears to work as expected.

However, then I happened to notice: Hmmm...I now have ONLY
a slave (i.e. the CDROM/DVD drive) on the 1st IDE channel.
(The 'sata' has it's own special-channel...with the red-data cable, right?)

So, does my present configuration meet 'spec'...or in other words, does
it meet common practices and guidelines?
No

Or, should I go back and move the jumper on the CDROM from 'slave'
over to 'master'?

Long ago (in computer time) a boot device had to be master. It is still common practice to make a single device on an IDE cable master but, as you have discovered, it is usually not necessary.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

However, then I happened to notice: Hmmm...I now have ONLY
a slave (i.e. the CDROM/DVD drive) on the 1st IDE channel.
(The 'sata' has it's own special-channel...with the red-data cable, right?)

So, does my present configuration meet 'spec'...or in other words, does
it meet common practices and guidelines?

Or, should I go back and move the jumper on the CDROM from 'slave'
over to 'master'?

"Common practices and guidelines" are obsolete and have become
Urban Myth. The truth is that jumpering affects only the default boot
order on a P-ATA IDE channel, and its purpose for the IDE channel
controller is to be able to differentiate between the two devices on the
same cable.. It has no other effect. Specifically, for one device on an
IDE channel, it matters not a whit whether it's jumpered as Master or
Slave. But that one device should be put on the end connector of a
2-device cable to avoid confusing the controller and/or device with
signal reflections from the otherwise open circuit at the unused end
connector.

*TimDaniels*