A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » Storage (alternative)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why this configuration not working?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 10th 05, 03:35 PM
Terry Pinnell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why this configuration not working?

Sorry about the length of this, but I reckon it's necessary to provide
a full picture and hence get some much-needed help please.

Following my previous posts, I have now installed a new 200GB HD to
replace the 60GB one with 4 bad blocks, as recommended.

However, although I'm sending this from a working 3-drive system, the
2-drive configuration I'm trying to achieve resolutely refuses to
work. That's after slogging at it for 3 days without success. I'd
hoped to sort it without returning here for more help, but I have to
admit defeat for the time being!

I won't attempt to describe all the details of the various
combinations I've tried. Very briefly:

- The original 2 identical 60GB disks both had a partition of about
12GB containing my XP Home OS (and around half of my program files),
and I could boot to either. That gave me a feeling of security, and
I'd like to continue that. (I also have an *image* of my OS, and I aim
to update that reasonably often, as another security measure.)

- I eventually succeeded in getting OS copies also into partitions on
the 2 identical 200GB HDs. (That's the 200GB added a few weeks ago via
an extra PCI card; and the latest identical 200GB, bought as
replacement for the faulty 60GB.)

- I am able to boot up from each of these when that is the only drive
present, and in various 3-drive configurations, including the one I
have at present.

- For simplicity, power and noise reasons, I want to get rid of the
remaining 60GB disk.

- But that doesn't work. I get a variety of errors, depending on which
one I try to boot, including for example:
"Press a key to reboot" (then cycling repeatedly)
"NTLDR is missing..."
"Some other file or other (HAL.DLL?) is missing..."
All those are presumably symptomatic of XP not finding a bootable
partition? Yet, as I said, there *is* one, and it does work in other
circumstances.

Then, late last night, with only the 200GB disks in place (as disk 0
and disk 1), I started to get panic-generating messages like:
"A problem is preventing Windows accurately checking the licence for
this computer. Error code 0x80090006"
"Windows cannot load the user's profile but has logged you on with the
default profile for this system" (But it got no further.)

Here's what my setup is right now
http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/I...entStatus1.gif

One major source of confusion for me throughout this exercise is:
which of these OSs am I 'in' right now? I think I have booted to Disk
1 Partition 1. That's the default shown in Settings Startup. It is
also consistent with what I see in boot.ini. And that's also
consistent with the XP Disk Management display showing 'boot' in that
entry. IOW, right now I'm using the OS copy that is in H. BUT then
why is Disk 0 Partition 1 called C? I thought the boot partition
automatically got re-labeled by XP to C?

OK, bottom line. I'm sorely tempted to stick with what I have now, and
just tidy up shortcuts, reorganise files and folders, etc. But it
would be good to get down to 2 drives. 400 GB should be plenty, even
with two 12GB OS partitions, and my comprehensive backup precautions.
Can the experts here suggest a safe way of achieving that please?

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK
  #2  
Old November 10th 05, 04:10 PM
Peter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why this configuration not working?

OK, bottom line. I'm sorely tempted to stick with what I have now, and
just tidy up shortcuts, reorganise files and folders, etc. But it
would be good to get down to 2 drives. 400 GB should be plenty, even
with two 12GB OS partitions, and my comprehensive backup precautions.
Can the experts here suggest a safe way of achieving that please?


This a perfect example of how NOT TO DO things.
Never attach multiple disks with active OS on them and boot into one of
those. Bad things might happen.
I never had time to sort out those situations manually.

I strongly recommend:
1. Find out on which physical disks you have valuable data to archive. Move
it out of one 200GB disk. Create a fresh single NTFS partition on that
disk.Consolidate that valuable data to one 200GB disk as a temporary backup
drive. Zip if you can (saves space, provides integrity check). Remove from
system.Put it aside.
2. Attach all remaining disks (ones you want to keep), but the backup one,
in a final physical configuration. Adjust BIOS accordingly. Boot from OS cd,
remove all partitons on all attched disks. Shutdown, reboot with OS CD.
3. Install OS fresh. Partition as you like. Install apps, patches etc.
Verify and test your system.
4. Reattach backup drive, restore archives, use it for something else if you
like.


  #3  
Old November 10th 05, 06:37 PM
Terry Pinnell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why this configuration not working?

"Peter" wrote:

OK, bottom line. I'm sorely tempted to stick with what I have now, and
just tidy up shortcuts, reorganise files and folders, etc. But it
would be good to get down to 2 drives. 400 GB should be plenty, even
with two 12GB OS partitions, and my comprehensive backup precautions.
Can the experts here suggest a safe way of achieving that please?


This a perfect example of how NOT TO DO things.
Never attach multiple disks with active OS on them and boot into one of
those. Bad things might happen.
I never had time to sort out those situations manually.

I strongly recommend:
1. Find out on which physical disks you have valuable data to archive. Move
it out of one 200GB disk. Create a fresh single NTFS partition on that
disk.Consolidate that valuable data to one 200GB disk as a temporary backup
drive. Zip if you can (saves space, provides integrity check). Remove from
system.Put it aside.
2. Attach all remaining disks (ones you want to keep), but the backup one,
in a final physical configuration. Adjust BIOS accordingly. Boot from OS cd,
remove all partitons on all attched disks. Shutdown, reboot with OS CD.
3. Install OS fresh. Partition as you like. Install apps, patches etc.
Verify and test your system.
4. Reattach backup drive, restore archives, use it for something else if you
like.


