Guest Nak Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 22:26 01/10/2007 How to configure a 2nd SCSI SATA drive? --------------------------------------- Specs: Win XP Pro SP2, Pentium 4 3 GHz, 445 MB RAM Following drive specs obtained via 'Computer Management' and 'Device Manager': Disk 0: ST316081 5AS SCSI Disk Device / 75 GB Disk 1: ST380811 0AS SCSI Disk device / 150 GB (just added & initialized; not yet configured, partitioned, formatted, etc.) These drives are SATA drives. I know v little about SCSI and SATA drives except for what I'v just read on the Net. SEAGATE Website says no jumpers need be set and that all drives are considered as Masters. I do not know the implications of having 2 Master drives. The following is from SEAGATE Website: ---------------------------------- Serial ATA drives are designed for easy installation with no jumpers, terminators, or other settings. It is not necessary to set any jumpers on this drive for proper operation. The jumper block adjacent to the signal connector is only needed in some cases when connecting your SATA II drive to an older SATA I controller. Each drive on the serial ATA interface connects in a point-to-point configuration with the serial ATA host adapter. There is no master/slave relationship because each drive is considered a master in a point-to-point relationships. If two drives are attached on one serial ATA host adapter, the host operating system views the two devices as if they were both “masters” on two separate ports. This means both drives behave as if they are Device 0 (master) devices. Each drive has its own cable. Your serial ATA host adapter may provide master/slave emulation options. See your host adapter documentation for details. ---------------------------------- There are 4 SATA connectors on the mobo - 2 red (1 & 2); 2 black (3 & 4) - and I don't have a clue as to the difference between the red and the black ones - unless maybe the black ones are for 'Slave drives'. I would like to make the new 2nd drive a Slave (if possible and if adviseable) but have no idea how to go about it. Wouldn't have a clue about any "host adapter documentation"; seems like a bit of overkill, just to make a drive a slave drive. Thought Windows might give the option. With IDE it's a matter of simple drive jumper relocation. In Disk Management I got confronted w/ a riske "Dynamic Volume" wizard. "The Elder Geek" provides some articles on this which made my hair stand on end and my skin crawl. For sure I don't want to convert the Disk to Dynamic Volume or RAID, etc. No way! The article also givesa warning about not being able to convert back; yet Windows Help (via 'Computer Management') says it's a simple matter and gives the steps. Who's right? Fortunately and somehow I got the wizard to finally give me the 'basic disk' option. ------------------------------------------ 1. All I want to do is to make this 2nd drive a simple FAT32 backup drive with a total of 4 partitions - and hopefully Windows XP will give me the FAT32 option somewhere along the line. I don't want NTFS for several reasons. 2. If I cannot get the 'Slave drive' option, is it OK to just go ahead and assume it'll turn into a 2nd Master? What are the consequences of this? 3. How do I partition this thing? Should I / do I need to first create a primary partition and then an extended partition, which I then partition into 3 logical drives? or how? 4. Do I need to / can I (if I want to) install an OS (like Win XP Pro) on the primary partition? Is there any advantage to this? Would there be a conflict created between the existing OS on Disk 0 and the new one on Disk 1 or would the system boot normally via the OS on the C: drive? I did not see any answers to any of the above specific questions in the Windows Help on the issue in Computer Management. Could someone please supply me with some understandable answers to the above? Thank you very much, -- Nak
Guest Patrick Keenan Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 Re: How to configure a 2nd SCSI SATA drive? "Nak" <Nak@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:D15BE9D6-1164-4F91-8D0C-904D8F5FCD8B@microsoft.com... > > 22:26 01/10/2007 > > How to configure a 2nd SCSI SATA drive? Your drives are either SCSI or SATA, they cannot be both. From the model numbers you p;rovided , these are SATA drives. In reality, SATA and SCSI are different things. SCSI is recognisable by a totally different connector (much wider than SATA). Also, SCSI drives are not common, and tend to have smaller capacities and be much more expensive than SATA. NT, 2000 and XP for some reason grouped these drives with SCSI. Generally, to add and configure a 2nd (or 3rd or 4th) SATA drive to a system, you shut down, plug the drive(s) in, restart, allow Windows to detect them. From Disk Management, select each raw drive and create partitions, then format them and assign drive letters as appropriate. Start using them. That's it. Your system will have one primary drive, and then as much space and as many drive letters as have been added with your disk installs of non-primary drives. You appear to be trying to make this much more complex than it is. > --------------------------------------- > > Specs: Win XP Pro SP2, Pentium 4 3 GHz, 445 MB RAM > > Following drive specs obtained via 'Computer Management' and 'Device > Manager': > > Disk 0: ST316081 5AS SCSI Disk Device / 75 GB > Disk 1: ST380811 0AS SCSI Disk device / 150 GB (just added & initialized; > not yet configured, partitioned, formatted, etc.) > > > These drives are SATA drives. I know v little about SCSI and SATA drives > except > for what I'v just read on the Net. SEAGATE Website says no jumpers need be > set > and that all drives are considered as Masters. I do not know the > implications > of having 2 Master drives. The following is from SEAGATE Website: <snippage> > There are 4 SATA connectors on the mobo - 2 red (1 & 2); 2 black (3 & 4) - > and I don't have a clue as to the difference between the red and the black > ones - unless maybe the black ones are for 'Slave drives'. They are generally marked for identification. The function doesn't differ. No slaves and no masters and no jumpers with SATA. It's very easy to use. There are four SATA channels on your motherboard. One drive attaches to each. I would suggest that you start with 1 and work towards 4, sequentially. > I would like to make the new 2nd drive a Slave (if possible and if > adviseable) Why? You say this several times and give no reason. This terminology is not applicable to SATA. I would suggest that your desire to do this may be due to a simple misunderstanding or lack of information. It's much easier than you appear to think. > but have no idea how to go about it. Wouldn't have a clue about > any "host adapter documentation"; seems like a bit of overkill, just to > make > a drive a slave drive. Why is it that you wish to make a drive a "slave"? > Thought Windows might give the option. With IDE it's a > matter of simple drive jumper relocation. No need for jumpers with SATA as there is only one drive per channel. > > In Disk Management I got confronted w/ a riske "Dynamic Volume" wizard. > "The > Elder Geek" provides some articles on this which made my hair stand on end > and my skin crawl. For sure I don't want to convert the Disk to Dynamic > Volume or RAID, etc. No way! Correct You want Basic disks for most purposes. > The article also givesa warning about not being able to convert back; yet > Windows Help (via 'Computer Management') says it's a simple matter and > gives > the steps. > > Who's right? "simple" depends on what you did and what your skills and knowledge are. > > Fortunately and somehow I got the wizard to finally give me the 'basic > disk' > option. It's the default. > ------------------------------------------ > > 1. All I want to do is to make this 2nd drive a simple FAT32 backup drive Why do you want FAT32? > with a total of 4 partitions - and hopefully Windows XP will give me the > FAT32 option somewhere along the line. I don't want NTFS for several > reasons. If the partitions are over 40 gig or so, XP will not allow you to format as FAT, only as NTFS. You would need to boot the system with something else and format the partitions there. There are a lot of good reasons for formatting as NTFS. The few good reasons for *not* doing so include having to dual-boot with an OS that does not support NTFS, or regularly attaching the drive to such an OS. If the other OS is accessing it via XP and a network, the format isn't an issue as XP does the translation. > 2. If I cannot get the 'Slave drive' option, You can't, it isn't part of the SATA concept. You would need to use IDE drives for this, but in any case, I don't believe you will find any benefit. Why do you want this, or why do you *think* you want this? While the master/slave model does not apply to SATA where it's one drive per channel, it's also not relevant to partitioning or formatting. > is it OK to just go ahead and > assume it'll turn into a 2nd Master? No. Each SATA channel in use will have one drive. The system will have a primary drive. > What are the consequences of this? There will be one primary system drive, and other non-primary drives. That's it. The boot sequence is determined elsewhere. > 3. How do I partition this thing? Should I / do I need to first create a > primary > partition and then an extended partition, which I then partition into 3 > logical > drives? or how? How you partition it depends on your needs. Drives this size many people leave to one partition and format NTFS. There's this idea that partitioning somehow allows some safety for backups. This is true in the sense that if you accidentally format or remove one partition, the others are safe. However, it's just as common for drives to fail, and then all partitions are equally inaccessible. Also, a single backup location is asking for trouble. Drives and disks fail. Make more than one copy to more than one physical disk and store them in physically different locations. Creating one partition and then four directories that you then map or subst so that these folders appear as drives, is another approach that removes the size limitations necessarily imposed by partitioning. But how you partition depends on your needs. Don't know what those are. > 4. Do I need to / can I (if I want to) install an OS (like Win XP Pro) on > the primary partition? So you now also wish to have a second install of XP on the system? Why? Yes you can create a dual-boot system, but only you can tell if you "need" to do so. > Is there any advantage to this? That depends on whether you "need" to install XP again. You will need a second license. > Would there be a conflict created > between the existing OS on Disk 0 And what *is* this "existing OS"? It can "conflict" if you are not careful. Dual-boots have to be implemented with some care. > and the new one on Disk 1 or would the > system boot normally via the OS on the C: drive? That would depend on how you performed the second install and where its files are. Normally with dual-boots you set up a selector screen. > I did not see any answers to any of the above specific questions in the > Windows Help on the issue in Computer Management. Some of the questions aren't relevant to its topics. > Could someone please supply me with some understandable answers to the > above? Frankly, I will suggest that you need to rephrase some of your questions and provide more information with them. HTH -pk > > Thank you very much, > > -- > Nak
