Windows - bizarre disk behaviour
Thread Starter
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,575
Likes: 4
From: UK
Windows - bizarre disk behaviour
Some will doubtless recall my thread about cloning my IDE C drive onto a new SATA. Total success, and running fine since then EXCEPT for a niggling little power problem which I have had for about a year, and not been able to pin down - random 'poking' at the drive power leads would produce a spin down/up occasionally. Lived with it. Until this AM when it got quite bad. More 'active' poking. Aha! Two red wires which obviously had not been properly crimped for years came out of one adapter. No problem, out with trusty soldering iron and job done. Power up. Corrupt or missing hal.dll. I know what to do! Err I don't????
I have 2 SATA and 1 remaining IDE drive now. Windows OS was on SATA 'Drive 2' (third drive) part 1. Windows OS on Disk Manager STILL shows on 'Drive 2 part 1' but after much fiddling (and cursing) I find I now need to call 'Drive0 part1' in boot.ini to find the OS. Has anyone an explanation for how the Drive numbers do not now seem to correspond to the Drive Manager Drive numbers? Partition letters are all correct. Weird!
I should add that I had tried Recovery Console first to rewrite boot,ini but that could not even FIND the OS!
I have 2 SATA and 1 remaining IDE drive now. Windows OS was on SATA 'Drive 2' (third drive) part 1. Windows OS on Disk Manager STILL shows on 'Drive 2 part 1' but after much fiddling (and cursing) I find I now need to call 'Drive0 part1' in boot.ini to find the OS. Has anyone an explanation for how the Drive numbers do not now seem to correspond to the Drive Manager Drive numbers? Partition letters are all correct. Weird!
I should add that I had tried Recovery Console first to rewrite boot,ini but that could not even FIND the OS!
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 611
Likes: 62
From: Down under
The 'missing hal.dll' file gets a lot of attention in Google. It may be worth glancing through there to see what can be done for this one.
I can't throw any light on the other problem you mention, except that when you get the machine booting again as you originally had it, it may well have solved itself.
Good luck, I'm sure you'll triumph
FOR
I can't throw any light on the other problem you mention, except that when you get the machine booting again as you originally had it, it may well have solved itself.
Good luck, I'm sure you'll triumph
FOR
Thread Starter
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,575
Likes: 4
From: UK
FOR - hidden in post #1 is the story of 'triumph' - as posted it was boot.ini that needed the vet. Yes, I have seen old hal many times.
It was the drive numbering that has floored me! I was hoping one of our gurus would explain how Windows works out who is who.
It was the drive numbering that has floored me! I was hoping one of our gurus would explain how Windows works out who is who.
Thread Starter
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,575
Likes: 4
From: UK
M_B - there is no problem with boot.ini that needs 'formatting' as explained in posts #1 and #3.
I was hoping one of our gurus would explain how Windows works out who is who
Administrator
Joined: Mar 2001
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 8,121
Likes: 686
From: Twickenham, home of rugby
Interesting information here from MS: The disk drive numbers may not correspond as expected to the SATA channel numbers when you set up Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, Windows Server 2008 R2, or Windows 7 on a computer that has multiple SATA or RAID disks
That's for Server 2008 / Win7 - there's a somewhat similar article on server 2003 / XP here: Overview of PNP enumeration and hard disk drive letter assignments in Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP
Basically, with more than one HD controller - SATA or PATA - you will get "interesting" PnP disk enumeration effects.
As I recall, MS used to define the "system" disk as the one with boot.ini (and other things like NTLDR) on it, and the "boot" disk as the one where the Windows system files reside. That's how I recall it from NT 3.5, anyway. Maybe they've changed it around, or maybe my memory is faulty! I've long since thrown away my NT3.5 resources, so I can't check it.
SD
That's for Server 2008 / Win7 - there's a somewhat similar article on server 2003 / XP here: Overview of PNP enumeration and hard disk drive letter assignments in Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP
Basically, with more than one HD controller - SATA or PATA - you will get "interesting" PnP disk enumeration effects.
As I recall, MS used to define the "system" disk as the one with boot.ini (and other things like NTLDR) on it, and the "boot" disk as the one where the Windows system files reside. That's how I recall it from NT 3.5, anyway. Maybe they've changed it around, or maybe my memory is faulty! I've long since thrown away my NT3.5 resources, so I can't check it.