Thanks, but no thanks! Reminds me of when I was touring in Ireland
many years ago. I stopped the car, wound down the window, and asked an
oldish chap for directions. "To be sure, you shouldn't be starting
from here, at all," he replied.

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK
  #4  
Old November 10th 05, 07:26 PM
Peter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why this configuration not working?

Thanks, but no thanks! Reminds me of when I was touring in Ireland
many years ago. I stopped the car, wound down the window, and asked an
oldish chap for directions. "To be sure, you shouldn't be starting
from here, at all," he replied.


It is obviously your choice.
Did you try to call Microsoft for help? They must know how to deal with your
situation efficiently.


  #5  
Old November 10th 05, 08:07 PM
Rod Speed
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why this configuration not working?

Terry Pinnell wrote

Sorry about the length of this, but I reckon
it's necessary to provide a full picture


It is indeed, and is much better than the same info
in multiple posts in response to further questions.

and hence get some much-needed help please.


Following my previous posts, I have now installed a new 200GB
HD to replace the 60GB one with 4 bad blocks, as recommended.


But have you stopped that furious drunken grave dancing ?

However, although I'm sending this from a working 3-drive system, the
2-drive configuration I'm trying to achieve resolutely refuses to work.


Because you arent making the copys of XP the right way and
those boots involve the 60G drive that you are trying to remove
even when you think you are booting XP off one of the 200G drives.

That's after slogging at it for 3 days without success.
I'd hoped to sort it without returning here for more
help, but I have to admit defeat for the time being!


I won't attempt to describe all the details
of the various combinations I've tried.


No need, its obvious what the problem is.

Very briefly:


- The original 2 identical 60GB disks both had a partition
of about 12GB containing my XP Home OS (and around
half of my program files), and I could boot to either.


But could you boot to either with just one of the 60G drives connected ?

Bet you couldnt.

That gave me a feeling of security, and I'd like to continue that.


Yes, its got some advantages, particularly
when the drives are known to be flakey.

(I also have an *image* of my OS, and I aim to update
that reasonably often, as another security measure.)


Yes, well worth having.

- I eventually succeeded in getting OS copies also into partitions
on the 2 identical 200GB HDs. (That's the 200GB added a few
weeks ago via an extra PCI card; and the latest identical 200GB,
bought as replacement for the faulty 60GB.)


- I am able to boot up from each of these
when that is the only drive present,


You completely sure about that ?

and in various 3-drive configurations,
including the one I have at present.


- For simplicity, power and noise reasons,
I want to get rid of the remaining 60GB disk.


Sure, I would too.

- But that doesn't work. I get a variety of errors, depending
on which one I try to boot, including for example:
"Press a key to reboot" (then cycling repeatedly)
"NTLDR is missing..."


That indicates that the boot needs what is on the missing 60G drive.

"Some other file or other (HAL.DLL?) is missing..."
All those are presumably symptomatic
of XP not finding a bootable partition?


No, symptomatic of some of what it needs in the
surprisingly complex boot sequence that is involved
with XP not being visible with the 60G drive missing.

Yet, as I said, there *is* one,


Yes.

and it does work in other circumstances.


Yes, when the 60G drive which has what is needed is present.

Then, late last night, with only the 200GB disks in place (as disk
0 and disk 1), I started to get panic-generating messages like:
"A problem is preventing Windows accurately checking
the licence for this computer. Error code 0x80090006"
"Windows cannot load the user's profile but has logged you on
with the default profile for this system" (But it got no further.)


Again, because that stuff is on the missing 60G drive.

Here's what my setup is right now
http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/I...entStatus1.gif


One major source of confusion for me throughout this
exercise is: which of these OSs am I 'in' right now?


Yeah, that can get very confusing. In spades with just
where XP found various crucial bits involved in a full XP
boot. They arent all in what you think of as the copy
of XP if you havent done the copy process properly.

More on that below.

I think I have booted to Disk 1 Partition 1. That's the default
shown in Settings Startup. It is also consistent with what
I see in boot.ini. And that's also consistent with the XP Disk
Management display showing 'boot' in that entry.


Yes, but that doesnt prove anything about where
XP got all the components it uses during the boot.

IOW, right now I'm using the OS copy that is in H.
BUT then why is Disk 0 Partition 1 called C?


XP is quite happy to install on any drive you like.

And that drive is a quite separate issue to the
drive that boot.ini and ntldr are used from too.

I thought the boot partition automatically got re-labeled by XP to C?


Nope, the NT/2K/XP family dont work like that, the
drive letters are much more persistent than that.

OK, bottom line. I'm sorely tempted to stick with what I have now,
and just tidy up shortcuts, reorganise files and folders, etc.


Not a good idea. You've got one hell of a mess now and
the brown stuff will hit the fan very comprehensively indeed
if the 60G drive dies now. You wont be able to boot XP.

But it would be good to get down to 2 drives.


