IDE master / Slave Question

I bought a Maxtor 120 gig drive last weekend to add to my system, which
previously had 2 20 gig drives. I intended to make the Maxtor the main
drive, holding programs and data, and have the two 20's for data drives.
Problem - the Maxblast software could not successfully copy my old C:
partition. Even the newest version from Maxtor's site would complete the
transfer OK, but then the system would not boot off the new drive.

I don't have time for now to reinstall everything onto the new drive, so I
just set it up as a slave to the old one and bumped my other 20 gig drive
onto the second IDE channel.

So now I have the Maxtor 6Y120PO Slaved to my old Quantum Fireball LM 20.5.
The other 20 gig drive (Maxtor 52049U4) is the master on the second channel,
with a CDR drive as slave.

Is there any inherent problem with this configuration? I know that you are
always supposed to put the newest drive as the master, but this arrangement
actually works fine for me. My programs take up only 8 gigs on the C:
drive, the large drive (D is strictly a data drive (and that is where I
have need for the large storage capacity.)

TIA -

MCC

If you need to access two drives concurrently, you need to put them on
separate channels. From your description, I get the impression that you
need to access your old system drive and your new large data drive
concurrently. If that's the case, I would put them on separate
channels, for example the system drive on primary master, and the data
drive on secondary master.

Regarding not being able to boot off the new drive after copying the old
system partition to the new drive using MaxBlast, my guess is maybe
Maxblast did not copy over the MBR for you. Try booting off of the
Windows installation disk, go to repair console, and do "fixmbr". See
if you can now boot from that disk.

Cheers,
Dave




MC wrote:
I bought a Maxtor 120 gig drive last weekend to add to my system, which
previously had 2 20 gig drives. I intended to make the Maxtor the main
drive, holding programs and data, and have the two 20's for data drives.
Problem - the Maxblast software could not successfully copy my old C:
partition. Even the newest version from Maxtor's site would complete the
transfer OK, but then the system would not boot off the new drive.

I don't have time for now to reinstall everything onto the new drive, so I
just set it up as a slave to the old one and bumped my other 20 gig drive
onto the second IDE channel.

So now I have the Maxtor 6Y120PO Slaved to my old Quantum Fireball LM 20.5.
The other 20 gig drive (Maxtor 52049U4) is the master on the second channel,
with a CDR drive as slave.

Is there any inherent problem with this configuration? I know that you are
always supposed to put the newest drive as the master, but this arrangement
actually works fine for me. My programs take up only 8 gigs on the C:
drive, the large drive (D is strictly a data drive (and that is where I
have need for the large storage capacity.)

TIA -

MCC

MC wrote in message
...

I bought a Maxtor 120 gig drive last weekend to add to my system, which
previously had 2 20 gig drives. I intended to make the Maxtor the main
drive, holding programs and data, and have the two 20's for data drives.

Thats generally the best approach with that collection of drives,
just because the new drive will normally be quite a bit faster.

Problem - the Maxblast software could not successfully copy my old C:
partition. Even the newest version from Maxtor's site would complete
the transfer OK, but then the system would not boot off the new drive.

Yeah, those hard drive manufacturer's utes arent that great.

You dont say what OS you are using. xxcopy, not the
standard xcopy, should work fine for all except XP.

Ghost and Drive Image will work, but they arent free.

I don't have time for now to reinstall everything onto the
new drive, so I just set it up as a slave to the old one and
bumped my other 20 gig drive onto the second IDE channel.

Reasonable approach.

So now I have the Maxtor 6Y120PO Slaved to my old Quantum
Fireball LM 20.5. The other 20 gig drive (Maxtor 52049U4) is the
master on the second channel, with a CDR drive as slave.

Is there any inherent problem with this configuration?

Nope, it'll work fine.

I know that you are always supposed to put the newest drive
as the master, but this arrangement actually works fine for me.

You'll find its noticeably faster with the 120GB drive as the C

My programs take up only 8 gigs on the C: drive,
the large drive (D is strictly a data drive (and that
is where I have need for the large storage capacity.)

Sure, but its generally better to have just one
120GB C drive with almost everything on it.

