You're right, of course. Thanks for correcting me, Jeff. 2006-02-14 (火) の 20:59 -0600 に Jeff Vian さんは書きました: > On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 10:54 +0900, Joel Rees wrote: > > 2006-02-14 (火) の 22:34 +1030 に Tim さんは書きました: > > > On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 11:34 +0900, Joel Rees wrote: > > > > The people that sold me the box and the controllers were pleased that > > > > I didn't have any particular problems using the slave interface on > > > > that particular motherboard. (They had specifically warned me that > > > > there would be no guarantees on it.) > > > > > > Just to be clear, a slave drive is on on the same cable as another > > > (master) drive. If you have two IDE ports on the interface one isn't a > > > master and the other slave, it's just two ports. > > > > Yeah, my post wasn't very clear. Two channels per controller, > > master/slave device per channel, master device should be on the > > connector closest to the controller because of noise issues and that's > > why some half-bright got the idea that it should just be left up to > > cable select anyway, ... > > > NOTE: If you have a CS cable putting the master in the middle probably > will not work. The CS cable has the master connector at the end and the > slave in the middle. > > I have always been told (even in hardware schooling) that you should > always have a device at the cable end to prevent 'ringing' and noise > caused by signal reflection from an unterminated cable end. This is > mandatory on SCSI and highly recommended on IDE cabling. (it is > sometimes unnecessary, not because the problem does not exist, but > because the data transfer is so [relatively] slow that some interference > does not impact performance seem by the user). > I never install a single device on a cable unless it is connected to the > end of the cable. This by default makes the single device the master, > and thus implies a reason for putting the master connector at the end of > the cable. > > > And it's no surprise that it sometimes "just works" for some people, and > > sometimes just can't be made to do what you really wanted it to do. > > > > ATA confuses me. It irks me no end that ATA has become mainstream, while > > SCSI gets no respect. > > SCSI gets a lot of respect. It also costs a lot more $ than IDE/ATA so > it is harder to get the home user to justify the extra expense. > > > > > To say what I meant to say, I removed the _second_ controller card (not > > slave controller or whatever it was I said) and have both drives on the > > mobo's controller's primary channel, with the CD drive all by itself on > > the secondary channel (pretending to the BIOS that it's SCSI no less). > > Grub is on the drive on the "master" connector (closest to the > > controller on the cable, strapped CS), along with FC3, and two BSDs. The > > drive connected to the slave controller (which is actually there to be a > > spare because I don't trust ATA drives) has another BSD and sometimes > > other Linux on it. > > > > I had planned to spread swap across the two drives, in BIOS-level > > partitions shared by all OSses, and I will probably do so when I put the > > other controller back in. But for now, keeping all of my partitions for > > each OS on the drive that OS resides on allows it to "just" (ahem) work. > > (Yeah, right. It doesn't do what I really most wanted it to do, didn't > > get some important jobs done, but it's useable, just. Hey, Netbeans runs > > fine on it. I'll probably end up plugging a TV card in it and using it > > instead of the TVs that keep dying on us.) > > > > Sigh. I've forgotten why I bothered posting that. (And I don't think I > > want to remember.) Sorry for the noise. > > > > >