Yes, if only to get a config that will boot if the 60G drive dies.

400 GB should be plenty, even with two 12GB OS
partitions, and my comprehensive backup precautions.


Can the experts here suggest a safe way of achieving that please?


The safest way is to start again from scratch and do a clean install
of XP on each of the 200G drives with just one drive connected.
And have that partition contain XP and all the apps.

Then fix the letter each of the other partitions gets so they
get the same letter regardless of which copy of XP is booted.
That fixing is done in disk management and you will need to do
it with each of the copys of XP booted, obviously one at a time.


If you dont want to go that route because of the effort involved,
you should be able to get the same result by copying the install
that is on the 60G drive to each of the 200G drives, BUT ITS
ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL TO MAKE THE COPY WITH SOMETHING
LIKE TRUE IMAGE FROM THE BOOTED CD SO YOU CAN STOP
ONCE THE COPY HAS BEEN MADE AND PHYSICALLY DISCONNECT
THE 60G DRIVE BEFORE BOOTING THE COPY OF XP FOR THE
FIRST TIME.

The problem you are seeing currently is because you have booted
the copy of XP with the 60G drive still connected on the first boot
after the copy has been made and when you do that, the boot off
the partition on the 200G drive uses some stuff on the 60G drive and
that means that the boot will fail when the 60G drive isnt connected.

When you boot the copy on the 200G drive for the first time after
the copy has been made, with the 60G drive unplugged, XP will
claim that it has found new hardware and will ask to be allowed
to reboot. Allow that, and it will boot up into XP fine with no 60G
drive present. You can then connect the 60G drive again and it
will continue to boot fine with the 60G drive missing later.


  #6  
Old November 10th 05, 08:57 PM
Terry Pinnell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why this configuration not working?

"Rod Speed" wrote:

Terry Pinnell wrote

Sorry about the length of this, but I reckon
it's necessary to provide a full picture


It is indeed, and is much better than the same info
in multiple posts in response to further questions.


Thanks a bunch for the very comprehensive reply. I'm going to study
your recommendations more thoroughly tomorrow, but meanwhile see my
inline comments.

and hence get some much-needed help please.


Following my previous posts, I have now installed a new 200GB
HD to replace the 60GB one with 4 bad blocks, as recommended.


But have you stopped that furious drunken grave dancing ?


That will be harder!

However, although I'm sending this from a working 3-drive system, the
2-drive configuration I'm trying to achieve resolutely refuses to work.


Because you arent making the copys of XP the right way


With Drive Image Copy Drive? Are you sure the copying itself is at
fault?

and those boots involve the 60G drive that you are trying to remove
even when you think you are booting XP off one of the 200G drives.


Understood. That seems to be at the root of all my troubles. Although
I'd have hoped XP (boot.ini etc) to handle all that in a safe way?
After all, it is designed to support multi-booting, yes?

That's after slogging at it for 3 days without success.
I'd hoped to sort it without returning here for more
help, but I have to admit defeat for the time being!


I won't attempt to describe all the details
of the various combinations I've tried.


No need, its obvious what the problem is.

Very briefly:


- The original 2 identical 60GB disks both had a partition
of about 12GB containing my XP Home OS (and around
half of my program files), and I could boot to either.


But could you boot to either with just one of the 60G drives connected ?


Bet you couldnt.


I *think* so, but in view of your confidence that I couldn't I'm going
to have to try it again sometime. With my *present* setup, could I
test that by unplugging (power and cable) from the PCI 200GB, PLUS (in
turn) unplugging the 60GB and 200GB on the IDE cable? Intuitively,
(and until your firm pronouncements to the contrary) I'd expect it to
boot, as there is an identical OS on each of those two disks. And I
suppose, extrapolating that, I could leave just the PCI disk connected
and that should boot too? But you're saying no, none of those solo
disks will boot?

That gave me a feeling of security, and I'd like to continue that.


Yes, its got some advantages, particularly
when the drives are known to be flakey.


(I also have an *image* of my OS, and I aim to update
that reasonably often, as another security measure.)


Yes, well worth having.

- I eventually succeeded in getting OS copies also into partitions
on the 2 identical 200GB HDs. (That's the 200GB added a few
weeks ago via an extra PCI card; and the latest identical 200GB,
bought as replacement for the faulty 60GB.)


- I am able to boot up from each of these
when that is the only drive present,


You completely sure about that ?

and in various 3-drive configurations,
including the one I have at present.


- For simplicity, power and noise reasons,
I want to get rid of the remaining 60GB disk.


Sure, I would too.

- But that doesn't work. I get a variety of errors, depending
on which one I try to boot, including for example:
"Press a key to reboot" (then cycling repeatedly)
"NTLDR is missing..."


That indicates that the boot needs what is on the missing 60G drive.

"Some other file or other (HAL.DLL?) is missing..."
All those are presumably symptomatic
of XP not finding a bootable partition?


No, symptomatic of some of what it needs in the
surprisingly complex boot sequence that is involved
with XP not being visible with the 60G drive missing.

Yet, as I said, there *is* one,


Yes.

and it does work in other circumstances.


Yes, when the 60G drive which has what is needed is present.

