SATA HDD #2 not seen only when SATA #1 is booted

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by - Bobb -, Dec 25, 2009.

  1. - Bobb -

    - Bobb - Guest

    history:
    PC has 2 SATA drives and 1 IDE HDD
    SATA #1 and IDE hdd in daily use.
    SATA #1 is bootable and has XP on it
    IDE is bootable and has XP and X64 on it ( partitions for beta testing )
    Normally boots to boot menu on IDE - if not testing, I choose SATA boot -
    it boots XP there and all is well.

    In the PC there is also SATA #2 hdd -
    was disconnected long ago ( I forget now why) and I forgot that I even had
    it. I
    got the Win7 upgrade and checking things out / backing up and thinking -
    great I can use THAT drive ....

    Today:
    So, I hook up sata #2, BIOS sees it , and I boot SATA #1. Windows doesn't
    see the "new sata drive". I reboot and if I boot off IDE it sees 2 SATA
    drives - I can open folders anywhere - all is
    well. SATA #2 looks like is was imaged (using Ghost ?) from my old drive #1.
    Same structure /info, except files are 3 years old.
    SO - why second SATA not seen when SATA #1 is booted ?
    ( I have not tried to boot directly from SATA #2 yet. I'd like to figure
    this out FIRST)

    MIGHT it be that I copied /imaged SATA #1 to #2 long ago and both have same
    ID etc ? I don't know how that works but just guessing and asking in case
    someone out
    there DOES know.
    I'm still googling but if anyone can offer some input, I'd appreciate it.
    Worst case I'll hook up ONLY SATA #2 and boot it directly.

    Also I found a note about SATA and Ghost 2003 not working.
    I had Ghost 2003 and THOUGHT that I used that to do the copy.
    I'm checking that out too.
    Thanks folks and Merry Christmas
     
    - Bobb -, Dec 25, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. - Bobb -

    Paul Guest

    - Bobb - wrote:
    > history:
    > PC has 2 SATA drives and 1 IDE HDD
    > SATA #1 and IDE hdd in daily use.
    > SATA #1 is bootable and has XP on it
    > IDE is bootable and has XP and X64 on it ( partitions for beta testing )
    > Normally boots to boot menu on IDE - if not testing, I choose SATA boot -
    > it boots XP there and all is well.
    >
    > In the PC there is also SATA #2 hdd -
    > was disconnected long ago ( I forget now why) and I forgot that I even had
    > it. I
    > got the Win7 upgrade and checking things out / backing up and thinking -
    > great I can use THAT drive ....
    >
    > Today:
    > So, I hook up sata #2, BIOS sees it , and I boot SATA #1. Windows doesn't
    > see the "new sata drive". I reboot and if I boot off IDE it sees 2 SATA
    > drives - I can open folders anywhere - all is
    > well. SATA #2 looks like is was imaged (using Ghost ?) from my old drive #1.
    > Same structure /info, except files are 3 years old.
    > SO - why second SATA not seen when SATA #1 is booted ?
    > ( I have not tried to boot directly from SATA #2 yet. I'd like to figure
    > this out FIRST)
    >
    > MIGHT it be that I copied /imaged SATA #1 to #2 long ago and both have same
    > ID etc ? I don't know how that works but just guessing and asking in case
    > someone out
    > there DOES know.
    > I'm still googling but if anyone can offer some input, I'd appreciate it.
    > Worst case I'll hook up ONLY SATA #2 and boot it directly.
    >
    > Also I found a note about SATA and Ghost 2003 not working.
    > I had Ghost 2003 and THOUGHT that I used that to do the copy.
    > I'm checking that out too.
    > Thanks folks and Merry Christmas
    >


    I check the VolumeID value using Everest, in the Storage section.
    I use the VolumeID utility from Sysinternals, if I need to change
    it for some reason. I would expect Windows to resolve a VolumeID
    conflict on its own, but haven't tested that. It isn't reasonable
    for Windows to just leave it alone.

    http://majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=4181

    For example, the VolumeID on my C: drive is 492A-AC63. I can see
    that in the "Storage : Logical Drives" section of Everest.

    If for some reason, some other Volume ID was assigned, I can use
    the Sysinternals tool to change it. I typically do that when
    I'm booted from my Win2K disk, and this is how I fix up my WinXP
    partition (drive letter F: while I'm in Win2K).

    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-ca/sysinternals/bb897436.aspx

    volumeid F: 492A-AC63

    The fact that some OS reports both disks, means you haven't
    disabled the SATA port in the BIOS. So that leaves some other
    problem with the content. Do you see anything in Disk Management
    for the second disk ? Do two hard drives show up in Device
    Manager ? Those tools might give you some hint as to what
    level the problem is at (Physical level, file system etc).

