PDA

View Full Version : Slave drive OS slow



tmxmnr
04-12-2002, 05:39 AM
I put OS 9.2.1 on a 40 gig Barracuda that is the slave drive (to a 60 gig Barracuda) in my QS 733. Downloaded MacBench just for the heck of it and ran some tests. While the processor intensive scores where what I expected against the comparison system (a G3/300), the disk scores in all cases where about half.

This surprised me as the Barracuda runs at 7,200 rpm and (I would assume) the comparison G3 system on MacBench had a 5,400 rpm IDE drive.

I figured maybe it was because I have 9.2.1 on the slave drive, however I note some slowness to the whole system in booting up into 9.2.1 (especially with the wait before the desktop shows up)?

Can anybody confirm that slave drive OS are generally slower, or should I be running some further diagnostics (I don't use 9.2.1 all that much anymore, but if it is something else, I figure I ought to know).

Thanks,

Anthony

kaye
04-12-2002, 09:26 AM
My take on this is that MacBench has identified a problem somewhere with the Cuda. Not only is the Cuda a faster drive but also your ATA bus is faster, ATA/66 versus the comparison G3 I think was ATA/33. The slave drive that I added in a G4-800DP (IBM 60GXP 60GB) is much faster than the master that I purchased with the box (WD800BB 80GB). I don't think it matters speedwise whether a drive is master or slave but I'll let others with more experience using IDE drives weigh in.

I would start by checking Apple System Profiler under the Devices and Volumes to look for clues, such as whether both drives are using the same version Apple driver, etc. And it may be that the cable connector on the Cuda is not fully seated but be careful. Rick warned me that with these IDE drives, it is very easy to bend or force connector pins on the drive to retract onto the drive's logic board so you might want to look at the pins and flip the drive over and look at the pins and where they are soldered to the drive logic board.

Just some things to start with. You might also want to just check/compare how badly the drive is fragged. k

ricks
04-12-2002, 09:56 AM
HI Anthony,

I've had stuff like that happen too. Usually in trying different things, like different drivers and different utilities such as Disk Warrior or FWB the problem gets resolved. You do have a problem, no doubt. If I had to choose the strongest driver utility today I would go with OSX Drive Utiilty.

One thing, is the Master drive on top and thus the end drive on the cable? The middle spot is recommended to be the slave spot and the end is recommended as the Master position. Another thing is to double check that your master drive is actually configured master and not single, the bus can do some real strange things when one of its drives is configured wrong, always good to double check.

Performance wise there should be no difference between a slave and a master all other things being equal, doesn't matter if you boot from it or anything else. I have OSX on my slave and OS9.2.2 on my Master currently. At several times in the past I have had that reversed with no ill affects.

Are both drives Barracuda IVs? You might expect some difference in performance if one is a Barracuda III.

Rick

tmxmnr
04-12-2002, 10:07 AM
Kaye - I'll check the pins. I tried to use the drive in my Blue G3 with no luck (rev. 1 problems). I had pulled out of the blue at least 3 times trying two other drives. The drive should not be fragmented because I reinstalled the drive in my G4, smoked it and installed 9.2.1 early this week.

Rick - Both drives are 'Cuda IVs. I am almost certain that I reconfigured the jumpers back to the correct positions for master and slave drives, but that is a good thing to double check. Now that I think back to when I originally installed them (but I had them flipped (the 60 was the slave)) both drives were really fast so something must be up! The Master drive is in the middle, which may be the solution right there (but again, I recall that my master drive when they were flipped was in the middle too). Still, if the appropriate and highestest performance comes from putting it at the end, then I'll reset it up that way. I just made the assumption that since the bottom drive was configured as the master and I added I drive, I would make it the slave.

Thanks for the tips. I'll check them this weekend and report back.

-Anthony

ricks
04-12-2002, 11:26 AM
FYI, when you do a new install you'll find that your drive will be horribly fragmented, that's a great time to defrag it, or just copy it from one drive to another, that'll defrag as well as anything.

Rick