Then, late last night, with only the 200GB disks in place (as disk
0 and disk 1), I started to get panic-generating messages like:
"A problem is preventing Windows accurately checking
the licence for this computer. Error code 0x80090006"
"Windows cannot load the user's profile but has logged you on
with the default profile for this system" (But it got no further.)


Again, because that stuff is on the missing 60G drive.

Here's what my setup is right now
http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/I...entStatus1.gif


One major source of confusion for me throughout this
exercise is: which of these OSs am I 'in' right now?


Yeah, that can get very confusing. In spades with just
where XP found various crucial bits involved in a full XP
boot. They arent all in what you think of as the copy
of XP if you havent done the copy process properly.

More on that below.

I think I have booted to Disk 1 Partition 1. That's the default
shown in Settings Startup. It is also consistent with what
I see in boot.ini. And that's also consistent with the XP Disk
Management display showing 'boot' in that entry.


Yes, but that doesnt prove anything about where
XP got all the components it uses during the boot.

IOW, right now I'm using the OS copy that is in H.
BUT then why is Disk 0 Partition 1 called C?


XP is quite happy to install on any drive you like.

And that drive is a quite separate issue to the
drive that boot.ini and ntldr are used from too.

I thought the boot partition automatically got re-labeled by XP to C?


Nope, the NT/2K/XP family dont work like that, the
drive letters are much more persistent than that.

OK, bottom line. I'm sorely tempted to stick with what I have now,
and just tidy up shortcuts, reorganise files and folders, etc.


Not a good idea. You've got one hell of a mess now and
the brown stuff will hit the fan very comprehensively indeed
if the 60G drive dies now. You wont be able to boot XP.


But it would be good to get down to 2 drives.


Yes, if only to get a config that will boot if the 60G drive dies.


NOTE: this 60GB is *not* showing any signs of dying. Have you mistaken
it for the one with the 4 bad blocks, the one that prompted this
project? *That* one is now safely off the system.

BTW, it still has a working OS on it, and was behaving well right up
to removal, so in an extreme emergency I could use it.

The remaining 60GB is around 3 years old, and it is identical to the
4-year old with bad blocks (and it is a Maxtor g), but that doesn't
necessarily mean its bad news does it? Not yet anyway.

400 GB should be plenty, even with two 12GB OS
partitions, and my comprehensive backup precautions.


Can the experts here suggest a safe way of achieving that please?


The safest way is to start again from scratch and do a clean install
of XP on each of the 200G drives with just one drive connected.
And have that partition contain XP and all the apps.

Then fix the letter each of the other partitions gets so they
get the same letter regardless of which copy of XP is booted.
That fixing is done in disk management and you will need to do
it with each of the copys of XP booted, obviously one at a time.


If you dont want to go that route because of the effort involved,


I definitely don't. I have so much stuff installed after many years (4
on this XP system), with so much customising, tweaking, etc, that I
couldn't face that approach!

you should be able to get the same result by copying the install
that is on the 60G drive to each of the 200G drives, BUT ITS
ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL TO MAKE THE COPY WITH SOMETHING
LIKE TRUE IMAGE FROM THE BOOTED CD SO YOU CAN STOP
ONCE THE COPY HAS BEEN MADE AND PHYSICALLY DISCONNECT
THE 60G DRIVE BEFORE BOOTING THE COPY OF XP FOR THE
FIRST TIME.

The problem you are seeing currently is because you have booted
the copy of XP with the 60G drive still connected on the first boot
after the copy has been made and when you do that, the boot off
the partition on the 200G drive uses some stuff on the 60G drive and
that means that the boot will fail when the 60G drive isnt connected.

When you boot the copy on the 200G drive for the first time after
the copy has been made, with the 60G drive unplugged, XP will
claim that it has found new hardware and will ask to be allowed
to reboot. Allow that, and it will boot up into XP fine with no 60G
drive present. You can then connect the 60G drive again and it
will continue to boot fine with the 60G drive missing later.


OK, thanks, that's good stuff. I'm going to have to get my mind around
all that last part. If I do renew my efforts to do it, I'll take it
slowly using your suggestions.

Presumably my Drive Image 2002 (or 5.0 which sits in its box
uninstalled) is equivalent to True Image in this context? And is it
pertinent that my PC is an OEM (Mesh UK) which came with a
'proprietary' CD for recovery only? It behaves very similarly to the
'official MS' CD as far as I know, with options for Repair (over the
top), Recovery (complex), and Reinstallation from scratch. But there
may be subtle wrinkles...

I think maybe I'll *use* my PC for a few hours now. Maybe risk
rebooting it before bedtime!

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK
Thu 10 November 2005, 19:51 UK time
  #7  
Old November 10th 05, 11:32 PM
Rod Speed
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why this configuration not working?

Terry Pinnell wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Terry Pinnell wrote


Sorry about the length of this, but I reckon
it's necessary to provide a full picture


It is indeed, and is much better than the same info
in multiple posts in response to further questions.


Thanks a bunch for the very comprehensive reply. I'm going
to study your recommendations more thoroughly tomorrow,


Yeah, I know the graves are calling...

but meanwhile see my inline comments.


and hence get some much-needed help please.


Following my previous posts, I have now installed a new 200GB
HD to replace the 60GB one with 4 bad blocks, as recommended.


