On Thursday 05 June 2008 17:55:23 Kirk Bocek wrote: > William L. Maltby wrote: > > It's not truly any relationship like that. It's just (in the old days) a > > device ID selected on the cable by jumpers on the drive. The "control" > > is nothing more than the IDE controller selecting either "0" or "1" > > device ID for commands and data. The drive with the matching ID responds > > while the other ignores. > > > > In todays world, cable select might provide the ID assignment. > > > > I'm not sure how "master" and "slave" came to be used in this scenario, > > unless it had to do with BIOS boot processes back in the old days. > > Well, right you are. Scroll down to "Master and Slave Clarification": > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Drive_Electronics > > I had been laboring under the impression that the 'master' drive controlled > both drives on a single cable. Now I've learned the truth just in time for > SATA to take over. :) > > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos Hi kirk Better late than never ;-) I got a draw full of old 10 - 40 Gb IDE hard drives and 4 old boxes with 333 - 550mhz cpu's. I'm never board. Got one with an old scsi sheet feed scanner. and isa modem set up as a fax / answer machine connected to my phone line at home. All bits begged or borrowed! John -- Guy Fawkes, the only man to enter the house's of Parliament with honest intentions, (he was going to blow them up!) Registered Linux user number 414240