isolating new clone drive for 1st bootup

ATA-4 (1997) standard states that all lines driven by devices shall be
tri-state (except DASP). That means anything made in the last 5 years should
cause no problems to the other device if it is powered off. On my older
drives, it did cause problems.

"Timothy Daniels" wrote in message
...

I was *not* asking about a hot-swap wherein the
logical state of the drive would be undefined when
powered was applied by virtue of the signal cables
being pre-connected. I *was* asking about doing the
switching ON/OFF of power cables while the PC was
shut down. This would be logically equivalent to physically
connecting and disconnecting the power cables to various
HDs by opening the case, etc. I know this works in
some configurations - single HDs on separate channels -
because I've done it. That is, just disconnecting the
power cable of one HD allows the other HD (on the
other IDE channel) to boot up in isolation.

"Timothy Daniels" wrote in message ...
"chrisv" wrote:
"Timothy Daniels" wrote:
My question really hinges on the effect of unpowered
devices connected in various combinations and configurations
to a 2-device IDE cable. What would happen if the Master
HD at the end of a cable were unpowered while the Slave
were powered?

THAT is what I don't think will work. Rod says it will,
and maybe it will, for some controller/HD combinations.
But it's quite hokey to do that, even if you get away with it.


Hey! The whole scheme is hokey, including the removable
drive tray/rack. I just want to know if it *works*. If it works,
it would save a whole bunch of labor, and it would encourage
me to do backups more often.

Its completely mad to be using a kludge like that for backup.

Makes a hell of a lot more sense to use image files
instead of clones of the boot drive instead and then
the whole question of how XP reacts with the clone
and the original visible on the first boot after the
clone has been done doesnt arise and there is no
need to bother with the massive kludge of turning
the power to the clone drive off for the first boot either.

And if you want a physically removable drive as the
destination for the backup, you'd be MUCH better off
using a proper formal standard like firewire or USB2
than the monster kludge of removable drive bays anyway.

"chrisv" wrote:
chrisv wrote:

"Timothy Daniels" wrote:

My question really hinges on the effect of unpowered
devices connected in various combinations and configurations
to a 2-device IDE cable. What would happen if the Master
HD at the end of a cable were unpowered while the Slave
were powered?

THAT is what I don't think will work. Rod says it will, and
maybe it will, for some controller/HD combinations. But it's
quite hokey to do that, even if you get away with it.

If the Slave were unpowered and the Master
powered? If Master/Slave positions were reversed? Etc.,
etc.

I should have noted that switched master and slave around is
irrelevant to this situation.


As I pointed out in a response to Rod Speed, I meant the
devices at the middle connector and end connector, whatever
their jumpering. That is, would a dead device at the middle impair
the signaling for the end device, and would a dead device at the
end impair signaling for the middle device?

*TimDaniels*

chrisv wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote
chrisv wrote
Timothy Daniels wrote

It would be a lot easier if one could just shut down
and then disconnect the other drives by use of a
physical switch to break the connection with their
power cables. That would avoid all the hassle of
opening the case and unplugging the other drives.

So, does anyone have any information that would
indicate if switching the power cables would work?

I'd be very surprised if you get away with that. Having
un-powered electronics connected to your bus is generally
a sure-fire way to drag the bus down to nothing.

It does work most of the time with removable drive bays.

I'm not familiar with these... Are you saying they leave multiple
drives connected to a bus, with some of those drives not powered?

Yes. Most of them have a usually key operated switch
which basically just turns the power off the drive in it.

If you boot with the power turned off that drive, it will
normally have the drive plugged into the ribbon cable still.

This is why hot-swap devices, whether they are USB
or whatever, have connectors that ensure that the
power is applied before the signals are connected.

Nope, thats for a completely different reason.

Well, it allows the device's reset circuitry
to bring things to a known state, as well...

Thats not the reason the ground is connected
first and last. Its primarily so you dont get the
supply connected before the ground return.

I don't think your "nope" is warranted, however.

It is anyway.

And what they do is ensure that GROUND is connected
first on insertion and disconnected last on removal.

Maybe with some hot-swapable devices, but not all.

Bull****.

USB clearly connects power and ground at the same time,

Nope, you're ignoring the metal surround connection.

as does Compact PCI (cPCI).

Wrong again. You're mangling the story completely with OV there.

http://www.intersil.com/data/tb/tb386.pdf

http://www.quicklogic.com/images/cpci.pdf

"Rod Speed" wrote:
Its completely mad to be using a kludge like that for
backup.

Makes a hell of a lot more sense to use image files
instead of clones of the boot drive instead and then
the whole question of how XP reacts with the clone
and the original visible on the first boot after the
clone has been done doesnt arise and there is no
need to bother with the massive kludge of turning
the power to the clone drive off for the first boot either.