But have you stopped that furious drunken grave dancing ?


That will be harder!


Yeah, you have to want to do it...

However, although I'm sending this from a
working 3-drive system, the 2-drive configuration
I'm trying to achieve resolutely refuses to work.


Because you arent making the copys of XP the right way


With Drive Image Copy Drive? Are
you sure the copying itself is at fault?


Not that so much as what XP can see during the first
boot of the copy after the copy has been made.

I know that produces those symptoms you are seeing,
not being able to boot once the 60G drive is removed.

and those boots involve the 60G drive that you are trying to remove
even when you think you are booting XP off one of the 200G drives.


Understood. That seems to be at the root of all my troubles. Although
I'd have hoped XP (boot.ini etc) to handle all that in a safe way?


There's a lot more involved with the XP boot than just boot.ini

After all, it is designed to support multi-booting, yes?


Yes, but there is a lot more involved than just boot.ini

That's after slogging at it for 3 days without success.
I'd hoped to sort it without returning here for more
help, but I have to admit defeat for the time being!


I won't attempt to describe all the details
of the various combinations I've tried.


No need, its obvious what the problem is.


Very briefly:


- The original 2 identical 60GB disks both had a partition
of about 12GB containing my XP Home OS (and around
half of my program files), and I could boot to either.


But could you boot to either with just one of the 60G drives
connected ?


That should have read just one of the 200G drives connected.

Should really proof read complex posts like this
one and I have done that with this particular reply.

Bet you couldnt.


I *think* so, but in view of your confidence that I
couldn't I'm going to have to try it again sometime.


Yeah, its so easy to try its worth doing to prove that that is
the problem, that the boot does involve files on the 60G drive.

With my *present* setup, could I test that by unplugging
(power and cable) from the PCI 200GB, PLUS (in turn)
unplugging the 60GB and 200GB on the IDE cable?


You want just one 200G drive with the ribbon cable and power
cable connected, nothing connected to either of the other drives.

And you want to try it with both 200G drives, one at a time.

Intuitively, (and until your firm pronouncements
to the contrary) I'd expect it to boot, as there
is an identical OS on each of those two disks.


I expect it to not boot, because the boot involves files on
the 60G drive which is no longer visible during the boot.

Thats a very well known problem with copying XP installs.

And I suppose, extrapolating that, I could leave just
the PCI disk connected and that should boot too?


Its important to test the simple config, just one 200G drive
physically connected. And to test that with both 200G drives,
obviously with only one of them connected at a time.

But you're saying no, none of those solo disks will boot?


Yes, that is what I am saying, with either of the 200G
drives as the only drive physically connected, I expect
that it wont boot. Because the boot is using files off
the 60G drive which is no longer connected.

That gave me a feeling of security, and I'd like to continue that.


Yes, its got some advantages, particularly
when the drives are known to be flakey.


(I also have an *image* of my OS, and I aim to update
that reasonably often, as another security measure.)


Yes, well worth having.


- I eventually succeeded in getting OS copies also into partitions
on the 2 identical 200GB HDs. (That's the 200GB added a few
weeks ago via an extra PCI card; and the latest identical 200GB,
bought as replacement for the faulty 60GB.)


- I am able to boot up from each of these
when that is the only drive present,


You completely sure about that ?


and in various 3-drive configurations,
including the one I have at present.


- For simplicity, power and noise reasons,
I want to get rid of the remaining 60GB disk.


Sure, I would too.


- But that doesn't work. I get a variety of errors, depending
on which one I try to boot, including for example:
"Press a key to reboot" (then cycling repeatedly)
"NTLDR is missing..."


That indicates that the boot needs what is on the missing 60G drive.


"Some other file or other (HAL.DLL?) is missing..."
All those are presumably symptomatic
of XP not finding a bootable partition?


No, symptomatic of some of what it needs in the
surprisingly complex boot sequence that is involved
with XP not being visible with the 60G drive missing.


Yet, as I said, there *is* one,


Yes.


and it does work in other circumstances.


Yes, when the 60G drive which has what is needed is present.


Then, late last night, with only the 200GB disks in place (as disk
0 and disk 1), I started to get panic-generating messages like:
"A problem is preventing Windows accurately checking
the licence for this computer. Error code 0x80090006"
"Windows cannot load the user's profile but has logged you on
with the default profile for this system" (But it got no further.)


Again, because that stuff is on the missing 60G drive.


Here's what my setup is right now
http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/I...entStatus1.gif


One major source of confusion for me throughout this
exercise is: which of these OSs am I 'in' right now?


Yeah, that can get very confusing. In spades with just
where XP found various crucial bits involved in a full XP
boot. They arent all in what you think of as the copy
of XP if you havent done the copy process properly.


More on that below.


I think I have booted to Disk 1 Partition 1. That's the default
shown in Settings Startup. It is also consistent with what
I see in boot.ini. And that's also consistent with the XP Disk
Management display showing 'boot' in that entry.


Yes, but that doesnt prove anything about where
XP got all the components it uses during the boot.


IOW, right now I'm using the OS copy that is in H.
BUT then why is Disk 0 Partition 1 called C?


