On Thursday 05 June 2008 17:55:23 Kirk Bocek wrote:
> William L. Maltby wrote:
> > It's not truly any relationship like that. It's just (in the old days) a
> > device ID selected on the cable by jumpers on the drive. The "control"
> > is nothing more than the IDE controller selecting either "0" or "1"
> > device ID for commands and data. The drive with the matching ID responds
> > while the other ignores.
> >
> > In todays world, cable select might provide the ID assignment.
> >
> > I'm not sure how "master" and "slave" came to be used in this scenario,
> > unless it had to do with BIOS boot processes back in the old days.
>
> Well, right you are. Scroll down to "Master and Slave Clarification":
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Drive_Electronics
>
> I had been laboring under the impression that the 'master' drive controlled
> both drives on a single cable. Now I've learned the truth just in time for
> SATA to take over. :)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Hi kirk
Better late than never ;-) I got a draw full of old 10 - 40 Gb IDE hard drives
and 4 old boxes with 333 - 550mhz cpu's. I'm never board. Got one with an old
scsi sheet feed scanner. and isa modem set up as a fax / answer machine
connected to my phone line at home. All bits begged or borrowed!
John
--
Guy Fawkes, the only man to enter the house's of Parliament
with honest intentions, (he was going to blow them up!)
Registered Linux user number 414240
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