Guest Nak Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 Re: How to configure a 2nd SCSI SATA drive? OK. Thanks Patrick. That looks like about as comprehensive an answer as I'll ever get or need. Fact is, in last few hours I've browsed the Net extensively to see what I could dig up on my own, if anything. Mostly it confirms what you've said and then some. I did wonder about the SCSI / SATA thing. I came across something a while back that kept nagging me - something about not being able to do some type of partitioning or formating on them, unlike as w/ IDE drives. Can't recall. When Windows told me it was SCSI, I took it at face value. Live and learn. Good thing I asked. I didn't see that fact mentioned anywhere in the tons of data on the issues I've downloaded in last few hours. The questions I asked are out of curiosity. I want to know as I'm not up on this stuff and no matter what anyone says, as far as I'm concerned, the Windows Help is hopelessly (maybe purposely) truncated and out of context. If you have little background on the issues, there's simply not enough contiguous detail. I realize one can't be too detailed - but a bit more would be nice. It's 3:30 AM here in Thailand and I don't have the time now to defend my thought processes, such that they are. I have to get this thing working now. My problem is that if a thing isn't detailed and listed step by step (w/ some ref history), I just don't get it. For instance, where it says you can create Primary, extended and logical partitions, its confusing to me because, for one thing (of many), it doesn't say explicitly that the primary partition must be smaller than the size of the disk space minus the sum of the spaces of the other required partitions (I want 5, now, actually). I had mistakenly assumed that the primary partition had to take up the whole disk space and the others to be formed in it. Sori, but my brain just getting too old to see the obvious, I guess. But that's just one thing of many. I'm getting there now, though. I've already done what you said and I'm formating all 5 partitions (I hope I get that many) in NTFS. I've just finished the primary. We'll see how she goes. As for "Slave drives", well, as you imply and as I mentioned, I just wasn't clear on the SATA concept. Your input helped to set me straight. In old days, when MBR, etc., blew on the Master IDE, I recall I had to "slave" it to another Master, so that I could recover my data via DOS or Windows (whatever worked) from the temp Slave, before attempting to fix it. So I guess it stuck in my head. Offhand, It looks to me now that it might be more difficult to access data on a similarly corrupted SATA drive, particularly one formated w/ NTFS. As for the 'basic disk' being the default, it most certainly wasn't in my case and I couldn't figure it for a long time. Perhaps that wizard popped up because the drive was larger than 32 GB (actually, abt 150 GB). Same reason I never saw the FAT32 option till I assigned a 30GB partition space. I know about the false sense of security of the 'partition fallacy'. My friend here also does, which is why he asked me to help him install the 2nd HD as a "backup" HD for his prime disk data and his portable, etc. That's better than nothing - or backing up to some partition on his prime drive. As for my preference for FAT 32, its several things. Right or wrong, I've read articles in the past about fatal NTFS and NTFS encryption type problems. I also had this idea that a corrupted or virus-infected FAT32 drive was easier to access and repair (via DOS, as well - tho' technically FAT32 is not supposed to be accessible via regular flavors of DOS). Then too, I'm conservative and like to stick w/ the tried and true. Don't like experimenting w/ new things - til they're fully proven. Not anti-progress; just over-cautious maybe. As for copy of OS on 2nd drive, well, why not? After all, the whole drive is intended as backup. Would save a lot of time and fiddling if the 1st drive blew, don't you think? Anyhow, I certainly appreciate your highly detailed response - precisely what I needed. Made me think, too. Believe I've got this under control now; so better get back and finish it. Really appreciate, -- Nak "Patrick Keenan" wrote: > "Nak" <Nak@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:D15BE9D6-1164-4F91-8D0C-904D8F5FCD8B@microsoft.com... > > > > 22:26 01/10/2007 > > > > How to configure a 2nd SCSI SATA drive? > > Your drives are either SCSI or SATA, they cannot be both. From the model > numbers you p;rovided , these are SATA drives. > > In reality, SATA and SCSI are different things. SCSI is recognisable by a > totally different connector (much wider than SATA). Also, SCSI drives are > not common, and tend to have smaller capacities and be much more expensive > than SATA. > > NT, 2000 and XP for some reason grouped these drives with SCSI. > > Generally, to add and configure a 2nd (or 3rd or 4th) SATA drive to a > system, you shut down, plug the drive(s) in, restart, allow Windows to > detect them. From Disk Management, select each raw drive and create > partitions, then format them and assign drive letters as appropriate. > Start using them. > > That's it. Your system will have one primary drive, and then as much space > and as many drive letters as have been added with your disk installs of > non-primary drives. > > You appear to be trying to make this much more complex than it is. > > > > --------------------------------------- > > > > Specs: Win XP Pro SP2, Pentium 4 3 GHz, 445 MB RAM > > > > Following drive specs obtained via 'Computer Management' and 'Device > > Manager': > > > > Disk 0: ST316081 5AS SCSI Disk Device / 75 GB > > Disk 1: ST380811 0AS SCSI Disk device / 150 GB (just added & initialized; > > not yet configured, partitioned, formatted, etc.) > > > > > > These drives are SATA drives. I know v little about SCSI and SATA drives > > except > > for what I'v just read on the Net. SEAGATE Website says no jumpers need be > > set > > and that all drives are considered as Masters. I do not know the > > implications > > of having 2 Master drives. The following is from SEAGATE Website: > > <snippage> > > > There are 4 SATA connectors on the mobo - 2 red (1 & 2); 2 black (3 & 4) - > > and I don't have a clue as to the difference between the red and the black > > ones - unless maybe the black ones are for 'Slave drives'. > > They are generally marked for identification. The function doesn't differ. > > No slaves and no masters and no jumpers with SATA. It's