XP is quite happy to install on any drive you like.


And that drive is a quite separate issue to the
drive that boot.ini and ntldr are used from too.


I thought the boot partition automatically got re-labeled by XP to C?


Nope, the NT/2K/XP family dont work like that, the
drive letters are much more persistent than that.


OK, bottom line. I'm sorely tempted to stick with what I have now,
and just tidy up shortcuts, reorganise files and folders, etc.


Not a good idea. You've got one hell of a mess now and
the brown stuff will hit the fan very comprehensively indeed
if the 60G drive dies now. You wont be able to boot XP.


But it would be good to get down to 2 drives.


Yes, if only to get a config that will boot if the 60G drive dies.


NOTE: this 60GB is *not* showing any signs of dying.


Yes, I realise that. I just meant that since one has died,
there is a real possibility that the one that has not yet died
will die too, so your strategy needs to allow for that real risk.

Have you mistaken it for the one with the 4 bad
blocks, the one that prompted this project?


Nope.

*That* one is now safely off the system.


BTW, it still has a working OS on it, and was behaving well
right up to removal, so in an extreme emergency I could use it.


Yep.

The remaining 60GB is around 3 years old, and it is identical
to the 4-year old with bad blocks (and it is a Maxtor g),


And that is why I was suggesting that
the risk of it dying too is significant.

but that doesn't necessarily mean its
bad news does it? Not yet anyway.


Correct, with the emphasis on yet.

400 GB should be plenty, even with two 12GB OS
partitions, and my comprehensive backup precautions.


Can the experts here suggest a safe way of achieving that please?


The safest way is to start again from scratch and do a clean install
of XP on each of the 200G drives with just one drive connected.
And have that partition contain XP and all the apps.


Then fix the letter each of the other partitions gets so they
get the same letter regardless of which copy of XP is booted.
That fixing is done in disk management and you will need to do
it with each of the copys of XP booted, obviously one at a time.


If you dont want to go that route because of the effort involved,


I definitely don't. I have so much stuff installed after many
years (4 on this XP system), with so much customising,
tweaking, etc, that I couldn't face that approach!


The Files and Settings Transfer Wizard makes that
a lot easier to do than starting from scratch completely.

you should be able to get the same result by copying the install
that is on the 60G drive to each of the 200G drives, BUT ITS
ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL TO MAKE THE COPY WITH SOMETHING
LIKE TRUE IMAGE FROM THE BOOTED CD SO YOU CAN STOP
ONCE THE COPY HAS BEEN MADE AND PHYSICALLY DISCONNECT
THE 60G DRIVE BEFORE BOOTING THE COPY OF XP FOR THE
FIRST TIME.


The problem you are seeing currently is because you have booted
the copy of XP with the 60G drive still connected on the first boot
after the copy has been made and when you do that, the boot off
the partition on the 200G drive uses some stuff on the 60G drive and
that means that the boot will fail when the 60G drive isnt connected.


When you boot the copy on the 200G drive for the first time after
the copy has been made, with the 60G drive unplugged, XP will
claim that it has found new hardware and will ask to be allowed
to reboot. Allow that, and it will boot up into XP fine with no 60G
drive present. You can then connect the 60G drive again and it
will continue to boot fine with the 60G drive missing later.


OK, thanks, that's good stuff. I'm going to have to get
my mind around all that last part. If I do renew my
efforts to do it, I'll take it slowly using your suggestions.


Presumably my Drive Image 2002 (or 5.0 which sits in its
box uninstalled) is equivalent to True Image in this context?


In capability, yes. Not as convenient to use tho because you
can just boot the TI CD and do it from there and using the
bootable CD makes it very easy to pause once the copy
has been done and physically unplug the 60G drive before
the first boot of XP after the copy has been made.

And is it pertinent that my PC is an OEM (Mesh UK)
which came with a 'proprietary' CD for recovery only?


Not with the copy done using TI or DI.

It behaves very similarly to the 'official MS' CD as far as I know,
with options for Repair (over the top), Recovery (complex), and
Reinstallation from scratch. But there may be subtle wrinkles...


OEM CDs are fine.

I think maybe I'll *use* my PC for a few hours now.


Tad radical...

Maybe risk rebooting it before bedtime!


Sure to produce tears before bedtime!!


  #8  
Old November 10th 05, 11:46 PM
Folkert Rienstra
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why this configuration not working?

"Peter" wrote in message news
OK, bottom line. I'm sorely tempted to stick with what I have now, and
just tidy up shortcuts, reorganise files and folders, etc. But it
would be good to get down to 2 drives. 400 GB should be plenty, even
with two 12GB OS partitions, and my comprehensive backup precautions.
Can the experts here suggest a safe way of achieving that please?


This a perfect example of how NOT TO DO things.

No?

Never attach multiple disks with active OS on them and boot into one of
those.


What the hell is an active OS when the system has yet to be booted.

Bad things might happen.


Or in other words, ....

I never had time to sort out those situations manually.


..... you have no idea.


I strongly recommend:


For someone that has no idea that's not what you should be doing.

