PATA HDD and only 2 IDE connectors

[Grumble]

Hello everyone,

I've recently purchased an ASUS A8N-E MB (nForce4 Ultra).
It has 2 IDE connectors and 4 SATA connectors.

I have a spare 120GB PATA HDD that I planned to use. However, I did not
expect to have only 2 IDE connectors: I also wanted a DVD-ROM drive and
a DVD burner. But I can't fit 3 IDE devices with only 2 connectors at my
disposal... :-(

I suppose I have to choose between:

1. buy an IDE-to-SATA adapter for my HDD.

2. buy an ATA133 PCI extension card.

3. forget my HDD and buy a new SATA HDD :-(

4. forget the DVD-ROM drive and go with only HDD + DVD burner.

What do you all think?

 

[Never Anonymous Bud]

Hello everyone,

I've recently purchased an ASUS A8N-E MB (nForce4 Ultra).
It has 2 IDE connectors and 4 SATA connectors.

I have a spare 120GB PATA HDD that I planned to use. However, I did not
expect to have only 2 IDE connectors: I also wanted a DVD-ROM drive and
a DVD burner. But I can't fit 3 IDE devices with only 2 connectors at my
disposal... :-(

Each IDE connection supports 2 devices.

Most MBs that IDE connections have only 2.





Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity...

Remove XYZ to email me

 

[George Macdonald]

Hello everyone,

I've recently purchased an ASUS A8N-E MB (nForce4 Ultra).
It has 2 IDE connectors and 4 SATA connectors.

I have a spare 120GB PATA HDD that I planned to use. However, I did not
expect to have only 2 IDE connectors: I also wanted a DVD-ROM drive and
a DVD burner. But I can't fit 3 IDE devices with only 2 connectors at my
disposal... :-(

Huh? Each IDE connector takes a master and a slave... maybe not an optimal
arrangement to have a DVD-ROM or DVD burner sharing with something else but
not uncommon... a choice which many have had to make. Usually the DVD
burner mfrs recommend having it as a master.

I suppose I have to choose between:

1. buy an IDE-to-SATA adapter for my HDD.

2. buy an ATA133 PCI extension card.

3. forget my HDD and buy a new SATA HDD :-(

4. forget the DVD-ROM drive and go with only HDD + DVD burner.

What do you all think?

I believe there are a few SATA DVD burners out there, IIRC Plextor has one
and maybe Asus too.

 

[Grumble]

Huh? Each IDE connector takes a master and a slave... maybe not an optimal
arrangement to have a DVD-ROM or DVD burner sharing with something else but
not uncommon... a choice which many have had to make. Usually the DVD
burner mfrs recommend having it as a master.

Doh! I feel so silly

I actually *knew* there could be 2 devices per IDE channel, but somehow
my brain ignored that fact as I wrote the original message.

So you suggest:

HDD = IDE0 master
DVD writer = IDE1 master
DVD reader = IDE1 slave

Is that correct?

I've heard the HDD should not share the channel for best performance. Is
that important?

Finally, would an IDE-to-SATA adapter improve / degrade / change nothing
as far as the performance of the system is concerned?

I believe there are a few SATA DVD burners out there, IIRC Plextor has one
and maybe Asus too.

I'll keep that in mind. Thanks.

Grumble

 

[keith]

Doh! I feel so silly

I actually *knew* there could be 2 devices per IDE channel, but somehow
my brain ignored that fact as I wrote the original message.

So you suggest:

HDD = IDE0 master
DVD writer = IDE1 master
DVD reader = IDE1 slave

That's what I would do, if only because the cables will fit that way. ;-)
I usually have trouble reaching from the HDD to CD drvice with the 6"
cable between the master and slave connectors. If they fit, I'd likely
put the DVD reader as a slave on IDE0.

I've heard the HDD should not share the channel for best performance. Is
that important?

In reality, I don't think it matters much these days. The IDE interfaces
are much faster than they once were, DMA really works, and under-runs on
burners are (almost?) a thing of the past.

Finally, would an IDE-to-SATA adapter improve / degrade / change nothing
as far as the performance of the system is concerned?

D. Cost more money than they're worth. Unless there are no more homes for
the drives, I wouldn't even thing of going there. Even so, I'd buy an
add-in card with the appropriate interface before such a kludge.