Yes, and I intend to make image files for most backups.
But I also want to have at least one bootable system ready
on another drive to switch to if my primary system drive
should fail. I currently keep a 2nd HD containing a bootable
image running in the PC for just such an emergency.

*TimDaniels*






And if you want a physically removable drive as the
destination for the backup, you'd be MUCH better off
using a proper formal standard like firewire or USB2
than the monster kludge of removable drive bays anyway.

Timothy Daniels wrote in
message ...
Rod Speed wrote

Its completely mad to be using a kludge like that for backup.

Makes a hell of a lot more sense to use image files
instead of clones of the boot drive instead and then
the whole question of how XP reacts with the clone
and the original visible on the first boot after the
clone has been done doesnt arise and there is no
need to bother with the massive kludge of turning
the power to the clone drive off for the first boot either.

Yes, and I intend to make image files for most backups.

But I also want to have at least one bootable system ready on
another drive to switch to if my primary system drive should fail.

Why ? With any decent imaging app all you have
to do is boot the distribution CD or the rescue floppy
and restore from an image file to the replacement
drive if the primary boot drive ever does fail.

I currently keep a 2nd HD containing a bootable
image running in the PC for just such an emergency.

Mad to be using a kludge like that for such an unlikely
event. The last thing you want is to discover that you've
managed to stuff up the power sequencing when you
come to try to use the clone and find it wont boot.

And if you want a physically removable drive as the
destination for the backup, you'd be MUCH better off
using a proper formal standard like firewire or USB2
than the monster kludge of removable drive bays anyway.

Eric Gisin wrote in message
...

ATA-4 (1997) standard states that all lines driven
by devices shall be tri-state (except DASP).

That does not say that that should
happen with the drive not powered tho.

That means anything made in the last 5 years should
cause no problems to the other device if it is powered off.

Its more complicated than that.

On my older drives, it did cause problems.

Just because tristate drivers werent being used.


"Timothy Daniels" wrote in message
...

I was *not* asking about a hot-swap wherein the
logical state of the drive would be undefined when
powered was applied by virtue of the signal cables
being pre-connected. I *was* asking about doing the
switching ON/OFF of power cables while the PC was
shut down. This would be logically equivalent to physically
connecting and disconnecting the power cables to various
HDs by opening the case, etc. I know this works in
some configurations - single HDs on separate channels -
because I've done it. That is, just disconnecting the
power cable of one HD allows the other HD (on the
other IDE channel) to boot up in isolation.

"Rod Speed" wrote:
Timothy Daniels wrote:
Rod Speed wrote
Its completely mad to be using a kludge like that for backup.
Makes a hell of a lot more sense to use image files
instead of clones of the boot drive instead and then
the whole question of how XP reacts with the clone
and the original visible on the first boot after the
clone has been done doesnt arise and there is no
need to bother with the massive kludge of turning
the power to the clone drive off for the first boot either.

Yes, and I intend to make image files for most backups.

But I also want to have at least one bootable system ready on
another drive to switch to if my primary system drive should fail.

Why ? With any decent imaging app all you have
to do is boot the distribution CD or the rescue floppy
and restore from an image file to the replacement
drive if the primary boot drive ever does fail.


And then what, isolate the resulting bootable image for
its first boot up? Then open the case again and reconnect
the HDs and reboot? Why not have all that already done?
I want the switchover to be as simple and quick as possible.
My current practices promise that. All I want to do is to
simplify the HD cloning in preparation for a inoportune
primary HD failure.


I currently keep a 2nd HD containing a bootable
image running in the PC for just such an emergency.

Mad to be using a kludge like that for such an unlikely
event. The last thing you want is to discover that you've
managed to stuff up the power sequencing when you
come to try to use the clone and find it wont boot.


An unlikely event is exactly what I'm preparing for -
the same reason that I have fire insurance on my home.
I have the clone already on the 2nd HD in the PC and
powered up - ready to boot after a quick change in the
BIOS' boot sequence. The power "sequencing" via
manual switch is only meant to facilitate *making* the
bootable image, not to put it into operation. If I had the
money and space, I'd have a 2nd computer running in
tandem, getting exactly the same input and doing exactly
the same things that my current computer is doing. But
what I do now is a satisfactory approximation to that.


And if you want a physically removable drive as the
destination for the backup, you'd be MUCH better off
using a proper formal standard like firewire or USB2
than the monster kludge of removable drive bays anyway.


Why? Those external HDs are more costly and slower.
And I've read nothing but woe in Usenet about cloning to
USB2 and FireWire external drives. Furthermore, my PC
would need another PCI add-in card to add USB2 and/or
FireWire to it. Right now, I have 4 new Maxtor ATA/133
7200rpm HDs with 8MB caches to use. Why should I go
to the hassle and greater expense to use a slower medium?