very easy to use. > > There are four SATA channels on your motherboard. One drive attaches to > each. > > I would suggest that you start with 1 and work towards 4, sequentially. > > > I would like to make the new 2nd drive a Slave (if possible and if > > adviseable) > > Why? You say this several times and give no reason. > > This terminology is not applicable to SATA. I would suggest that your > desire to do this may be due to a simple misunderstanding or lack of > information. > > It's much easier than you appear to think. > > > but have no idea how to go about it. Wouldn't have a clue about > > any "host adapter documentation"; seems like a bit of overkill, just to > > make > > a drive a slave drive. > > Why is it that you wish to make a drive a "slave"? > > > Thought Windows might give the option. With IDE it's a > > matter of simple drive jumper relocation. > > No need for jumpers with SATA as there is only one drive per channel. > > > > > In Disk Management I got confronted w/ a riske "Dynamic Volume" wizard. > > "The > > Elder Geek" provides some articles on this which made my hair stand on end > > and my skin crawl. For sure I don't want to convert the Disk to Dynamic > > Volume or RAID, etc. No way! > > Correct You want Basic disks for most purposes. > > > The article also givesa warning about not being able to convert back; yet > > Windows Help (via 'Computer Management') says it's a simple matter and > > gives > > the steps. > > > > Who's right? > > "simple" depends on what you did and what your skills and knowledge are. > > > > > Fortunately and somehow I got the wizard to finally give me the 'basic > > disk' > > option. > > It's the default. > > > > ------------------------------------------ > > > > 1. All I want to do is to make this 2nd drive a simple FAT32 backup drive > > Why do you want FAT32? > > > with a total of 4 partitions - and hopefully Windows XP will give me the > > FAT32 option somewhere along the line. I don't want NTFS for several > > reasons. > > If the partitions are over 40 gig or so, XP will not allow you to format as > FAT, only as NTFS. > > You would need to boot the system with something else and format the > partitions there. > > There are a lot of good reasons for formatting as NTFS. > > The few good reasons for *not* doing so include having to dual-boot with an > OS that does not support NTFS, or regularly attaching the drive to such an > OS. If the other OS is accessing it via XP and a network, the format isn't > an issue as XP does the translation. > > > > 2. If I cannot get the 'Slave drive' option, > > You can't, it isn't part of the SATA concept. You would need to use IDE > drives for this, but in any case, I don't believe you will find any benefit. > > Why do you want this, or why do you *think* you want this? > > While the master/slave model does not apply to SATA where it's one drive per > channel, it's also not relevant to partitioning or formatting. > > > > is it OK to just go ahead and > > assume it'll turn into a 2nd Master? > > No. > > Each SATA channel in use will have one drive. The system will have a > primary drive. > > > What are the consequences of this? > > There will be one primary system drive, and other non-primary drives. > That's it. The boot sequence is determined elsewhere. > > > 3. How do I partition this thing? Should I / do I need to first create a > > primary > > partition and then an extended partition, which I then partition into 3 > > logical > > drives? or how? > > How you partition it depends on your needs. Drives this size many people > leave to one partition and format NTFS. > > There's this idea that partitioning somehow allows some safety for backups. > This is true in the sense that if you accidentally format or remove one > partition, the others are safe. However, it's just as common for drives to > fail, and then all partitions are equally inaccessible. Also, a single > backup location is asking for trouble. Drives and disks fail. Make more > than one copy to more than one physical disk and store them in physically > different locations. > > Creating one partition and then four directories that you then map or subst > so that these folders appear as drives, is another approach that removes the > size limitations necessarily imposed by partitioning. > > But how you partition depends on your needs. Don't know what those are. > > > > 4. Do I need to / can I (if I want to) install an OS (like Win XP Pro) on > > the primary partition? > > So you now also wish to have a second install of XP on the system? Why? > > Yes you can create a dual-boot system, but only you can tell if you "need" > to do so. > > > Is there any advantage to this? > > That depends on whether you "need" to install XP again. You will need a > second license. > > > Would there be a conflict created > > between the existing OS on Disk 0 > > And what *is* this "existing OS"? > > It can "conflict" if you are not careful. Dual-boots have to be > implemented with some care. > > > and the new one on Disk 1 or would the > > system boot normally via the OS on the C: drive? > > That would depend on how you performed the second install and where its > files are. Normally with dual-boots you set up a selector screen. > > > I did not see any answers to any of the above specific questions in the > > Windows Help on the issue in Computer Management. > > Some of the questions aren't relevant to its topics. > > > Could someone please supply me with some understandable answers to the > > above? > > Frankly, I will suggest that you need to rephrase some of your questions and > provide more information with them. > > > HTH > -pk > > > > > > Thank you very much, > > > > -- > > Nak > > >