I'll keep that in mind. Thanks.

Also keep in mind that they're 2X-3X the price of pATA burners. The
Plextor name is some of that though.

 

[nobody]

Hello everyone,

I've recently purchased an ASUS A8N-E MB (nForce4 Ultra).
It has 2 IDE connectors and 4 SATA connectors.

I have a spare 120GB PATA HDD that I planned to use. However, I did not
expect to have only 2 IDE connectors: I also wanted a DVD-ROM drive and
a DVD burner. But I can't fit 3 IDE devices with only 2 connectors at my
disposal... :-(

I suppose I have to choose between:

1. buy an IDE-to-SATA adapter for my HDD.

2. buy an ATA133 PCI extension card.

3. forget my HDD and buy a new SATA HDD :-(

4. forget the DVD-ROM drive and go with only HDD + DVD burner.

What do you all think?

Look at the back of your optical drives. There you will find the tiny
thingies called Jumpers (if you were born after most of the things
went jumperless, look up at your favorite search site what they are
and how to handle them). You'll also find some schematics (most often
located at the bottom of the drive) explaining how to set the jumpers
so that one dtive is master and the other, respectively, slave. Then
connect them both with one IDE ribbon cable to one of IDE ports on
your mobo. Connect your PATA drive to the other port. The IDE cable
connecting your HD has one spare connector, so that you can hook up
one more HD if you want to.

 

[nobody]

That's what I would do, if only because the cables will fit that way. ;-)
I usually have trouble reaching from the HDD to CD drvice with the 6"
cable between the master and slave connectors. If they fit, I'd likely
put the DVD reader as a slave on IDE0.


In reality, I don't think it matters much these days. The IDE interfaces
are much faster than they once were, DMA really works, and under-runs on
burners are (almost?) a thing of the past.

....snip...

My MSI master2-far board would take my DVD burner (also MSI
branded!!!) as a single drive or as a slave to NEC DVD reader (that's
how they ended up), but not as master (just wouldn't see any drive on
that IDE bus, and yes, I set the jumpers as per schematics). Yet
being a slave doesn't seem to hurt burning a bit, and I burn quite
often for more than a year with that setup, including direct DVD to
DVD copy (no HD image created).

I would not though slave optical drive to the system drive. Also
would not slave to C:\ any drive that may be slower (does not support
the same UDMA mode). With 2 drives on the same IDE bus, the bus
adjusts its speed to the slowest of the 2, and that is usually the
optical drive, especially an older one.

As usual, your mileage may vary... The board, drives, cables, and
case on hand may dictate you the particular solution that is best in
your particular case (pun not intended).

Good luck

NNN

 

[Rob Stow]

That's what I would do, if only because the cables will fit that way. ;-)
I usually have trouble reaching from the HDD to CD drvice with the 6"
cable between the master and slave connectors. If they fit, I'd likely
put the DVD reader as a slave on IDE0.




In reality, I don't think it matters much these days. The IDE interfaces
are much faster than they once were, DMA really works, and under-runs on
burners are (almost?) a thing of the past.




D. Cost more money than they're worth. Unless there are no more homes for
the drives, I wouldn't even thing of going there. Even so, I'd buy an
add-in card with the appropriate interface before such a kludge.




Also keep in mind that they're 2X-3X the price of pATA burners.

The IDE version of Plextor's 16x dual-layer burner is only about
5% cheaper than the SATA version.

The Plextor name is some of that though.

If you burn enough DVDs it is worth it. I have also tried BenQ
and Sony IDE DVD burners that cost less than half as much and
were nominally also 16x dual-layer drives. However, they both
took about 20% longer than the Plextor to fill up a dual-layer DVD.

As well, when I use Drive Image to burn drive images directly to
DVD with no intermediate storage on a hard drive, the Plextor
works every time while the BenQ and the Sony made coasters every
time. This, not the faster burn times, is why I don't regret
the extra cost of the Plextor drive.

I also love not having any ribbon cables in my system. In
addition to making it much easier to tinker inside the case, it
became noticeably quieter and motherboard temps dropped 3'C when
I replaced my two IDE hard drives with larger SATA drives and was
able to get rid of the last ribbon cable.