Get hold of a copy of Norton Ghost (not free) and do a "DISK to DISK" copy.

I think you will find it's worth the effort, as the new 120GB drive is
likely to be much faster than the old 20GB drive.


"MC" wrote in message
...
I bought a Maxtor 120 gig drive last weekend to add to my system, which
previously had 2 20 gig drives. I intended to make the Maxtor the main
drive, holding programs and data, and have the two 20's for data drives.
Problem - the Maxblast software could not successfully copy my old C:
partition. Even the newest version from Maxtor's site would complete the
transfer OK, but then the system would not boot off the new drive.

I don't have time for now to reinstall everything onto the new drive, so I
just set it up as a slave to the old one and bumped my other 20 gig drive
onto the second IDE channel.

So now I have the Maxtor 6Y120PO Slaved to my old Quantum Fireball LM
20.5.
The other 20 gig drive (Maxtor 52049U4) is the master on the second
channel,
with a CDR drive as slave.

Is there any inherent problem with this configuration? I know that you
are
always supposed to put the newest drive as the master, but this
arrangement
actually works fine for me. My programs take up only 8 gigs on the C:
drive, the large drive (D is strictly a data drive (and that is where I
have need for the large storage capacity.)

TIA -

MCC

In , Dave Hau wrote:
If you need to access two drives concurrently, you need to put them on
separate channels.

For concurrent read access, yes.

From your description, I get the impression that you
need to access your old system drive and your new large data drive
concurrently. If that's the case, I would put them on separate
channels, for example the system drive on primary master, and the data
drive on secondary master.

Regarding not being able to boot off the new drive after copying the old
system partition to the new drive using MaxBlast, my guess is maybe
Maxblast did not copy over the MBR for you. Try booting off of the
Windows installation disk, go to repair console, and do "fixmbr". See
if you can now boot from that disk.

Cheers,
Dave




MC wrote:
I bought a Maxtor 120 gig drive last weekend to add to my system, which
previously had 2 20 gig drives. I intended to make the Maxtor the main
drive, holding programs and data, and have the two 20's for data drives.
Problem - the Maxblast software could not successfully copy my old C:
partition. Even the newest version from Maxtor's site would complete the
transfer OK, but then the system would not boot off the new drive.

I don't have time for now to reinstall everything onto the new drive, so I
just set it up as a slave to the old one and bumped my other 20 gig drive
onto the second IDE channel.

So now I have the Maxtor 6Y120PO Slaved to my old Quantum Fireball LM 20.5.
The other 20 gig drive (Maxtor 52049U4) is the master on the second channel,
with a CDR drive as slave.

Is there any inherent problem with this configuration? I know that you are
always supposed to put the newest drive as the master, but this arrangement
actually works fine for me. My programs take up only 8 gigs on the C:
drive, the large drive (D is strictly a data drive (and that is where I
have need for the large storage capacity.)

TIA -

MCC

"Dave Hau" wrote in message
...
If you need to access two drives concurrently, you need to put them on
separate channels. From your description, I get the impression that you
need to access your old system drive and your new large data drive
concurrently. If that's the case, I would put them on separate
channels, for example the system drive on primary master, and the data
drive on secondary master.

Thanks - that sounds like a good idea. It seems like that would also solve
the speed problem related to having the new drive slaved to the old, at
least re teh new drive.


Regarding not being able to boot off the new drive after copying the old
system partition to the new drive using MaxBlast, my guess is maybe
Maxblast did not copy over the MBR for you. Try booting off of the
Windows installation disk, go to repair console, and do "fixmbr". See
if you can now boot from that disk.

I think the problem with the system transfer is more extensive than that. I
tried several times - the older Maxblast would just abort with an error. The
new version of the software would complete the transfer without incident.
The first time it completed this I could boot my system, but the user
settings were all messed up - Win XP came up like a brand new install,
re-initialized itself, and about halft my apps and personal settings were
gone. The second and htird times Win Xp woudl start to boot and then crash
due to missing files. After the third try I ran chkdsk and wound up with
abut 4 gigs of files in the Found folder. At that point I decided I could
not trust the software to the system.

