Boot off SATA with ATA disk + other SATA disk present?

[Guest]

(sorry for the xposting...)

I currently have the following setup:
- IBM ATA100 30GB as drive 0 / boot disk (primary IDE master)
- Seagate ATA100 80GB as drive 1 (primary IDE slave)
- Plextor DVD burner as secondary IDE master
- Seagate SATA 120GB

hooked off an Asus A7V600 mobo

The IBM (boot) disk is slowly but surely going south, I'll have to replace
it in the coming weeks.

Can I replace it with a SATA disk, keeping the existing Seagate ATA100 disk
and the other SATA disk, and boot off the new SATA disk? (if not I have two
possibilities IMHO: get rid of the Seagate ATA disk; replace the IBM disk
with an ATA disk)

How? (BIOS settings...)

If yes, would I be able to boot MS-DOS and/or Win9x with C: on the new SATA
disk?

For more detail: the IBM disk has C: (boot) D: (Windows XP Pro SP2 system
partition, incl. pagefile) and some data partitions; the Seagate ATA disk
has G: (Program Files for XP Pro) and some data partitions. I plan to
recreate the partitions that exist on the IBM disk and clone them onto the
new disk.

TIA for any help / clues.

 

[name]

(sorry for the xposting...)

I currently have the following setup:
- IBM ATA100 30GB as drive 0 / boot disk (primary IDE master)
- Seagate ATA100 80GB as drive 1 (primary IDE slave)
- Plextor DVD burner as secondary IDE master
- Seagate SATA 120GB

hooked off an Asus A7V600 mobo

The IBM (boot) disk is slowly but surely going south, I'll have to replace
it in the coming weeks.

Can I replace it with a SATA disk, keeping the existing Seagate ATA100
disk and the other SATA disk, and boot off the new SATA disk? (if not I
have two possibilities IMHO: get rid of the Seagate ATA disk; replace the
IBM disk with an ATA disk)

How? (BIOS settings...)

If yes, would I be able to boot MS-DOS and/or Win9x with C: on the new
SATA disk?

For more detail: the IBM disk has C: (boot) D: (Windows XP Pro SP2 system
partition, incl. pagefile) and some data partitions; the Seagate ATA disk
has G: (Program Files for XP Pro) and some data partitions. I plan to
recreate the partitions that exist on the IBM disk and clone them onto the
new disk.

TIA for any help / clues.

I had a similar setup on a A8N-E. I disconnected all the HDDs, except for
the SATA drive I wanted to boot from, then installed the OS, drivers,
etc..., then reconnected the other drives and no problem.
That was with XP, I don't know about DOS or Win9x.

HTH,
john

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

I had a similar setup on a A8N-E. I disconnected all the HDDs, except for

the SATA drive I wanted to boot from, then installed the OS, drivers,
etc..., then reconnected the other drives and no problem.

Have a large experience on reinstalling Windows on multi-physical-disk machines
(SCSI included).

All is fine in these cases. The existing volumes are alive and visible in the
new reinstalled Windows automatically - with random drive letters though (can
be changed).

Be sure you understand well the SATA mappings on your mobo. On Asus mobos like
P5P800 (i865PE chipset, P4-Prescott CPU and AGP) the 2 SATA outlets are either
mapped to the 3rd host controller Primary Master and Secondary Master, or as
Secondary Master and Secondary Slave to the second PATA controller (secondary
PATA itself is disabled).

The latter mode is slow (disks are inter-dependent on each other on ATA
register pool and cannot run IO in parallel) but requires no drivers and runs
on MS-DOS+BIOS.

The former mode is better, but require the drivers, which are automatically
provided by XP and later, but not by w2k.

I would not install any vendor's drivers for ATA controller anyway, provided
the MS's out-of-the-box drivers are running OK in terms of performance and CPU
load. MS has (with XP SP2 at least) the out-of-the-box drivers for the majority
of modern hardware (at least for SATA facilities in Intel chipsets).

As about UNIXen - their installation only touch the disk you have selected
(must be a primary boot disk in BIOS I think) and does not touches any other
disks at all. You will need to add /etc/fstab entries manually letter to see
their filesystems in UNIX.

 

[Stephane Barizien]

Thx for your detailed reply.

Have a large experience on reinstalling Windows on
multi-physical-disk machines (SCSI included).

Same for me... though you probably would have sped up the nightmare I had
when adding an IDE disk to a single-SCSI-disk W2K machine, and wanted to
keep booting off the SCSI disk where the OS and apps reside... Finally made
it by doing a temp install of W2K on the IDE disk, then playing around with
BOOT.INI...