 

[Rob Stow]

George Macdonald wrote:




Doh! I feel so silly

I actually *knew* there could be 2 devices per IDE channel, but somehow
my brain ignored that fact as I wrote the original message.

So you suggest:

HDD = IDE0 master
DVD writer = IDE1 master
DVD reader = IDE1 slave

Is that correct?

Should do just fine unless you intend to do direct DVD-to-DVD
copying, in which case having the burner and the DVD-ROM on
different channels will help prevent coasters.

However, if you don't intend to do frequent DVD copying, why not
just drop the DVD-ROM drive altogether. You would still be able
to make copies with only the DVD burner by using the hard drive
for temporary storage of DVD images.

I've heard the HDD should not share the channel for best performance. Is
that important?

The effect depends on how often you need to use the other device
on that channel simultaneously with the HDD.

Finally, would an IDE-to-SATA adapter improve / degrade / change nothing
as far as the performance of the system is concerned?

It would be money spent to accomplish nothing.

I have a 16x Plextor SATA DVD burner. I Love it: see my other
post to this thread to find out why.

 

[George Macdonald]

Doh! I feel so silly

I actually *knew* there could be 2 devices per IDE channel, but somehow
my brain ignored that fact as I wrote the original message.

So you suggest:

HDD = IDE0 master
DVD writer = IDE1 master
DVD reader = IDE1 slave

Is that correct?

Well check out the mfr's recommendations for the drives you look at as well
but it also depends on what your major use of the drive - the above would
work well if you are going to be doing a lot of ripping from the DVD-ROM to
the HDD; if you would be copying directly from DVD-ROM to the burner more,
you could try the DVD-ROM slaved to the HDD.

I've heard the HDD should not share the channel for best performance. Is
that important?

I'm not sure that applies any longer - might vary by chipset.

Finally, would an IDE-to-SATA adapter improve / degrade / change nothing
as far as the performance of the system is concerned?

People seem to be saying that those things don't degrade performance but
they cost almost as much as a PCI-IDE card and check for compatibility with
your mbrd.

 

[keith]

...snip...

My MSI master2-far board would take my DVD burner (also MSI
branded!!!) as a single drive or as a slave to NEC DVD reader (that's
how they ended up), but not as master (just wouldn't see any drive on
that IDE bus, and yes, I set the jumpers as per schematics). Yet
being a slave doesn't seem to hurt burning a bit, and I burn quite
often for more than a year with that setup, including direct DVD to
DVD copy (no HD image created).

IIRC, slave-only was added to the ATA/ATAPI spec for optical drives long
ago. Many companies would ship opticals configured as slave so the
configuration was the same whether there was a HDD on the master or not.
Can't have the users confused. ;-)

I would not though slave optical drive to the system drive. Also would
not slave to C:\ any drive that may be slower (does not support the same
UDMA mode). With 2 drives on the same IDE bus, the bus adjusts its
speed to the slowest of the 2, and that is usually the optical drive,
especially an older one.

Why not? At the data rates today, it doesn't really matter much where
optical drives are.

As usual, your mileage may vary... The board, drives, cables, and case
on hand may dictate you the particular solution that is best in your
particular case (pun not intended).

It's worked out that way for me for several years, though perhaps because
I like larger cases.

 

[keith]

The IDE version of Plextor's 16x dual-layer burner is only about
5% cheaper than the SATA version.

You're paying for the name. One set of my old CDROM and CD-R/W drives are
Plextor (SCSI). Years ago it made a difference. You'll have to do a lot
of convincing for me to agree today.

If you burn enough DVDs it is worth it. I have also tried BenQ and Sony
IDE DVD burners that cost less than half as much and were nominally also
16x dual-layer drives. However, they both took about 20% longer than
the Plextor to fill up a dual-layer DVD.

You're not convincing, yet. ;-) When I was putting this system
together, peope in this group suggested LiteOn over Plextor (I was goign
there). I'm quite happy with the LiteOn drives (at 1/3 the price of
Plextor). In fact I'm happy enough with LiteOn that I bought ove of their
DVR/DVDR.

