On Saturday 29 November 2003 11:27 pm, Pete Nesbitt wrote:
> On November 28, 2003 04:07 pm, Reuben D. Budiardja wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > Is it true that secondary IDE is slower than Primary? <snip>
> > Anything that I might overlook? Any info is greatly appreciated.
> >
> > RDB
>
> Hi Reuben,
> There is no reason the secondary controller would be any slower, if they
> are both the same. I have seen board where the primary controller supported
> EIDE or ATA but the secondary only supported regular IDE. You could see if
> the cable is a 40 or 80 wire (I think all the ata66 and higher use the 80
> wire cables). Is it the master or single drive on the chain?
>
> Presuming it is not using a regular older IDE cable like the one the CD
> would have been using, you should take the new drive, and mount it in
> place of where your 80 GB is on the other machine. It may be a cabling
> issue or a bad controller. The best way to test hardware, except power
> supplies, is to put the suspect part into a known good environment. that
> should give you some definitive information. If the drive is good, try
> swapping the cables onto the good machine.
OK, I'll try this at some point. it's a little hard now because the machine
with the 80GB is one of our database development machine.
What I wanted to try is to put the new HD in primary IDE, put back the CD-ROM
drive, boot from RH CD as rescue mode and test the drive from there. That'll
probably tell me something.
Thanks for all the suggestions.
RDB
--
Reuben D. Budiardja
Department of Physics and Astronomy
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN
---------------------------------------------------------
"To be a nemesis, you have to actively try to destroy
something, don't you? Really, I'm not out to destroy
Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional
side effect."
- Linus Torvalds -
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