1. Find out on which physical disks you have valuable data to archive. Move
it out of one 200GB disk. Create a fresh single NTFS partition on that
disk.Consolidate that valuable data to one 200GB disk as a temporary backup
drive. Zip if you can (saves space, provides integrity check). Remove from
system.Put it aside.
2. Attach all remaining disks (ones you want to keep), but the backup one,
in a final physical configuration. Adjust BIOS accordingly. Boot from OS cd,
remove all partitons on all attched disks. Shutdown, reboot with OS CD.
3. Install OS fresh. Partition as you like. Install apps, patches etc.
Verify and test your system.
4. Reattach backup drive, restore archives, use it for something else if you
like.

  #9  
Old November 11th 05, 12:30 AM
Terry Pinnell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why this configuration not working?

"Rod Speed" wrote:

Terry Pinnell wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Terry Pinnell wrote


Sorry about the length of this, but I reckon
it's necessary to provide a full picture


It is indeed, and is much better than the same info
in multiple posts in response to further questions.


Thanks a bunch for the very comprehensive reply. I'm going
to study your recommendations more thoroughly tomorrow,


Yeah, I know the graves are calling...

but meanwhile see my inline comments.


and hence get some much-needed help please.


Following my previous posts, I have now installed a new 200GB
HD to replace the 60GB one with 4 bad blocks, as recommended.


But have you stopped that furious drunken grave dancing ?


That will be harder!


Yeah, you have to want to do it...

However, although I'm sending this from a
working 3-drive system, the 2-drive configuration
I'm trying to achieve resolutely refuses to work.


Because you arent making the copys of XP the right way


With Drive Image Copy Drive? Are
you sure the copying itself is at fault?


Not that so much as what XP can see during the first
boot of the copy after the copy has been made.

I know that produces those symptoms you are seeing,
not being able to boot once the 60G drive is removed.

and those boots involve the 60G drive that you are trying to remove
even when you think you are booting XP off one of the 200G drives.


Understood. That seems to be at the root of all my troubles. Although
I'd have hoped XP (boot.ini etc) to handle all that in a safe way?


There's a lot more involved with the XP boot than just boot.ini

After all, it is designed to support multi-booting, yes?


Yes, but there is a lot more involved than just boot.ini

That's after slogging at it for 3 days without success.
I'd hoped to sort it without returning here for more
help, but I have to admit defeat for the time being!


I won't attempt to describe all the details
of the various combinations I've tried.


No need, its obvious what the problem is.


Very briefly:


- The original 2 identical 60GB disks both had a partition
of about 12GB containing my XP Home OS (and around
half of my program files), and I could boot to either.


But could you boot to either with just one of the 60G drives
connected ?


That should have read just one of the 200G drives connected.

Should really proof read complex posts like this
one and I have done that with this particular reply.

Bet you couldnt.


I *think* so, but in view of your confidence that I
couldn't I'm going to have to try it again sometime.


Yeah, its so easy to try its worth doing to prove that that is
the problem, that the boot does involve files on the 60G drive.

With my *present* setup, could I test that by unplugging
(power and cable) from the PCI 200GB, PLUS (in turn)
unplugging the 60GB and 200GB on the IDE cable?


You want just one 200G drive with the ribbon cable and power
cable connected, nothing connected to either of the other drives.

And you want to try it with both 200G drives, one at a time.

Intuitively, (and until your firm pronouncements
to the contrary) I'd expect it to boot, as there
is an identical OS on each of those two disks.


I expect it to not boot, because the boot involves files on
the 60G drive which is no longer visible during the boot.

Thats a very well known problem with copying XP installs.

And I suppose, extrapolating that, I could leave just
the PCI disk connected and that should boot too?


Its important to test the simple config, just one 200G drive
physically connected. And to test that with both 200G drives,
obviously with only one of them connected at a time.

But you're saying no, none of those solo disks will boot?


Yes, that is what I am saying, with either of the 200G
drives as the only drive physically connected, I expect
that it wont boot. Because the boot is using files off
the 60G drive which is no longer connected.

That gave me a feeling of security, and I'd like to continue that.


Yes, its got some advantages, particularly
when the drives are known to be flakey.


(I also have an *image* of my OS, and I aim to update
that reasonably often, as another security measure.)


Yes, well worth having.


- I eventually succeeded in getting OS copies also into partitions
on the 2 identical 200GB HDs. (That's the 200GB added a few
weeks ago via an extra PCI card; and the latest identical 200GB,
bought as replacement for the faulty 60GB.)


- I am able to boot up from each of these
when that is the only drive present,


You completely sure about that ?


and in various 3-drive configurations,
including the one I have at present.


- For simplicity, power and noise reasons,
I want to get rid of the remaining 60GB disk.


Sure, I would too.


- But that doesn't work. I get a variety of errors, depending
on which one I try to boot, including for example:
"Press a key to reboot" (then cycling repeatedly)
"NTLDR is missing..."


That indicates that the boot needs what is on the missing 60G drive.


"Some other file or other (HAL.DLL?) is missing..."
All those are presumably symptomatic
of XP not finding a bootable partition?


No, symptomatic of some of what it needs in the
surprisingly complex boot sequence that is involved
with XP not being visible with the 60G drive missing.


Yet, as I said, there *is* one,


Yes.


and it does work in other circumstances.