SD
Thread Starter
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,575
Likes: 4
From: UK
Thanks for those links, SD - disk-wise I am kind of between the XP and the Vista scenario (I am using XP with SARTA and IDE). Disk '0' has indeed remained with the iDE. I can see that the power 'blip' may have caused Win to renumber the drives and that is fine, but I cannot understand how the drive numbering in Disk Manager is not one that will work with boot.ini - and I have to use a totally different drive number there to locate the OS drive.
It's a black art, innit?
It's a black art, innit?
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,344
Likes: 80
From: Bedford, UK
last post in this lot ?
disk enumeration - The PC Guide Discussion Forums
or
Also note that pre-Vista uses boot.ini, which must a) reside on the = initial BIOS's boot disk b) the boot.ini entry uses the BIOS (int 13h) = disk number. The OP must ensure that this number is correct. Vista+ use BCD database, which keeps the mountdev IDs of the disk = volumes instead (for non-Dynamic disk volume, mountdev ID is 4byte MBR = signature + 8 byte StartingOffset of the partition). kept in \boot\bcd as mountdev IDs. In this latter case, the BIOS disk numbering is not important. What is = important is that a) the correct boot disk is known to BIOS, probably to = the extension BIOS on the controller itself b) the driver for its = controller is installed to Windows OS which will be booted. That's all = for Vista+.and best of luck.
or
Also note that pre-Vista uses boot.ini, which must a) reside on the = initial BIOS's boot disk b) the boot.ini entry uses the BIOS (int 13h) = disk number. The OP must ensure that this number is correct. Vista+ use BCD database, which keeps the mountdev IDs of the disk = volumes instead (for non-Dynamic disk volume, mountdev ID is 4byte MBR = signature + 8 byte StartingOffset of the partition). kept in \boot\bcd as mountdev IDs. In this latter case, the BIOS disk numbering is not important. What is = important is that a) the correct boot disk is known to BIOS, probably to = the extension BIOS on the controller itself b) the driver for its = controller is installed to Windows OS which will be booted. That's all = for Vista+.and best of luck.
Thread Starter
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,575
Likes: 4
From: UK
My fault, folks, for not saying it was XP 
Mr O - the link seems to be about partitions - it is disk numbering that is awry. The last bit was mostly black magic to me!
To re-iterate - Boot.ini is fine - it is just that it needs to call a different DISK number for the XP OS to that in Disk manager.
Mr O - the link seems to be about partitions - it is disk numbering that is awry. The last bit was mostly black magic to me!
To re-iterate - Boot.ini is fine - it is just that it needs to call a different DISK number for the XP OS to that in Disk manager.
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,344
Likes: 80
From: Bedford, UK
what is it worth ?
Guess the clue is the hal problem which I presume has been resolved. That incident presumably happened because the system got confused about the hardware setup.
'Check for proper boot order in BIOS. You might see the hal.dll error if the boot order in BIOS is first looking at a hard drive other than your main hard drive.'
Maybe reflash the bios for a bit of excitement ?
The following shows an equivalent problem in Vista, to which the answer is:
'Microsoft has confirmed that this is a problem in the Microsoft products that are listed in the "Applies to" section.'
The disk drive numbers may not correspond as expected to the SATA channel numbers when you set up Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, Windows Server 2008 R2, or Windows 7 on a computer that has multiple SATA or RAID disks
Looks common enough
Resolve HAL.dll Missing or Corrupt Error on Windows XP at Instant Registry Fixes
But as this says
[/QUOTE]
But as long as you have it straight in your mind which is which, I wouldn't change things--unless you are obsessive enough that you will lay in bed thinking about it.[/QUOTE]
'Check for proper boot order in BIOS. You might see the hal.dll error if the boot order in BIOS is first looking at a hard drive other than your main hard drive.'
Maybe reflash the bios for a bit of excitement ?
The following shows an equivalent problem in Vista, to which the answer is:
'Microsoft has confirmed that this is a problem in the Microsoft products that are listed in the "Applies to" section.'