Thanks - I'll switch the drive onto the other channel till I get a chance to
re-install.

- MCC

"John" wrote in message
u...

Get hold of a copy of Norton Ghost (not free) and do a "DISK to DISK"
copy.

I think you will find it's worth the effort, as the new 120GB drive is
likely to be much faster than the old 20GB drive.

Hmmm - I have an older version of Ghost on a Norton System Works 2000 CD. I
had to uninstall it when I went to Win-Xp. If I recall correctly, Ghost can
be run from the DOS prompt. Maybe I can get it to work by booting off a
Win98 boot disk and running Ghost from the command prompt. The second drive
is formatted a NTFS though.

Thanks for the suggestion -

MCC

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 09:09:16 -0400
"MC" wrote:


"John" wrote in message
u...

Get hold of a copy of Norton Ghost (not free) and do a "DISK to
DISK"
copy.

I think you will find it's worth the effort, as the new 120GB drive
is likely to be much faster than the old 20GB drive.

Hmmm - I have an older version of Ghost on a Norton System Works 2000
CD. I had to uninstall it when I went to Win-Xp. If I recall
correctly, Ghost can be run from the DOS prompt. Maybe I can get it to
work by booting off a Win98 boot disk and running Ghost from the
command prompt. The second drive is formatted a NTFS though.

Thanks for the suggestion -

Get the current version. Microsoft is still tweaking NTFS and something
that worked for 2K may not reliably transfer XP due to the tweaks.

MCC

--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"MC" wrote in message
...

"John" wrote in message
u...

Get hold of a copy of Norton Ghost (not free) and do a "DISK to DISK"
copy.

I think you will find it's worth the effort, as the new 120GB drive is
likely to be much faster than the old 20GB drive.

Hmmm - I have an older version of Ghost on a Norton System Works 2000 CD.
I
had to uninstall it when I went to Win-Xp. If I recall correctly, Ghost
can
be run from the DOS prompt. Maybe I can get it to work by booting off a
Win98 boot disk and running Ghost from the command prompt. The second
drive
is formatted a NTFS though.

Thanks for the suggestion -

MCC



Yep. Ghost runs fine if you boot from a Win98 floppy. Then insert the Ghost
floppy.

The older versions of Ghost might not copy XP partitions properly.

MC wrote in message
...
Dave Hau wrote

If you need to access two drives concurrently, you need to put
them on separate channels. From your description, I get the
impression that you need to access your old system drive and
your new large data drive concurrently. If that's the case, I would
put them on separate channels, for example the system drive
on primary master, and the data drive on secondary master.

Thanks - that sounds like a good idea.

I bet you wouldnt be able to pick it in a double blind trial without using a
benchmark or diagnostic. And most dont copy between drives that much.

The only time you are likely to notice anything is if you
image one of the 20GB drives to the new 120GB drive.

It seems like that would also solve the speed problem related
to having the new drive slaved to the old, at least re teh new drive.

Nope, that doesnt happen. The new drive will operate at the same speed
regardless of whether its master or slave, or the only drive on a particular cable.

Regarding not being able to boot off the new drive after copying
the old system partition to the new drive using MaxBlast, my guess
is maybe Maxblast did not copy over the MBR for you. Try booting
off of the Windows installation disk, go to repair console, and do
"fixmbr". See if you can now boot from that disk.

I think the problem with the system transfer is more extensive than that.

Yeah, looks like it.

I tried several times - the older Maxblast would just abort with an error.
The new version of the software would complete the transfer without
incident. The first time it completed this I could boot my system, but the
user settings were all messed up - Win XP came up like a brand new install,
re-initialized itself, and about halft my apps and personal settings were gone.

Urk.

The second and htird times Win Xp woudl start to boot and then
crash due to missing files. After the third try I ran chkdsk and
wound up with abut 4 gigs of files in the Found folder. At that
point I decided I could not trust the software to the system.

Yeah, its obviously making a complete hash of the copy.

Ghost or Drive Image will do it fine, but they aint free.

Thanks - I'll switch the drive onto the other
channel till I get a chance to re-install.

No point if its only short term.

And you might decide to buy Ghost or
Drive Image instead of doing a reinstall.