Guest Lil' Dave Posted October 2, 2007 Posted October 2, 2007 Re: How to configure a 2nd SCSI SATA drive? Windows interprets for namesake, other than onboard ide drives, as scsi. This includes scsi, add-on adapter ide connected hard drives, and SATA. 4 primary partitions per hard drive. No more using dos, windows tools, and most 3rd party software for partitioning. In this context, an extended partition is part of that count (not the logical drives within that extended partition). The operating system booted from must be able to know how to access the SATA hard drive. Msdos may not be able to do that. Dave "Nak" <Nak@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:1489E097-4604-40F9-84C7-A466972ED5D8@microsoft.com... > OK. Thanks Patrick. That looks like about as comprehensive an answer as > I'll > ever > get or need. Fact is, in last few hours I've browsed the Net extensively > to > see what > I could dig up on my own, if anything. Mostly it confirms what you've said > and then > some. > > I did wonder about the SCSI / SATA thing. I came across something a while > back > that kept nagging me - something about not being able to do some type of > partitioning or formating on them, unlike as w/ IDE drives. Can't recall. > When > Windows told me it was SCSI, I took it at face value. Live and learn. Good > thing > I asked. I didn't see that fact mentioned anywhere in the tons of data on > the issues > I've downloaded in last few hours. > > The questions I asked are out of curiosity. I want to know as I'm not up > on > this stuff > and no matter what anyone says, as far as I'm concerned, the Windows Help > is > hopelessly (maybe purposely) truncated and out of context. If you have > little > background on the issues, there's simply not enough contiguous detail. I > realize > one can't be too detailed - but a bit more would be nice. > > It's 3:30 AM here in Thailand and I don't have the time now to defend my > thought > processes, such that they are. I have to get this thing working now. My > problem > is that if a thing isn't detailed and listed step by step (w/ some ref > history), I just > don't get it. > > For instance, where it says you can create Primary, extended and logical > partitions, its confusing to me because, for one thing (of many), it > doesn't > say explicitly that > the primary partition must be smaller than the size of the disk space > minus > the > sum of the spaces of the other required partitions (I want 5, now, > actually). I had > mistakenly assumed that the primary partition had to take up the whole > disk > space > and the others to be formed in it. Sori, but my brain just getting too old > to see the > obvious, I guess. But that's just one thing of many. I'm getting there > now, > though. > > I've already done what you said and I'm formating all 5 partitions (I hope > I > get that > many) in NTFS. I've just finished the primary. We'll see how she goes. > > As for "Slave drives", well, as you imply and as I mentioned, I just > wasn't > clear on > the SATA concept. Your input helped to set me straight. In old days, when > MBR, etc., blew on the Master IDE, I recall I had to "slave" it to another > Master, so that I could recover my data via DOS or Windows (whatever > worked) > from the temp Slave, before attempting to fix it. So I guess it stuck in > my > head. > > Offhand, It looks to me now that it might be more difficult to access data > on a > similarly corrupted SATA drive, particularly one formated w/ NTFS. > > As for the 'basic disk' being the default, it most certainly wasn't in my > case and > I couldn't figure it for a long time. Perhaps that wizard popped up > because > the > drive was larger than 32 GB (actually, abt 150 GB). Same reason I never > saw > the > FAT32 option till I assigned a 30GB partition space. > > I know about the false sense of security of the 'partition fallacy'. My > friend here > also does, which is why he asked me to help him install the 2nd HD as a > "backup" HD for his prime disk data and his portable, etc. That's better > than > nothing - or backing up to some partition on his prime drive. > > As for my preference for FAT 32, its several things. Right or wrong, I've > read > articles in the past about fatal NTFS and NTFS encryption type problems. I > also > had this idea that a corrupted or virus-infected FAT32 drive was easier to > access and repair (via DOS, as well - tho' technically FAT32 is not > supposed > to be > accessible via regular flavors of DOS). Then too, I'm conservative and > like > to > stick w/ the tried and true. Don't like experimenting w/ new things - til > they're > fully proven. Not anti-progress; just over-cautious maybe. > > As for copy of OS on 2nd drive, well, why not? After all, the whole drive > is > intended > as backup. Would save a lot of time and fiddling if the 1st drive blew, > don't you > think? > > Anyhow, I certainly appreciate your highly detailed response - precisely > what I > needed. Made me think, too. Believe I've got this under control now; so > better get > back and finish it. > > Really appreciate, > > -- > Nak > > > "Patrick Keenan" wrote: > >> "Nak" <Nak@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:D15BE9D6-1164-4F91-8D0C-904D8F5FCD8B@microsoft.com... >> > >> > 22:26 01/10/2007 >> > >> > How to configure a 2nd SCSI SATA drive? >> >> Your drives are either SCSI or SATA, they cannot be both. From the >> model >> numbers you p;rovided , these are SATA drives. >> >> In reality, SATA and SCSI are different things. SCSI is recognisable by >> a >> totally different connector (much wider than SATA). Also, SCSI drives >> are >> not common, and tend to have smaller capacities and be much more >> expensive >> than SATA. >> >> NT, 2000 and XP for some reason grouped these drives with SCSI. >> >> Generally, to add and configure a 2nd (or 3rd or 4th) SATA drive to a >> system, you shut down, plug the drive(s) in, restart, allow Windows to >> detect them. From Disk Management, select each raw drive and create >> partitions, then format them and assign drive letters as appropriate. >> Start using them. >> >> That's it. Your system will have one primary drive, and then as much >> space >> and as many drive letters as have been added with your disk installs of >> non-primary drives. >> >> You appear to be trying to make this much more complex than