    You might wonder why I need to work on the Volume ID at all :)
    I have a crazy way of defragmenting my WinXP C: drive, which
    involves copying off the files using another OS, reformatting
    C:, assigning the original Volume ID, copying the files back,
    running Recovery Console and doing a "fixboot" on the WinXP
    partition. And then I have a reasonably defragmented C: .
    Takes about an hour, while defrag on my machine just runs
    and runs for hours on end. It won't even finish overnight.
    The data rate measured in the Performance plugin, when defragmenting
    my FAT32 C: , won't run any faster than 1MB/sec writes. And that
    is thanks to the "Safe Defragmentation" API in Windows.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Dec 25, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. - Bobb -

    - Bobb - Guest

    "Paul" <> wrote in message
    news:hh2rjn$kvs$-september.org...
    >- Bobb - wrote:
    >> history:
    >> PC has 2 SATA drives and 1 IDE HDD
    >> SATA #1 and IDE hdd in daily use.
    >> SATA #1 is bootable and has XP on it
    >> IDE is bootable and has XP and X64 on it ( partitions for beta testing )
    >> Normally boots to boot menu on IDE - if not testing, I choose SATA
    >> boot -
    >> it boots XP there and all is well.
    >>
    >> In the PC there is also SATA #2 hdd -
    >> was disconnected long ago ( I forget now why) and I forgot that I even
    >> had it. I
    >> got the Win7 upgrade and checking things out / backing up and thinking -
    >> great I can use THAT drive ....
    >>
    >> Today:
    >> So, I hook up sata #2, BIOS sees it , and I boot SATA #1. Windows doesn't
    >> see the "new sata drive". I reboot and if I boot off IDE it sees 2 SATA
    >> drives - I can open folders anywhere - all is
    >> well. SATA #2 looks like is was imaged (using Ghost ?) from my old drive
    >> #1. Same structure /info, except files are 3 years old.
    >> SO - why second SATA not seen when SATA #1 is booted ?
    >> ( I have not tried to boot directly from SATA #2 yet. I'd like to figure
    >> this out FIRST)
    >>
    >> MIGHT it be that I copied /imaged SATA #1 to #2 long ago and both have
    >> same
    >> ID etc ? I don't know how that works but just guessing and asking in
    >> case someone out
    >> there DOES know.
    >> I'm still googling but if anyone can offer some input, I'd appreciate it.
    >> Worst case I'll hook up ONLY SATA #2 and boot it directly.
    >>
    >> Also I found a note about SATA and Ghost 2003 not working.
    >> I had Ghost 2003 and THOUGHT that I used that to do the copy.
    >> I'm checking that out too.
    >> Thanks folks and Merry Christmas
    >>

    >
    > I check the VolumeID value using Everest, in the Storage section.
    > I use the VolumeID utility from Sysinternals, if I need to change
    > it for some reason. I would expect Windows to resolve a VolumeID
    > conflict on its own, but haven't tested that. It isn't reasonable
    > for Windows to just leave it alone.
    >
    > http://majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=4181
    >
    > For example, the VolumeID on my C: drive is 492A-AC63. I can see
    > that in the "Storage : Logical Drives" section of Everest.
    >
    > If for some reason, some other Volume ID was assigned, I can use
    > the Sysinternals tool to change it. I typically do that when
    > I'm booted from my Win2K disk, and this is how I fix up my WinXP
    > partition (drive letter F: while I'm in Win2K).
    >
    > http://technet.microsoft.com/en-ca/sysinternals/bb897436.aspx
    >
    > volumeid F: 492A-AC63
    >
    > The fact that some OS reports both disks, means you haven't
    > disabled the SATA port in the BIOS. So that leaves some other
    > problem with the content. Do you see anything in Disk Management
    > for the second disk ? Do two hard drives show up in Device
    > Manager ? Those tools might give you some hint as to what
    > level the problem is at (Physical level, file system etc).
    >
    > Paul


    I was thinking that first cable came with first drive and maybe a difference
    ? ( One looks shielded and one doesn't ). I opened up the box and swapped
    cables between drives powered backup and I can see both drives now when
    booted from SATA0, so I guess there WAS a difference and the old drive
    needed the old cable. ( The second drive's cable must not be backward
    compatible with other hardware ?? )
     
    - Bobb -, Dec 27, 2009
    #3
  4. - Bobb -

    - Bobb - Guest

    Thanks for the info Paul
    My OLD drive looks like the one in that picture: has both old IDE style
    power connector as well as new. I had no jumpers on those 8 pins. I'll pick
    up 2 new cables - thanks.

    Rhetorically he asked - and another thing - I always have issues reaching
    into a tower pc and trying align the connector and the plug - WHY is the
    connector so tiny ?


    "Paul" <> wrote in message
    news:hh81rg$72f$-september.org...
    >- Bobb - wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> I was thinking that first cable came with first drive and maybe a
    >> difference ? ( One looks shielded and one doesn't ). I opened up the box
    >> and swapped cables between drives powered backup and I can see both
    >> drives now when booted from SATA0, so I guess there WAS a difference and
    >> the old drive needed the old cable. ( The second drive's cable must not
    >> be backward compatible with other hardware ?? )
    >>