As well, when I use Drive Image to burn drive images directly to
DVD with no intermediate storage on a hard drive, the Plextor
works every time while the BenQ and the Sony made coasters every time.
This, not the faster burn times, is why I don't regret the extra cost of
the Plextor drive.

Have you tried a LiteOn? It works for me (not sure what PQDI has to do
with it).

I also love not having any ribbon cables in my system. In addition to
making it much easier to tinker inside the case, it became noticeably
quieter and motherboard temps dropped 3'C when I replaced my two IDE
hard drives with larger SATA drives and was able to get rid of the last
ribbon cable.

No ribbon cables. Round IDE works wonders. I would agree with you if
SATA delivered power via the cable (eliminate the steenkin' cables crom
the PSU), but it doesn't, so I'm less than thrilled with it. Worse, the
PSU that came with this case has Molex ATA power cables, so an adapter is
required, making things even more messy (not to mention the SIL SATA
controller/driver doesn't like Linux). I doubt that I'll buy another SATA
drive for some time.

 

[keith]

Well check out the mfr's recommendations for the drives you look at as well
but it also depends on what your major use of the drive - the above would
work well if you are going to be doing a lot of ripping from the DVD-ROM to
the HDD; if you would be copying directly from DVD-ROM to the burner more,
you could try the DVD-ROM slaved to the HDD.

I don't think it matters much. An 8X DVD uses something like 5MB/s
bandwidth. Even at double that, an ATA-100 channel is loafing.

 

[HenryNettles]

The IDE version of Plextor's 16x dual-layer burner is only about
5% cheaper than the SATA version.


If you burn enough DVDs it is worth it. I have also tried BenQ
and Sony IDE DVD burners that cost less than half as much and
were nominally also 16x dual-layer drives. However, they both
took about 20% longer than the Plextor to fill up a dual-layer DVD.

As well, when I use Drive Image to burn drive images directly to
DVD with no intermediate storage on a hard drive, the Plextor
works every time while the BenQ and the Sony made coasters every
time. This, not the faster burn times, is why I don't regret
the extra cost of the Plextor drive.

I spend a lot of time on http://club.cdfreaks.com, reading the forums and
learning about optical drives. I bought my first dvd burner when the sony
dru-500a shipped -- the first dual mode (plusR and dashR) on the market.
Since then I have owned approximately 10 other dvd burners, and have burned
literally thousands of DVDs. I have a subdirectory on one of my hard
drives which contains all of the quality tests that I have performed (using
Kprobe and CD-Speed) on the various drives using different media. That
subdirectory contains 385 .png files at present, and I test only a small
percentage of the disks that I burn.

First lets examine the cost of the Plextor versus the Benq, I just did a
quick check on Newegg (my favorite online store). The Plextor PX-716SA
(serial ATA) is $119.98 plus $4.00 for shipping, totals $123.98. The Benq
DW1640 costs $38.99 plus $4 for shipping, totals $42.99. The Plextor costs
288 percent more than the Benq. Newegg has the Nec ND-3540A for $38.99
plus $2.99 for shipping, totals $41.98. You could buy both the Benq and
the Nec for $84.97, and still be $39.01 cheaper than the Plextor alone.

If you read the forums and the reviews at cdfreaks and cdrlabs, you will
find that the Benq performs better with more different media than the
Plextor. There are a few mediaids which will will work better in the
Plextor, but only a few. If you purchase both the Benq and the Nec, you
will be able to get great performance with virtually all of the decent
brands of media on the market.

I do not (can not) dispute your claim about the Plextor working better with
Drive Image (I do not use Drive Image, I use Acronis True Image and I
backup to a separate hard disk, not DVDs). I also have no direct knowledge
of writing to dual layer DVDS, as I have never done that. Dual layer dvds
simply cost FAR TOO MUCH to be practical. When and if the price falls
below $1, I will then consider using dual layer DVDs.

To summarize, the Plextor may be the right DVD burner for you, given your
individual needs, but it is not the right DVD burner for the vast majority
of us.

I also love not having any ribbon cables in my system. In
addition to making it much easier to tinker inside the case, it
became noticeably quieter and motherboard temps dropped 3'C when
I replaced my two IDE hard drives with larger SATA drives and was
able to get rid of the last ribbon cable.