it is. >> >> >> > --------------------------------------- >> > >> > Specs: Win XP Pro SP2, Pentium 4 3 GHz, 445 MB RAM >> > >> > Following drive specs obtained via 'Computer Management' and 'Device >> > Manager': >> > >> > Disk 0: ST316081 5AS SCSI Disk Device / 75 GB >> > Disk 1: ST380811 0AS SCSI Disk device / 150 GB (just added & >> > initialized; >> > not yet configured, partitioned, formatted, etc.) >> > >> > >> > These drives are SATA drives. I know v little about SCSI and SATA >> > drives >> > except >> > for what I'v just read on the Net. SEAGATE Website says no jumpers need >> > be >> > set >> > and that all drives are considered as Masters. I do not know the >> > implications >> > of having 2 Master drives. The following is from SEAGATE Website: >> >> <snippage> >> >> > There are 4 SATA connectors on the mobo - 2 red (1 & 2); 2 black (3 & >> > 4) - >> > and I don't have a clue as to the difference between the red and the >> > black >> > ones - unless maybe the black ones are for 'Slave drives'. >> >> They are generally marked for identification. The function doesn't >> differ. >> >> No slaves and no masters and no jumpers with SATA. It's very easy to >> use. >> >> There are four SATA channels on your motherboard. One drive attaches to >> each. >> >> I would suggest that you start with 1 and work towards 4, sequentially. >> >> > I would like to make the new 2nd drive a Slave (if possible and if >> > adviseable) >> >> Why? You say this several times and give no reason. >> >> This terminology is not applicable to SATA. I would suggest that your >> desire to do this may be due to a simple misunderstanding or lack of >> information. >> >> It's much easier than you appear to think. >> >> > but have no idea how to go about it. Wouldn't have a clue about >> > any "host adapter documentation"; seems like a bit of overkill, just to >> > make >> > a drive a slave drive. >> >> Why is it that you wish to make a drive a "slave"? >> >> > Thought Windows might give the option. With IDE it's a >> > matter of simple drive jumper relocation. >> >> No need for jumpers with SATA as there is only one drive per channel. >> >> > >> > In Disk Management I got confronted w/ a riske "Dynamic Volume" wizard. >> > "The >> > Elder Geek" provides some articles on this which made my hair stand on >> > end >> > and my skin crawl. For sure I don't want to convert the Disk to Dynamic >> > Volume or RAID, etc. No way! >> >> Correct You want Basic disks for most purposes. >> >> > The article also givesa warning about not being able to convert back; >> > yet >> > Windows Help (via 'Computer Management') says it's a simple matter and >> > gives >> > the steps. >> > >> > Who's right? >> >> "simple" depends on what you did and what your skills and knowledge are. >> >> > >> > Fortunately and somehow I got the wizard to finally give me the 'basic >> > disk' >> > option. >> >> It's the default. >> >> >> > ------------------------------------------ >> > >> > 1. All I want to do is to make this 2nd drive a simple FAT32 backup >> > drive >> >> Why do you want FAT32? >> >> > with a total of 4 partitions - and hopefully Windows XP will give me >> > the >> > FAT32 option somewhere along the line. I don't want NTFS for several >> > reasons. >> >> If the partitions are over 40 gig or so, XP will not allow you to format >> as >> FAT, only as NTFS. >> >> You would need to boot the system with something else and format the >> partitions there. >> >> There are a lot of good reasons for formatting as NTFS. >> >> The few good reasons for *not* doing so include having to dual-boot with >> an >> OS that does not support NTFS, or regularly attaching the drive to such >> an >> OS. If the other OS is accessing it via XP and a network, the format >> isn't >> an issue as XP does the translation. >> >> >> > 2. If I cannot get the 'Slave drive' option, >> >> You can't, it isn't part of the SATA concept. You would need to use IDE >> drives for this, but in any case, I don't believe you will find any >> benefit. >> >> Why do you want this, or why do you *think* you want this? >> >> While the master/slave model does not apply to SATA where it's one drive >> per >> channel, it's also not relevant to partitioning or formatting. >> >> >> > is it OK to just go ahead and >> > assume it'll turn into a 2nd Master? >> >> No. >> >> Each SATA channel in use will have one drive. The system will have a >> primary drive. >> >> > What are the consequences of this? >> >> There will be one primary system drive, and other non-primary drives. >> That's it. The boot sequence is determined elsewhere. >> >> > 3. How do I partition this thing? Should I / do I need to first create >> > a >> > primary >> > partition and then an extended partition, which I then partition into 3 >> > logical >> > drives? or how? >> >> How you partition it depends on your needs. Drives this size many >> people >> leave to one partition and format NTFS. >> >> There's this idea that partitioning somehow allows some safety for >> backups. >> This is true in the sense that if you accidentally format or remove one >> partition, the others are safe. However, it's just as common for drives >> to >> fail, and then all partitions are equally inaccessible. Also, a single >> backup location is asking for trouble. Drives and disks fail. Make >> more >> than one copy to more than one physical disk and store them in physically >> different locations. >> >> Creating one partition and then four directories that you then map or >> subst >> so that these folders appear as drives, is another approach that removes >> the >> size limitations necessarily imposed by partitioning. >> >> But how you partition depends on your needs. Don't know what those are. >> >> >> > 4. Do I need to / can I (if I want to) install an OS (like Win XP Pro) >> > on >> > the primary partition? >> >> So you now also wish to have a second install of XP on the system? Why? >> >> Yes you can create a dual-boot system, but only you can tell if you >> "need" >> to do so. >> >> > Is