Home News Reviews Forums Shop


DVD = master or slave?

CPU's? Motherboards? Video cards? Talk about it here.

DVD = master or slave?

Postby Big_H on Wed Apr 16, 2003 9:09 pm

Currently I have my RW drive as master and my (broken) DVD as slave. My new DVD is in the mail, and I was wondering if it mattered which went where.
The drive set to master will be my primary drive (for everything but burning/DVD) because it's on top :) and I play a lot of "back up" game disks, does any of this matter? Or can I just stick which ever one on top.

If I use one drive all the time for normal use, will it eventually degrade it's performance at it's intended use? Meaning, if I use my DVD for everything, will it degrade DVD playback?

Thanks.
Big_H
Buffer Underrun
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2003 4:15 am

Postby BuddhaTB on Wed Apr 16, 2003 9:21 pm

Keep your CD-RW drive as the master and the DVD as the slave drive. The CD-RW drive will be better for playing backed-up games.
User avatar
BuddhaTB
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 1865
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 8:50 pm
Location: Southern California (LA & Orange County)

Postby CDRecorder on Thu Apr 17, 2003 1:02 am

Unless you are having problems, keep the CD-RW as master. I keep my CD-RW as master and my CD-ROM as slave in my main desktop PC. It works fine that way.

AFAIK, using the DVD for everything won't degrade its DVD playback. Sure, that will cause it to wear out faster, but using the CD-RW for everything will cause it to wear out faster, too, and the MTBF of the DVD is probably higher than that of the CD-RW, meaning that the DVD will last longer.
CDRecorder
CD-RW Recorder
 
Posts: 2335
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 9:28 pm

Postby blakerwry on Sat Apr 26, 2003 4:30 am

just to point out. The name master and slave in the PC world do not carry the same conotation that the words have in the English language.

It would be better to just list them A and B. e.g. channel1:A, channel1:B... or using numbers channel1:0, channel1:1.

The master drive and slave drive on the same channel (cable) have exactly equal priority as eachother and it will not matter (speed wise) either way.

The only problems you might run into are extremely poorly designed drives that simply wont work correctly as master or as slave or don't work well in combination with other drives.
User avatar
blakerwry
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 5:45 pm

Postby Wedge Maniac on Sat Apr 26, 2003 1:47 pm

blakerwry wrote:The master drive and slave drive on the same channel (cable) have exactly equal priority as eachother and it will not matter (speed wise) either way.


Cool info, I did not know that. I thought that the master carried higher priority which meant (to me) that if both drives were in use at the same time, the master would get more bandwith? (not sure if bandwidth is the right word but I think you understand that I mean faster)

Thanks blakerwry :)
Wedge Maniac
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 8:56 am
Location: US

Postby CDRecorder on Sat Apr 26, 2003 3:59 pm

Wedge Maniac wrote:
blakerwry wrote:The master drive and slave drive on the same channel (cable) have exactly equal priority as eachother and it will not matter (speed wise) either way.


Cool info, I did not know that. I thought that the master carried higher priority which meant (to me) that if both drives were in use at the same time, the master would get more bandwith? (not sure if bandwidth is the right word but I think you understand that I mean faster)

Thanks blakerwry :)


Yes, thanks! I had thought (and even gotten the impression from a manual) that the master got more bandwidth.
CDRecorder
CD-RW Recorder
 
Posts: 2335
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 9:28 pm

Postby CowboySlim on Sat Apr 26, 2003 10:06 pm

Yes, thanks! I had thought (and even gotten the impression from a manual) that the master got more bandwidth.


I think that the advice to jumper the faster of the two on the same IDE channel the master and the slower the slave was true in the past. However, for any drive purchased in the last year, or so, I don't think that it makes a difference. But that is in respect to overall data transfer speed. If you want to make your HDD a slave, it's best to go into your BIOS and reconfigure your boot sequence from the default.

Slim
User avatar
CowboySlim
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2003 3:58 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA

Postby Inertia on Sun Apr 27, 2003 12:33 am

CowboySlim wrote: I think that the advice to jumper the faster of the two on the same IDE channel the master and the slower the slave was true in the past. However, for any drive purchased in the last year, or so, I don't think that it makes a difference. But that is in respect to overall data transfer speed.


This was never true, per se, and nothing has changed in this regard in the last year or so. The reason that this view has been mistakenly adopted is because the hard drive always boots from the C: drive, which is normally recognized by the BIOS as the master on the primary channel. As such, it makes sense to have the fastest drive as the boot drive, which in this case would be the primary master. As blakerwry stated, there is no inherent difference in the speed capability of master or slave. In the ATA standards the master is usually just "drive 0" and the slave "drive 1".

If you want to make your HDD a slave, it's best to go into your BIOS and reconfigure your boot sequence from the default.


Older motherboard BIOS'es won't boot hard drives from motherboard IDE connections unless they are set as primary master. Newer motherboard BIOS'es may offer an option to change the drive location of the boot (C:) drive. If the choice is made to boot from a separate RAID or other supplementary IDE controller with a separate BIOS, there frequently is an option in that BIOS for the boot drive (still C:) to be either a master or a slave drive on either a primary or secondary channel of the additional controller.

Edited for improved accuracy.
Last edited by Inertia on Mon Apr 28, 2003 6:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Inertia
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Sun May 19, 2002 5:22 pm

Postby blakerwry on Sun Apr 27, 2003 6:47 am

Most motherboard BIOS'es won't boot hard drives from motherboard IDE connections unless they are set as primary master. Some newer motherboard BIOS'es may offer an option to change the drive location of the boot (C:) drive. If the choice is made to boot from a separate RAID or other supplementary IDE controller with a separate BIOS, there frequently is an option in that BIOS for the boot drive (still C:) to be either a master or a slave drive on either a primary or secondary channel of the additional controller.



I'm not sure when this changed.. I think around socket 7(pentium/MMX) they started making BIOSs smarter and you could change the boot order to allow you to check for a boot record from any drive on an onboard IDE controller... Add-in IDE controllers usually have an option in their BIOS to boot from a specific drive, but sometimes a motherboard can basically search every drive on a controller for one with a boot record (This would probably be a pII or higher machine)
User avatar
blakerwry
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 5:45 pm

Postby CDRecorder on Sun Apr 27, 2003 9:42 am

What I mentioned earlier was that the Creative Labs manual for my 12x10x32x drive said that it was best to connect the CD-RW as master and the CD-ROM as slave, if applicable. I must have thought this was so that the CD-RW would get more bandwidth, and I have done it this way since then.
CDRecorder
CD-RW Recorder
 
Posts: 2335
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 9:28 pm

Postby CowboySlim on Mon Apr 28, 2003 12:40 am

I dunno', I just do the F2 deal on boot and then rearrange the boot sequence from primary to secondary HDD or optical as I see fit. I guess it doesn't work. :x

Hallucinateingly yours,
Slim
User avatar
CowboySlim
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2003 3:58 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA

Postby Inertia on Mon Apr 28, 2003 6:08 pm

CowboySlim,

Your original comment about reconfiguring the boot sequence was correct and needed no misleading comment from me. :wink:
Inertia
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Sun May 19, 2002 5:22 pm

Postby CowboySlim on Mon Apr 28, 2003 10:32 pm

No worries, Inertia, :D

But check my next post concerning that thermal goop!

Slim
User avatar
CowboySlim
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2003 3:58 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA


Return to General Hardware Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

All Content is Copyright (c) 2001-2017 CDRLabs Inc.