All is fine in these cases. The existing volumes are alive and
visible in the new reinstalled Windows automatically - with random
drive letters though (can be changed).

I don't plan to reinstall Windows, just copy it to the new disk. That's
tricky but I have always done it this way when upgrading to new (typically:
larger) disks.

The drive letter mapping issue can be solved from disk manager and/or by
editing the registry from another "temporary" Windows XP installation.

Be sure you understand well the SATA mappings on your mobo. On Asus
mobos like P5P800 (i865PE chipset, P4-Prescott CPU and AGP) the 2
SATA outlets are either mapped to the 3rd host controller Primary
Master and Secondary Master, or as Secondary Master and Secondary
Slave to the second PATA controller (secondary PATA itself is
disabled).

The latter mode is slow (disks are inter-dependent on each other on
ATA register pool and cannot run IO in parallel) but requires no
drivers and runs on MS-DOS+BIOS.

Today my "data" SATA disk is probably seen as Primary Master on the 3rd
controller, given that the 1st and 2nd [PATA] controllers *are* in use.

Anyway I only rarely boot MS-DOS, usually to run some of the very old kids'
games....

What I understand from your explanation is that:
- if both PATA controllers are enabled, the mapping is:
Controller #0 = first PATA aka Primary, Master [today: my IBM disk] + Slave
[today: my Seagate ATA100 disk]
Controller #1 = second PATA aka Secondary, Master [today: my DVD burner] +
Slave [today: nothing]
Controller #2 = 1st SATA [today: my Seagate SATA disk] , 2nd SATA [today:
nothing]

(I think I'll have to get my hands on the chipset's docs...)

- if the second PATA controller is disabled, the mapping is:
Controller #0= first PATA, Master + Slave (used for BIOS boot -- unless the
BIOS and OS both support booting off something else than drive 0x80...)
Controller #1 = SATA, Primary Master [today: my Seagate SATA disk] +
Secondary Master [today: nothing] -- SATA runs in compatibility mode

What you don't describe is what happens if you disable the *first* PATA
controller. Do we get:

Controller #0= second PATA, Master + Slave
Controller #1 = SATA
or

Controller #0 = SATA
Controller #1= second PATA, Master + Slave

?

I'm kinda lost: I know booting off SATA is supported (the BIOS uses AFAIK
"compatibility" mode and then the OS switches the SATA controller to
"native" mode). What I don't know is whether the BIOS can be told to map the
SATA controller to be "ahead" of any non-disabled ATA controller(s)...

The former mode is better, but require the drivers, which are
automatically provided by XP and later, but not by w2k.

I know.

I would not install any vendor's drivers for ATA controller anyway,
provided the MS's out-of-the-box drivers are running OK in terms of
performance and CPU load. MS has (with XP SP2 at least) the
out-of-the-box drivers for the majority of modern hardware (at least
for SATA facilities in Intel chipsets).

I've had lockup issues (typically when writing to the SATA disk) in the past
that got solved by installing the latest VIA drivers for both the IDE (PATA)
and SATA "parts of the chipset"

As about UNIXen - their installation only touch the disk you have
selected (must be a primary boot disk in BIOS I think) and does not
touches any other disks at all. You will need to add /etc/fstab
entries manually letter to see their filesystems in UNIX.

Thx for the input, though I don't plan (yet) to install *nix on that
machine...

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

Same for me... though you probably would have sped up the nightmare I had

when adding an IDE disk to a single-SCSI-disk W2K machine, and wanted to
keep booting off the SCSI disk where the OS and apps reside...

BIOS boot order setting. All BIOSes known to me from Pentium-3 up support this.

What I understand from your explanation is that:
- if both PATA controllers are enabled, the mapping is:
Controller #0 = first PATA aka Primary, Master [today: my IBM disk] + Slave
[today: my Seagate ATA100 disk]
Controller #1 = second PATA aka Secondary, Master [today: my DVD burner] +
Slave [today: nothing]
Controller #2 = 1st SATA [today: my Seagate SATA disk] , 2nd SATA [today:
nothing]
Yes.

Controller #1 = SATA, Primary Master [today: my Seagate SATA disk] +
Secondary Master [today: nothing] -- SATA runs in compatibility mode

Yes. The SATA controller is mapped to the task file of 0x170 of the secondary
IDE. If you have 1 SATA device - then fine absolutely, but otherwise 2 SATA
devices will hinder one another.