there any advantage to this? >> >> That depends on whether you "need" to install XP again. You will need a >> second license. >> >> > Would there be a conflict created >> > between the existing OS on Disk 0 >> >> And what *is* this "existing OS"? >> >> It can "conflict" if you are not careful. Dual-boots have to be >> implemented with some care. >> >> > and the new one on Disk 1 or would the >> > system boot normally via the OS on the C: drive? >> >> That would depend on how you performed the second install and where its >> files are. Normally with dual-boots you set up a selector screen. >> >> > I did not see any answers to any of the above specific questions in the >> > Windows Help on the issue in Computer Management. >> >> Some of the questions aren't relevant to its topics. >> >> > Could someone please supply me with some understandable answers to the >> > above? >> >> Frankly, I will suggest that you need to rephrase some of your questions >> and >> provide more information with them. >> >> >> HTH >> -pk >> >> >> > >> > Thank you very much, >> > >> > -- >> > Nak >> >> >>
Guest Nak Posted October 3, 2007 Posted October 3, 2007 Re: How to configure a 2nd SCSI SATA drive? OK. Thanks, Lil' Dave. Your points are noted. Clarifies things a bit more for me. The drive is all formatted to NTFS now, so I guess can't use DOS to much (or any) effect now anyway. I'll check it out. Thanks again, -- Nak "Lil' Dave" wrote: > Windows interprets for namesake, other than onboard ide drives, as scsi. > This includes scsi, add-on adapter ide connected hard drives, and SATA. > > 4 primary partitions per hard drive. No more using dos, windows tools, and > most 3rd party software for partitioning. In this context, an extended > partition is part of that count (not the logical drives within that extended > partition). > > The operating system booted from must be able to know how to access the SATA > hard drive. Msdos may not be able to do that. > Dave > > > "Nak" <Nak@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:1489E097-4604-40F9-84C7-A466972ED5D8@microsoft.com... > > OK. Thanks Patrick. That looks like about as comprehensive an answer as > > I'll > > ever > > get or need. Fact is, in last few hours I've browsed the Net extensively > > to > > see what > > I could dig up on my own, if anything. Mostly it confirms what you've said > > and then > > some. > > > > I did wonder about the SCSI / SATA thing. I came across something a while > > back > > that kept nagging me - something about not being able to do some type of > > partitioning or formating on them, unlike as w/ IDE drives. Can't recall. > > When > > Windows told me it was SCSI, I took it at face value. Live and learn. Good > > thing > > I asked. I didn't see that fact mentioned anywhere in the tons of data on > > the issues > > I've downloaded in last few hours. > > > > The questions I asked are out of curiosity. I want to know as I'm not up > > on > > this stuff > > and no matter what anyone says, as far as I'm concerned, the Windows Help > > is > > hopelessly (maybe purposely) truncated and out of context. If you have > > little > > background on the issues, there's simply not enough contiguous detail. I > > realize > > one can't be too detailed - but a bit more would be nice. > > > > It's 3:30 AM here in Thailand and I don't have the time now to defend my > > thought > > processes, such that they are. I have to get this thing working now. My > > problem > > is that if a thing isn't detailed and listed step by step (w/ some ref > > history), I just > > don't get it. > > > > For instance, where it says you can create Primary, extended and logical > > partitions, its confusing to me because, for one thing (of many), it > > doesn't > > say explicitly that > > the primary partition must be smaller than the size of the disk space > > minus > > the > > sum of the spaces of the other required partitions (I want 5, now, > > actually). I had > > mistakenly assumed that the primary partition had to take up the whole > > disk > > space > > and the others to be formed in it. Sori, but my brain just getting too old > > to see the > > obvious, I guess. But that's just one thing of many. I'm getting there > > now, > > though. > > > > I've already done what you said and I'm formating all 5 partitions (I hope > > I > > get that > > many) in NTFS. I've just finished the primary. We'll see how she goes. > > > > As for "Slave drives", well, as you imply and as I mentioned, I just > > wasn't > > clear on > > the SATA concept. Your input helped to set me straight. In old days, when > > MBR, etc., blew on the Master IDE, I recall I had to "slave" it to another > > Master, so that I could recover my data via DOS or Windows (whatever > > worked) > > from the temp Slave, before attempting to fix it. So I guess it stuck in > > my > > head. > > > > Offhand, It looks to me now that it might be more difficult to access data > > on a > > similarly corrupted SATA drive, particularly one formated w/ NTFS. > > > > As for the 'basic disk' being the default, it most certainly wasn't in my > > case and > > I couldn't figure it for a long time. Perhaps that wizard popped up > > because > > the > > drive was larger than 32 GB (actually, abt 150 GB). Same reason I never > > saw > > the > > FAT32 option till I assigned a 30GB partition space. > > > > I know about the false sense of security of the 'partition fallacy'. My > > friend here > > also does, which is why he asked me to help him install the 2nd HD as a > > "backup" HD for his prime disk data and his portable, etc. That's better > > than > > nothing - or backing up to some partition on his prime drive. > > > > As for my preference for FAT 32, its several things. Right or wrong, I've > > read > > articles in the past about fatal NTFS and NTFS encryption type problems. I > > also > > had this idea that a corrupted or virus-infected FAT32 drive was easier to > > access and repair (via DOS, as well - tho' technically FAT32 is not > > supposed > > to be > > accessible