    >
    > SATA cables are supposed to be compatible with 1.5Gbit/sec or 3Gbit/sec
    > SATA drives. There was a comment on the standards site, to that effect.
    >
    > There is a drawing near the bottom of the page here, with a cross section
    > of the cable. The red plastic cable has two differential pairs. They're
    > foil wrapped, with a drain (ground) wire on either side of the foil. The
    > outside
    > is coated with PVC. As far as I know, the drawing should be showing a
    > total of three drain wires and four signal wires. Cables have some
    > frequency
    > response specifications, but the intention was, for the cables to work
    > with both.
    >
    > http://www.satacables.com/html/sata-latching-right-to-straigh.html
    >
    > ESATA cabling apparently added a shield ground on the outside for ESD
    > (static).
    > The inside of the cable is probably similar in structure to the other one.
    >
    > If you're still curious, what you could try is checking the back of
    > the drive for the "Force150" jumper position. That would cause the
    > drive to only use 1.5Gbit/sec cable signaling. That is essential on
    > VIA chipset motherboards, as there is some problem with VIA chips
    > negotiating proper cable speed. But a user can also play with that
    > jumper, if there is a cabling problem. But if the cable can't even
    > support 1.5Gbit/sec operation, throw it away. (Or chop it open, and
    > see if it has the proper cross section with pairs, foil, drain wire
    > etc.)
    >
    > Not all SATA drives have jumpers. Seagate has four jumper pins, room
    > for two jumpers. One jumper might be "Spread Spectrum", which is needed
    > for early Macintosh computers. The second jumper is "Force 150". Hitachi
    > (the former IBM), has no jumpers on their design. They use the "Drive
    > Feature Tool" to turn features like that on and off. You need to find
    > a working computer and cabling, to adjust a Hitachi drive, and when
    > you're finished and the settings are saved, the drive can be moved
    > to a VIA chipset motherboard.
    >
    > Paul
     
    - Bobb -, Dec 27, 2009
    #4
  5. - Bobb -

    Paul Guest

    - Bobb - wrote:

    >
    > I was thinking that first cable came with first drive and maybe a difference
    > ? ( One looks shielded and one doesn't ). I opened up the box and swapped
    > cables between drives powered backup and I can see both drives now when
    > booted from SATA0, so I guess there WAS a difference and the old drive
    > needed the old cable. ( The second drive's cable must not be backward
    > compatible with other hardware ?? )
    >


    SATA cables are supposed to be compatible with 1.5Gbit/sec or 3Gbit/sec
    SATA drives. There was a comment on the standards site, to that effect.

    There is a drawing near the bottom of the page here, with a cross section
    of the cable. The red plastic cable has two differential pairs. They're
    foil wrapped, with a drain (ground) wire on either side of the foil. The outside
    is coated with PVC. As far as I know, the drawing should be showing a
    total of three drain wires and four signal wires. Cables have some frequency
    response specifications, but the intention was, for the cables to work with both.

    http://www.satacables.com/html/sata-latching-right-to-straigh.html

    ESATA cabling apparently added a shield ground on the outside for ESD (static).
    The inside of the cable is probably similar in structure to the other one.

    If you're still curious, what you could try is checking the back of
    the drive for the "Force150" jumper position. That would cause the
    drive to only use 1.5Gbit/sec cable signaling. That is essential on
    VIA chipset motherboards, as there is some problem with VIA chips
    negotiating proper cable speed. But a user can also play with that
    jumper, if there is a cabling problem. But if the cable can't even
    support 1.5Gbit/sec operation, throw it away. (Or chop it open, and
    see if it has the proper cross section with pairs, foil, drain wire
    etc.)

    Not all SATA drives have jumpers. Seagate has four jumper pins, room
    for two jumpers. One jumper might be "Spread Spectrum", which is needed
    for early Macintosh computers. The second jumper is "Force 150". Hitachi
    (the former IBM), has no jumpers on their design. They use the "Drive
    Feature Tool" to turn features like that on and off. You need to find
    a working computer and cabling, to adjust a Hitachi drive, and when
    you're finished and the settings are saved, the drive can be moved
    to a VIA chipset motherboard.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Dec 27, 2009
    #5
  6. - Bobb -

    Paul Guest

    - Bobb - wrote:
    > Thanks for the info Paul
    > My OLD drive looks like the one in that picture: has both old IDE style
    > power connector as well as new. I had no jumpers on those 8 pins. I'll pick
    > up 2 new cables - thanks.
    >
    > Rhetorically he asked - and another thing - I always have issues reaching
    > into a tower pc and trying align the connector and the plug - WHY is the
    > connector so tiny ?
    >


    The SATA connector was designed for "slide-in" drives and SATA
    backplanes. Such would be found in server boxes. The practicality
    of SATA in desktop systems was an afterthought. That is why the
    first generation of internal cabling lacked retention features,
    and the cables would fall off. There are way more desktop installations
    in the world, but if you look at the SATA committee design effort,
    it looks more like a server solution.

    (A four drive SATA backplane)
    http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/imag..._first_nas_box/thg_nas_intss4000backplane.jpg

    Paul
     
    Paul, Dec 27, 2009
    #6
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    596
    samuel
    Mar 23, 2006
  2. Joe Donaldson
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    597
    Joe Donaldson
    Jul 3, 2004
  3. tman
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    497
  4. ashjas
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,287
  5. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    3,722
    hamletgir
    Jul 6, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page