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

Discussion in 'Asus' started by Guest, May 25, 2005.

  1. Guest

    Guest 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.
     
    Guest, May 25, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Guest

    name Guest

    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
     
    name, May 25, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I had a similar setup on a A8N-E. I disconnected all the HDDs, except for
    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.
     
    Maxim S. Shatskih, May 25, 2005
    #3
  4. Thx for your detailed reply.
    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...
    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.
    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)...


    I know.
    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"
    Thx for the input, though I don't plan (yet) to install *nix on that
    machine...
     
    Stephane Barizien, May 26, 2005
    #4
  5. Same for me... though you probably would have sped up the nightmare I had
    BIOS boot order setting. All BIOSes known to me from Pentium-3 up support this.
    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.
    Never tried it.
    Check the boot order BIOS settings.
     
    Maxim S. Shatskih, May 26, 2005
    #5
  6. 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
    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?

    Will sure do it!
     
    Stephane Barizien, May 26, 2005
    #6
  7. Not if the SCSI BIOS is on the SCSI board (typically an Adaptec one in my
    ....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.
    I have 2 SATA disks and a SCSI disk on one of my machines. The boot order is
    controlled from the BIOS (Asus P5P800).
    CDs are listed separately. More so, subnotebooks can boot off USB CD, even USB
    1.x CD.
     
    Maxim S. Shatskih, May 26, 2005
    #7
  8. OK, but not with "brand-name PCs"
    So I completely misunderstood your explanation on what the SATA controller /
    devices "replace" when something is disabled...
    Any doc / ptrs on all this?
     
    Stephane Barizien, May 26, 2005
    #8
  9. Asus CUSL2 supports this. Asus P5P800 supports this. This is just
    With such things, looks like these brand-names are for housewives only :) they
    are also very expensive outside the US.
    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).
    Asus S200 subnotebook can boot off USB CD. Tried this personally.
     
    Maxim S. Shatskih, May 26, 2005
    #9
  10. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Sorry for sounding (being?) dumb, but does "yes" mean "yes you completely
    misunderstood" or "yes you did understand?"
    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...
     
    Guest, May 26, 2005
    #10
  11. I do understand that for SATA to operate in non-native mode, it has to use
    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.
    Maybe the Intel's chipset docs.
     
    Maxim S. Shatskih, May 26, 2005
    #11
  12. Guest

    Guest Guest

    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...)
     
    Guest, May 26, 2005
    #12
  13. So even getting rid of *both* my ATA disks, and "replacing" them with a SATA
    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).
     
    Maxim S. Shatskih, May 27, 2005
    #13
  14. 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?)
     
    Stephane Barizien, May 27, 2005
    #14
  15. But the BIOS never sets the disks to native mode initially as far as
    This choice is made by BIOS setup. OS's drivers obey this choice.
    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.
     
    Maxim S. Shatskih, May 27, 2005
    #15
  16. Haven't found this (yet) in my A7V600's BIOS (VIA KT600 chipset)
    My A7V600 is VIA KT600-based...
     
    Stephane Barizien, May 27, 2005
    #16
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.