via regular flavors of DOS). Then too, I'm conservative and > > like > > to > > stick w/ the tried and true. Don't like experimenting w/ new things - til > > they're > > fully proven. Not anti-progress; just over-cautious maybe. > > > > As for copy of OS on 2nd drive, well, why not? After all, the whole drive > > is > > intended > > as backup. Would save a lot of time and fiddling if the 1st drive blew, > > don't you > > think? > > > > Anyhow, I certainly appreciate your highly detailed response - precisely > > what I > > needed. Made me think, too. Believe I've got this under control now; so > > better get > > back and finish it. > > > > Really appreciate, > > > > -- > > Nak > > > > > > "Patrick Keenan" wrote: > > > >> "Nak" <Nak@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > >> news:D15BE9D6-1164-4F91-8D0C-904D8F5FCD8B@microsoft.com... > >> > > >> > 22:26 01/10/2007 > >> > > >> > How to configure a 2nd SCSI SATA drive? > >> > >> Your drives are either SCSI or SATA, they cannot be both. From the > >> model > >> numbers you p;rovided , these are SATA drives. > >> > >> In reality, SATA and SCSI are different things. SCSI is recognisable by > >> a > >> totally different connector (much wider than SATA). Also, SCSI drives > >> are > >> not common, and tend to have smaller capacities and be much more > >> expensive > >> than SATA. > >> > >> NT, 2000 and XP for some reason grouped these drives with SCSI. > >> > >> Generally, to add and configure a 2nd (or 3rd or 4th) SATA drive to a > >> system, you shut down, plug the drive(s) in, restart, allow Windows to > >> detect them. From Disk Management, select each raw drive and create > >> partitions, then format them and assign drive letters as appropriate. > >> Start using them. > >> > >> That's it. Your system will have one primary drive, and then as much > >> space > >> and as many drive letters as have been added with your disk installs of > >> non-primary drives. > >> > >> You appear to be trying to make this much more complex than it is. > >> > >> > >> > --------------------------------------- > >> > > >> > Specs: Win XP Pro SP2, Pentium 4 3 GHz, 445 MB RAM > >> > > >> > Following drive specs obtained via 'Computer Management' and 'Device > >> > Manager': > >> > > >> > Disk 0: ST316081 5AS SCSI Disk Device / 75 GB > >> > Disk 1: ST380811 0AS SCSI Disk device / 150 GB (just added & > >> > initialized; > >> > not yet configured, partitioned, formatted, etc.) > >> > > >> > > >> > These drives are SATA drives. I know v little about SCSI and SATA > >> > drives > >> > except > >> > for what I'v just read on the Net. SEAGATE Website says no jumpers need > >> > be > >> > set > >> > and that all drives are considered as Masters. I do not know the > >> > implications > >> > of having 2 Master drives. The following is from SEAGATE Website: > >> > >> <snippage> > >> > >> > There are 4 SATA connectors on the mobo - 2 red (1 & 2); 2 black (3 & > >> > 4) - > >> > and I don't have a clue as to the difference between the red and the > >> > black > >> > ones - unless maybe the black ones are for 'Slave drives'. > >> > >> They are generally marked for identification. The function doesn't > >> differ. > >> > >> No slaves and no masters and no jumpers with SATA. It's very easy to > >> use. > >> > >> There are four SATA channels on your motherboard. One drive attaches to > >> each. > >> > >> I would suggest that you start with 1 and work towards 4, sequentially. > >> > >> > I would like to make the new 2nd drive a Slave (if possible and if > >> > adviseable) > >> > >> Why? You say this several times and give no reason. > >> > >> This terminology is not applicable to SATA. I would suggest that your > >> desire to do this may be due to a simple misunderstanding or lack of > >> information. > >> > >> It's much easier than you appear to think. > >> > >> > but have no idea how to go about it. Wouldn't have a clue about > >> > any "host adapter documentation"; seems like a bit of overkill, just to > >> > make > >> > a drive a slave drive. > >> > >> Why is it that you wish to make a drive a "slave"? > >> > >> > Thought Windows might give the option. With IDE it's a > >> > matter of simple drive jumper relocation. > >> > >> No need for jumpers with SATA as there is only one drive per channel. > >> > >> > > >> > In Disk Management I got confronted w/ a riske "Dynamic Volume" wizard. > >> > "The > >> > Elder Geek" provides some articles on this which made my hair stand on > >> > end > >> > and my skin crawl. For sure I don't want to convert the Disk to Dynamic > >> > Volume or RAID, etc. No way! > >> > >> Correct You want Basic disks for most purposes. > >> > >> > The article also givesa warning about not being able to convert back; > >> > yet > >> > Windows Help (via 'Computer Management') says it's a simple matter and > >> > gives > >> > the steps. > >> > > >> > Who's right? > >> > >> "simple" depends on what you did and what your skills and knowledge are. > >> > >> > > >> > Fortunately and somehow I got the wizard to finally give me the 'basic > >> > disk' > >> > option. > >> > >> It's the default. > >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------ > >> > > >> > 1. All I want to do is to make this 2nd drive a simple FAT32 backup > >> > drive > >> > >> Why do you want FAT32? > >> > >> > with a total of 4 partitions - and hopefully Windows XP will give me > >> > the > >> > FAT32 option somewhere along the line. I don't want NTFS for several > >> > reasons. > >> > >> If the partitions are over 40 gig or so, XP will not allow you to format > >> as > >> FAT, only as NTFS. > >> > >> You would need to boot the system with something else and format the > >> partitions there. > >> > >> There are a lot of good reasons for formatting as NTFS. > >> > >> The few good reasons for *not* doing so include having to dual-boot with > >> an > >> OS that does not support NTFS, or regularly attaching the drive to such > >> an > >> OS. If the other OS is accessing it via XP and a network, the format
Recommended Posts