The disk drive numbers may not correspond as expected to the SATA channel numbers when you set up Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, Windows Server 2008 R2, or Windows 7 on a computer that has multiple SATA or RAID disks
Looks common enough
Resolve HAL.dll Missing or Corrupt Error on Windows XP at Instant Registry Fixes
But as this says
[/QUOTE]
But as long as you have it straight in your mind which is which, I wouldn't change things--unless you are obsessive enough that you will lay in bed thinking about it.[/QUOTE]
Thread Starter
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,575
Likes: 4
From: UK
Guess the clue is the hal problem which I presume has been resolved. That incident presumably happened because the system got confused about the hardware setup.
'Check for proper boot order in BIOS. You might see the hal.dll error if the boot order in BIOS is first looking at a hard drive other than your main hard drive.'
- yes, resolved - see post #1
Maybe reflash the bios for a bit of excitement ?
- don't think so, since it is working now, albeit unexpectedly! I prefer a different sort of excitement..........
The following shows an equivalent problem in Vista, to which the answer is:
'Microsoft has confirmed that this is a problem in the Microsoft products that are listed in the "Applies to" section.'
The disk drive numbers may not correspond as expected to the SATA channel numbers when you set up Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, Windows Server 2008 R2, or Windows 7 on a computer that has multiple SATA or RAID disks
Looks common enough
- see post #7 from SD - he also had an XP link. The problem is NOT with the 'C' Drive.
Resolve HAL.dll Missing or Corrupt Error on Windows XP at Instant Registry Fixes
- even bootcfg could not cope! See post #1
One of Windows little 'mysteries', I guess. It definitely stems from the 'power outage' taking two drives 'out' of the system but why the system has not 'caught up' as a whole I know not.
'Check for proper boot order in BIOS. You might see the hal.dll error if the boot order in BIOS is first looking at a hard drive other than your main hard drive.'
- yes, resolved - see post #1
Maybe reflash the bios for a bit of excitement ?
- don't think so, since it is working now, albeit unexpectedly! I prefer a different sort of excitement..........
The following shows an equivalent problem in Vista, to which the answer is:
'Microsoft has confirmed that this is a problem in the Microsoft products that are listed in the "Applies to" section.'
The disk drive numbers may not correspond as expected to the SATA channel numbers when you set up Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, Windows Server 2008 R2, or Windows 7 on a computer that has multiple SATA or RAID disks
Looks common enough
- see post #7 from SD - he also had an XP link. The problem is NOT with the 'C' Drive.
Resolve HAL.dll Missing or Corrupt Error on Windows XP at Instant Registry Fixes
- even bootcfg could not cope! See post #1
One of Windows little 'mysteries', I guess. It definitely stems from the 'power outage' taking two drives 'out' of the system but why the system has not 'caught up' as a whole I know not.
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,344
Likes: 80
From: Bedford, UK
not as clever as I think I am
..........can't even find boot.ini on this machine.
How about taking power off the disk which doesn't have the OS, restart, shut down, reconnect, restart. Surely even disk manager will get the message then.
How about taking power off the disk which doesn't have the OS, restart, shut down, reconnect, restart. Surely even disk manager will get the message then.
Thread Starter
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,575
Likes: 4
From: UK
..........can't even find boot.ini on this machine.
NO to powering down (deliberately!). Then I would have to play 'hunt the OS' all over again
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,344
Likes: 80
From: Bedford, UK
you think ?
'NO to powering down (deliberately!).'
Really, even though you have now corrected boot.ini ?
But if that's the case the problem should resolve itself by reconnecting the drive ? If the system can't load into windows, it can't be 'disk manager's fault in that circumstance which leaves the correctly functioning boot.ini.....
I feel that in the spirit of experimentation you should give it a go.
Ah, thanks re multiboot. Used to but don't now. That explains the boot.ini.backup file.
Really, even though you have now corrected boot.ini ?
But if that's the case the problem should resolve itself by reconnecting the drive ? If the system can't load into windows, it can't be 'disk manager's fault in that circumstance which leaves the correctly functioning boot.ini.....
I feel that in the spirit of experimentation you should give it a go.
Ah, thanks re multiboot. Used to but don't now. That explains the boot.ini.backup file.
