• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Master? Slave?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

SpazTech

Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
My first build. Probably a stupid question but I figure the input the better. I just got my two optic drives Lite on 52x CD-RW 16x DVD-ROM and Lite on 16x DVD R RW drive. I've read some builders guides most say I should make the fastest drive the master and the slower the slave. That would mean the CD-RW would be Master, correct?
 
no the dvd would, 16x dvd speed is equivalent to 52x cd read speed i believe, plus the dvd drive is just better so use that insted
 
I was under the impression that, daisy chaining two optical drives could create conflicts and or errors. Especially when your buring on the fly. I personally have my optical drives as slaves off of my hard drives. HDD1 with the OS on it as master and the cdrom as the slave. HDD2 as the slave with my DVD burner as the master.

Seems to work well for me. Is there any "by the book" guide to the slave vs. master question?
 
Sonny said:
Why the need for 2 optical drives when the LiteOn DVDRW drive can handle anything the combo optical can do?
One to burn one to read video editing and such.
 
One of the builders guides on the OC main page suggests:
"If you use a single CD or DVD drive, make sure you have the drive set to master. If you are using two drives, make sure the CDRW drive is master and the DVD is slave. This arrangement usually works best. We suggest you leave the hard drive on a cable by itself or you may have a small performance degradation."
 
Got a reply back from LiteOn. They say DVD secondary master and CDRW slave.
 
SpazTech said:
Got a reply back from LiteOn. They say DVD secondary master and CDRW slave.

That's probably what I would do.

I think it would be worse to put an optical drive with a fast hard drive, then doing what you posted. It doesn't mean you would ever have any trouble either way, but I wouldn't take the chance.
I would rather a slightly slower burn, then have my main hard drive slower all the time which could happen. As long as the drives are happy together the way you have them then it is probably the best way. :)
 
Back