This may have more to do with the drives than with the cables. Older 7200
rpm drives tend to run MUCH warmer than later generation models.

 

[Tony Hill]

If you burn enough DVDs it is worth it. I have also tried BenQ
and Sony IDE DVD burners that cost less than half as much and
were nominally also 16x dual-layer drives. However, they both
took about 20% longer than the Plextor to fill up a dual-layer DVD.

I burn a fair number of disks and really see no reason that I should
have spent 3x as much for a Plextor drive vs. my LG drive. I read a
few reviews and the difference in burn times was measured at no more
than a few seconds.

As well, when I use Drive Image to burn drive images directly to
DVD with no intermediate storage on a hard drive, the Plextor
works every time while the BenQ and the Sony made coasters every
time. This, not the faster burn times, is why I don't regret
the extra cost of the Plextor drive.

So far between my LiteOn CD-RW and LG DVD writer the one and only
coaster I've burnt was when I accidentally dropped a book onto the
'reset' button of my computer mid-burn! Oops! That's out of several
hundred burns including some where I REALLY tested the 'burn proof'
features of the drives.

I haven't used either a BenQ or Sony drive, but both these LiteOn and
LG drives have been pretty much flawless, all for significantly less
than a Plextor would have cost me (currently price at my regular
computer store has a Plextor IDE DVD writer at over $155 CDN while the
LG one is $52 CDN).

I also love not having any ribbon cables in my system. In
addition to making it much easier to tinker inside the case, it
became noticeably quieter and motherboard temps dropped 3'C when
I replaced my two IDE hard drives with larger SATA drives and was
able to get rid of the last ribbon cable.

Now that is the one thing that is attracting me to SATA drives, I
would definitely prefer to get rid of all the clutter caused by
parallel ATA drive cables. Even with my rounded IDE cables they still
take up a whole lot of room in the case.

For hard drives I will definitely purchase a SATA drive the next time
I get one, though I'm in no rush to replace either of my burners.
Considering that I would have to replace both to get rid of the cable
it's hardly worth it. A few years from now and/or if either drive
happens to die, then I'll think about it, but even then it will depend
on whether or not I can pick up a SATA DVD writer for ~$10 more than
an LG or LiteOn PATA drive.

 

[Rob Stow]

You're paying for the name. One set of my old CDROM and CD-R/W drives are
Plextor (SCSI). Years ago it made a difference. You'll have to do a lot
of convincing for me to agree today.




You're not convincing, yet. ;-) When I was putting this system
together, peope in this group suggested LiteOn over Plextor (I was goign
there). I'm quite happy with the LiteOn drives (at 1/3 the price of
Plextor). In fact I'm happy enough with LiteOn that I bought ove of their
DVR/DVDR.




Have you tried a LiteOn? It works for me (not sure what PQDI has to do
with it).

I've tried LiteOn CD burners. They were pure crap so I never
considered LiteOn when I went shopping for a DVD burner for myself.

No ribbon cables. Round IDE works wonders.

I /had/ rounded ribbon cables. Never found them to be much
better than flat ones. They were so inflexible that I still had
to disconnect them from the motherboard so that I could get them
out of the way any time I wanted to change a DIMM, etc.

My SATA ports are at the bottom of the motherboard, so I have my
cables running underneath the bottom of the motherboard and then
up between the backplane and the right-side panel of the case.
Cables just don't get any more out of the way than that.

I would agree with you if
SATA delivered power via the cable (eliminate the steenkin' cables crom
the PSU), but it doesn't, so I'm less than thrilled with it. Worse, the
PSU that came with this case has Molex ATA power cables, so an adapter is
required, making things even more messy (not to mention the SIL SATA
controller/driver doesn't like Linux). I doubt that I'll buy another SATA
drive for some time.

Lately I've been using "Silencer 470" PSU's from
www.pcpowercooling.com that have 6 SATA connectors. SATA power
into a SATA drive is not significantly better than plugging a
molex connector into an IDE drive, but it is a lot better than
dicking around with molex-to-SATA adapters.

 

[George Macdonald]

No ribbon cables. Round IDE works wonders. I would agree with you if
SATA delivered power via the cable (eliminate the steenkin' cables crom
the PSU), but it doesn't, so I'm less than thrilled with it.