Please understand that I didn't start this thread to ask
for advice. I simply asked about the effects having of an
unpowered device connected to an IDE cable.

*TimDaniels*

"Eric Gisin" wrote:
ATA-4 (1997) standard states that all lines driven by devices
shall be tri-state (except DASP). That means anything made
in the last 5 years should cause no problems to the other device
if it is powered off....

By "is powered off" do you mean "has its power switched to OFF"
(the power to one drive ceases while the other drive remains running),
or do you mean "remains unpowered"? My question concerns the
latter scenario.

*TimDaniels*

Timothy Daniels wrote in
message ...
Rod Speed wrote
Timothy Daniels wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Its completely mad to be using a kludge like that for backup.
Makes a hell of a lot more sense to use image files
instead of clones of the boot drive instead and then
the whole question of how XP reacts with the clone
and the original visible on the first boot after the
clone has been done doesnt arise and there is no
need to bother with the massive kludge of turning
the power to the clone drive off for the first boot either.

Yes, and I intend to make image files for most backups.

But I also want to have at least one bootable system ready on
another drive to switch to if my primary system drive should fail.

Why ? With any decent imaging app all you have
to do is boot the distribution CD or the rescue floppy
and restore from an image file to the replacement
drive if the primary boot drive ever does fail.

And then what,

Restore from that image file to the replacement hard drive.

isolate the resulting bootable image for its first boot up?

Not necessary if you're restoring from an image file and not cloning.

Then open the case again and reconnect the HDs and reboot?

You have to open the case to replace the boot drive thats failed.

Why not have all that already done?

Because removable drive bays are a kludge that
sometimes work and sometimes dont and trying to
turn the power off to one drive for the first boot after
a clone used for a backup is an even worse kludge.
You dont need any of that if you image the boot drive
to an external USB2 or firewire drive for backup.

I want the switchover to be as simple and quick as possible.

Mindlessly silly when boot drive failure is so rare.

My current practices promise that.

Like hell they do when you have to fart around
disconnecting the power to the clone for the
first boot after the clone is made for backup.

If you are stupid enough to use removable drive bays, you
can just remove the clone for the first boot after the clone.

All I want to do is to simplify the HD cloning in
preparation for a inoportune primary HD failure.

And are just making life hard for yourself in the backup
process when it makes much more sense to do what
doesnt require any kludge at all in the backup process
and only requires a restore to the replacement hard
drive in the MUCH rarer event of a boot drive failure.

I currently keep a 2nd HD containing a bootable
image running in the PC for just such an emergency.

Mad to be using a kludge like that for such an unlikely
event. The last thing you want is to discover that you've
managed to stuff up the power sequencing when you
come to try to use the clone and find it wont boot.

An unlikely event is exactly what I'm preparing for -
the same reason that I have fire insurance on my home.

Yes, but it doesnt make any sense to try to minimise the
TIME TO HANDLE THE BOOT DRIVE FAILURE, what
makes much more sense is to minimise THE TIME TO
DO THE BACKUP AND TO NOT KLUDGE THAT PROCESS.

I have the clone already on the 2nd HD in
the PC and powered up - ready to boot after
a quick change in the BIOS' boot sequence.

In the rare event that the boot drive fails.

No need for that to be as quick as possible.

The power "sequencing" via manual switch is only meant to
facilitate *making* the bootable image, not to put it into operation.

Duh.

If I had the money and space, I'd have a 2nd computer
running in tandem, getting exactly the same input and doing
exactly the same things that my current computer is doing.
But what I do now is a satisfactory approximation to that.

Nope, its a collosal kludge that may well fang you on the
arse if the boot drive does actually fail and you discover
that you havent actually made the clone properly.

And if you want a physically removable drive as the
destination for the backup, you'd be MUCH better off
using a proper formal standard like firewire or USB2
than the monster kludge of removable drive bays anyway.

Why?

Because those follow a proper standard and arent a collosal kludge.

Those external HDs are more costly and slower.

The speed is irrelevant when only a fool cares
about how long the image file creation takes.

And I've read nothing but woe in Usenet about
cloning to USB2 and FireWire external drives.

Your deficiencys are your problem. And you dont CLONE
to them, you WRITE AN IMAGE FILE TO THEM.

Furthermore, my PC would need another PCI
add-in card to add USB2 and/or FireWire to it.

Hardly what you might call the end of civilisation as we know it.

Right now, I have 4 new Maxtor ATA/133 7200rpm
HDs with 8MB caches to use. Why should I go to the
hassle and greater expense to use a slower medium?

Because they aint a collosal kludge that might work and might
well fang you on the arse when you need to use the clone.

Please understand that I didn't start this thread to ask
for advice. I simply asked about the effects having of
an unpowered device connected to an IDE cable.

You have always been, and always will
be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

In spades when you cant even manage to work out the basics.