What you don't describe is what happens if you disable the *first* PATA
controller.

Never tried it.

"native" mode). What I don't know is whether the BIOS can be told to map the
SATA controller to be "ahead" of any non-disabled ATA controller(s)...

Check the boot order BIOS settings.

 

[Stephane Barizien]

BIOS boot order setting. All BIOSes known to me from Pentium-3 up
support this.

Not if the SCSI BIOS is on the SCSI board (typically an Adaptec one in my
history): that add-on BIOS installs its INT13 handler ahead of the mobo's
BIOS's. In these cases, 0x80 is the IDE disk, and 0x81 is the SCSI disk, and
that Dell BIOS doesn't support (do other BIOSes support that?) booting off
0x81

What I understand from your explanation is that:
- if both PATA controllers are enabled, the mapping is:
Controller #0 = first PATA aka Primary, Master [today: my IBM disk]
+ Slave [today: my Seagate ATA100 disk]
Controller #1 = second PATA aka Secondary, Master [today: my DVD
burner] + Slave [today: nothing]
Controller #2 = 1st SATA [today: my Seagate SATA disk] , 2nd SATA
[today: nothing]
Yes.

Controller #1 = SATA, Primary Master [today: my Seagate SATA disk] +
Secondary Master [today: nothing] -- SATA runs in compatibility mode

Yes. The SATA controller is mapped to the task file of 0x170 of the
secondary IDE. If you have 1 SATA device - then fine absolutely, but
otherwise 2 SATA devices will hinder one another.

IOW it's NOT possible to have two SATA disks and one ATA disk, independently
on what you want to boot from?

What about two SATA disks and one non-disk ATA device?

Never tried it.


Check the boot order BIOS settings.

Will sure do it!

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

Not if the SCSI BIOS is on the SCSI board (typically an Adaptec one in my

history): that add-on BIOS installs its INT13 handler ahead of the mobo's
BIOS's.

....and nevertheless, the main BIOS is still able to control the boot order
even in this case.

In these cases, 0x80 is the IDE disk, and 0x81 is the SCSI disk, and
that Dell BIOS doesn't support (do other BIOSes support that?) booting off
0x81

Asus CUSL2 supports this. Asus P5P800 supports this. This is just off-head -
the 2 machines I use everyday.

IOW it's NOT possible to have two SATA disks and one ATA disk, independently
on what you want to boot from?

I have 2 SATA disks and a SCSI disk on one of my machines. The boot order is
controlled from the BIOS (Asus P5P800).

What about two SATA disks and one non-disk ATA device?

CDs are listed separately. More so, subnotebooks can boot off USB CD, even USB
1.x CD.

 

[Stephane Barizien]

...and nevertheless, the main BIOS is still able to control the boot
order even in this case.


Asus CUSL2 supports this. Asus P5P800 supports this. This is just
off-head - the 2 machines I use everyday.

OK, but not with "brand-name PCs"

I have 2 SATA disks and a SCSI disk on one of my machines. The boot
order is controlled from the BIOS (Asus P5P800).

So I completely misunderstood your explanation on what the SATA controller /
devices "replace" when something is disabled...

CDs are listed separately. More so, subnotebooks can boot off USB CD,
even USB
1.x CD.

Any doc / ptrs on all this?

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

Asus CUSL2 supports this. Asus P5P800 supports this. This is just

OK, but not with "brand-name PCs"

With such things, looks like these brand-names are for housewives only they
are also very expensive outside the US.

So I completely misunderstood your explanation on what the SATA controller /
devices "replace" when something is disabled...

In compatibility mode - yes.
In native mode - SATA is 3rd IDE controller on some non-standard ports. This is
not compatible with DOS (DOS will not see SATA) and requires proper drivers (XP
SP2 has some for Intel ICH chips).

Any doc / ptrs on all this?

Asus S200 subnotebook can boot off USB CD. Tried this personally.

 

[Guest]

With such things, looks like these brand-names are for housewives only
they
are also very expensive outside the US.


In compatibility mode - yes.

Sorry for sounding (being?) dumb, but does "yes" mean "yes you completely
misunderstood" or "yes you did understand?"

In native mode - SATA is 3rd IDE controller on some non-standard ports.
This is
not compatible with DOS (DOS will not see SATA) and requires proper
drivers (XP
SP2 has some for Intel ICH chips).

I don't get the relationship between native and controller number

I do understand that for SATA to operate in non-native mode, it has to use
the same register set / IRQ channels / etc. as one of the two standard ATA
channels. This means you cannot have both standard ATA channels *and* SATA
in native mode.