I'm not so thrilled with round cables - gets ugly if they are longer than
the run and where you have two plugged in side by side in a mbrd. I still
think a properly folded and routed ribbon is nicer but it does depend on
impediments in the case. In most cases I've managed to tape the (folded)
ribbon cables to the mbrd back plate and they don't impede air at all.

 

[keith]

keith wrote:

I've tried LiteOn CD burners. They were pure crap so I never
considered LiteOn when I went shopping for a DVD burner for myself.

Mine work fine, as does the one that I put in for a friend. Again, I
bought them under recommendations from people here (I was a Ricoh and
Plextor fan before) and haven't been dissapointed. I don't see any reason
to buy Plextor now.

I /had/ rounded ribbon cables. Never found them to be much better than
flat ones. They were so inflexible that I still had to disconnect them
from the motherboard so that I could get them out of the way any time I
wanted to change a DIMM, etc.

Not an issue here. I have them routed behind the drive cages; completely
out of the way. I could never do that with flat cables, even with an iron.

My SATA ports are at the bottom of the motherboard, so I have my cables
running underneath the bottom of the motherboard and then up between the
backplane and the right-side panel of the case. Cables just don't get
any more out of the way than that.

Mine are at the bottom/back. I route them up the back and on the backside
of the drive bays, then around to the drives. With the round cables
there is no problem with getting a twist wrong.

I'd *NEVER* run any cable on the back side of the board. Tha't just
asking for trouble.

Lately I've been using "Silencer 470" PSU's from www.pcpowercooling.com
that have 6 SATA connectors. SATA power into a SATA drive is not
significantly better than plugging a molex connector into an IDE drive,
but it is a lot better than dicking around with molex-to-SATA adapters.

Agreed. I just don't see any advantage to SATA drives. I thought I did
before I bought one. :-(

 

[Rob Stow]

Mine work fine, as does the one that I put in for a friend. Again, I
bought them under recommendations from people here (I was a Ricoh and
Plextor fan before) and haven't been dissapointed. I don't see any reason
to buy Plextor now.



Not an issue here. I have them routed behind the drive cages; completely
out of the way. I could never do that with flat cables, even with an iron.




Mine are at the bottom/back. I route them up the back and on the backside
of the drive bays, then around to the drives. With the round cables
there is no problem with getting a twist wrong.

I'd *NEVER* run any cable on the back side of the board. Tha't just
asking for trouble.

I've got about 6 mm between the backplane and the right-side case
panel: *plenty* of room for SATA cables. Plenty of room for IDE
ribbon cables too, for that matter, except that IDE cables don't
have the length to take that route.

Nothing for the SATA cables to snag on either, so any unneeded
length in a SATA cable can easily be tucked into that gap and
then it easily pulls out if I need a little slack while
connecting/disconnecting drives. No kinks in the cables either -
nice easy loops where they go under the backplane and where they
come out at the top of the backplane.

And - so far - no signs of wear and tear on the cables from them
possibly vibrating between the backplane and the case panel.

And I want to make sure that you know that I am *not* talking
about using the gap between the motherboard and the backplane.
It is the gap on the *other* side of the backplane that I am
babbling on and on about.

Agreed. I just don't see any advantage to SATA drives. I thought I did
before I bought one. :-(

Performance-wise, I find SATA and IDE to be six of one and half a
dozen of the other. I merely appreciate what I can do with the
longer and more flexible SATA cables in order to get them out of
the airflow inside the case and to route them permanently out of
my way for when I tinker inside the case.

 

[Keith R. Williams]

And I want to make sure that you know that I am *not* talking
about using the gap between the motherboard and the backplane.
It is the gap on the *other* side of the backplane that I am
babbling on and on about.

That's what I was missing. Thanks. Though I wouldn't do this with
my InWin case (works in a drawer) either.

Performance-wise, I find SATA and IDE to be six of one and half a
dozen of the other. I merely appreciate what I can do with the
longer and more flexible SATA cables in order to get them out of
the airflow inside the case and to route them permanently out of
my way for when I tinker inside the case.

I only have round ATA cables in my Antec case, where they're
completely out of the way. The InWin Q500 (K6-III) doesn't get
much tinkering. ;-)