But if you disable either PATA, you should be able to have SATA "take its
place."

If the two SATA devices in compatibility mode are seen as *two* "ATA
channels" (register set etc.) this means you cannot have two SATA devices
*plus* one ATA device, no matter whether this is a disk or a CD/DVD drive...

Can you please shed some more light on this?

Thx a bunch in advance.

By "all this" I meant: the PATA/SATA register set allocation /
enabling/disabling / substitution / compatibility vs. native...

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

I do understand that for SATA to operate in non-native mode, it has to use

the same register set / IRQ channels / etc. as one of the two standard ATA
channels. This means you cannot have both standard ATA channels *and* SATA
in native mode.
Correct.

But if you disable either PATA, you should be able to have SATA "take its
place."
Correct.

If the two SATA devices in compatibility mode are seen as *two* "ATA
channels" (register set etc.) this means you cannot have two SATA devices
*plus* one ATA device

No. In compatibility mode, one of the mobo's IDE connectors is defunct, and the
SATA wires are playing the role of master and slave from the defunct connector.

By "all this" I meant: the PATA/SATA register set allocation /
enabling/disabling / substitution / compatibility vs. native...

Maybe the Intel's chipset docs.

 

[Guest]

No. In compatibility mode, one of the mobo's IDE connectors is defunct,
and the
SATA wires are playing the role of master and slave from the defunct
connector.

So even getting rid of *both* my ATA disks, and "replacing" them with a SATA
disk, ending up in a config with two SATA disks and my DVD burner off the
secondary ATA channel would not work!?

What do you suggest?

(Simplest is to replace the dying ATA disk with another ATA disk, for
sure...)

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

So even getting rid of *both* my ATA disks, and "replacing" them with a SATA

disk, ending up in a config with two SATA disks and my DVD burner off the
secondary ATA channel would not work!?

What do you suggest?

It will. In compatibility mode, it will place both SATA disks on the same
register task file, thus making them inter-dependent. In native mode - works
fine (but no DOS).

 

[Stephane Barizien]

It will. In compatibility mode, it will place both SATA disks on the
same register task file, thus making them inter-dependent. In native
mode - works fine (but no DOS).

But the BIOS never sets the disks to native mode initially as far as
understand; the OS drivers will... (haven't seen anything in the BIOS where
I can select whether SATA works in compatibility mode or not...)

Would the register mapping *change* once the OS drivers are initialized?
Sorry if I sound dumb, but I don't get the picture...

I understand that there is a "situation" where:
- SATA disks 0 and 1 are accessed via the register task file used by the
disabled primary PATA channel, in compatibility mode (==> perf impact,
cannot access both disks simultaneously)
- the burner is accessed via the register task file used by the non-disabled
secondary PATA channel

and that there is "another situation" where:
- SATA disk 0 is accessed in native mode via a specific register set
- SATA disk 1 is accessed in native mode via *another* specific register set
- the burner is accessed via the register task file used by the non-disabled
secondary PATA channel

Does one *choose* among the two (BIOS setting) or *switch at runtime*
between the "first situation" and "second situation" (when the VIA driver
for the SATA chip initializes?)

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

But the BIOS never sets the disks to native mode initially as far as

understand; the OS drivers will... (haven't seen anything in the BIOS where
I can select whether SATA works in compatibility mode or not...)

This choice is made by BIOS setup. OS's drivers obey this choice.

Would the register mapping *change* once the OS drivers are initialized?

No. This will require the driver restart, and, for a boot driver, this is
impossible.

- SATA disks 0 and 1 are accessed via the register task file used by the
disabled primary PATA channel, in compatibility mode (==> perf impact,
cannot access both disks simultaneously)
Yes.

- the burner is accessed via the register task file used by the non-disabled
secondary PATA channel
Yes.

- SATA disk 0 is accessed in native mode via a specific register set
- SATA disk 1 is accessed in native mode via *another* specific register set
Yes.

- the burner is accessed via the register task file used by the non-disabled
secondary PATA channel
Yes.

Does one *choose* among the two (BIOS setting)

For Intel 865PE chipset, this choice is in the BIOS setup only.

 

[Stephane Barizien]

This choice is made by BIOS setup. OS's drivers obey this choice.

Haven't found this (yet) in my A7V600's BIOS (VIA KT600 chipset)

No. This will require the driver restart, and, for a boot driver,
this is impossible.


For Intel 865PE chipset, this choice is in the BIOS setup only.

My A7V600 is VIA KT600-based...