Yes, when the 60G drive which has what is needed is present.


Then, late last night, with only the 200GB disks in place (as disk
0 and disk 1), I started to get panic-generating messages like:
"A problem is preventing Windows accurately checking
the licence for this computer. Error code 0x80090006"
"Windows cannot load the user's profile but has logged you on
with the default profile for this system" (But it got no further.)


Again, because that stuff is on the missing 60G drive.


Here's what my setup is right now
http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/I...entStatus1.gif


One major source of confusion for me throughout this
exercise is: which of these OSs am I 'in' right now?


Yeah, that can get very confusing. In spades with just
where XP found various crucial bits involved in a full XP
boot. They arent all in what you think of as the copy
of XP if you havent done the copy process properly.


More on that below.


I think I have booted to Disk 1 Partition 1. That's the default
shown in Settings Startup. It is also consistent with what
I see in boot.ini. And that's also consistent with the XP Disk
Management display showing 'boot' in that entry.


Yes, but that doesnt prove anything about where
XP got all the components it uses during the boot.


IOW, right now I'm using the OS copy that is in H.
BUT then why is Disk 0 Partition 1 called C?


XP is quite happy to install on any drive you like.


And that drive is a quite separate issue to the
drive that boot.ini and ntldr are used from too.


I thought the boot partition automatically got re-labeled by XP to C?


Nope, the NT/2K/XP family dont work like that, the
drive letters are much more persistent than that.


OK, bottom line. I'm sorely tempted to stick with what I have now,
and just tidy up shortcuts, reorganise files and folders, etc.


Not a good idea. You've got one hell of a mess now and
the brown stuff will hit the fan very comprehensively indeed
if the 60G drive dies now. You wont be able to boot XP.


But it would be good to get down to 2 drives.


Yes, if only to get a config that will boot if the 60G drive dies.


NOTE: this 60GB is *not* showing any signs of dying.


Yes, I realise that. I just meant that since one has died,
there is a real possibility that the one that has not yet died
will die too, so your strategy needs to allow for that real risk.

Have you mistaken it for the one with the 4 bad
blocks, the one that prompted this project?


Nope.

*That* one is now safely off the system.


BTW, it still has a working OS on it, and was behaving well
right up to removal, so in an extreme emergency I could use it.


Yep.

The remaining 60GB is around 3 years old, and it is identical
to the 4-year old with bad blocks (and it is a Maxtor g),


And that is why I was suggesting that
the risk of it dying too is significant.

but that doesn't necessarily mean its
bad news does it? Not yet anyway.


Correct, with the emphasis on yet.

400 GB should be plenty, even with two 12GB OS
partitions, and my comprehensive backup precautions.


Can the experts here suggest a safe way of achieving that please?


The safest way is to start again from scratch and do a clean install
of XP on each of the 200G drives with just one drive connected.
And have that partition contain XP and all the apps.


Then fix the letter each of the other partitions gets so they
get the same letter regardless of which copy of XP is booted.
That fixing is done in disk management and you will need to do
it with each of the copys of XP booted, obviously one at a time.


If you dont want to go that route because of the effort involved,


I definitely don't. I have so much stuff installed after many
years (4 on this XP system), with so much customising,
tweaking, etc, that I couldn't face that approach!


The Files and Settings Transfer Wizard makes that
a lot easier to do than starting from scratch completely.

you should be able to get the same result by copying the install
that is on the 60G drive to each of the 200G drives, BUT ITS
ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL TO MAKE THE COPY WITH SOMETHING
LIKE TRUE IMAGE FROM THE BOOTED CD SO YOU CAN STOP
ONCE THE COPY HAS BEEN MADE AND PHYSICALLY DISCONNECT
THE 60G DRIVE BEFORE BOOTING THE COPY OF XP FOR THE
FIRST TIME.


The problem you are seeing currently is because you have booted
the copy of XP with the 60G drive still connected on the first boot
after the copy has been made and when you do that, the boot off
the partition on the 200G drive uses some stuff on the 60G drive and
that means that the boot will fail when the 60G drive isnt connected.


When you boot the copy on the 200G drive for the first time after
the copy has been made, with the 60G drive unplugged, XP will
claim that it has found new hardware and will ask to be allowed
to reboot. Allow that, and it will boot up into XP fine with no 60G
drive present. You can then connect the 60G drive again and it
will continue to boot fine with the 60G drive missing later.


OK, thanks, that's good stuff. I'm going to have to get
my mind around all that last part. If I do renew my
efforts to do it, I'll take it slowly using your suggestions.


Presumably my Drive Image 2002 (or 5.0 which sits in its
box uninstalled) is equivalent to True Image in this context?


In capability, yes. Not as convenient to use tho because you
can just boot the TI CD and do it from there and using the
bootable CD makes it very easy to pause once the copy
has been done and physically unplug the 60G drive before
the first boot of XP after the copy has been made.

And is it pertinent that my PC is an OEM (Mesh UK)
which came with a 'proprietary' CD for recovery only?


Not with the copy done using TI or DI.

It behaves very similarly to the 'official MS' CD as far as I know,
with options for Repair (over the top), Recovery (complex), and
Reinstallation from scratch. But there may be subtle wrinkles...


OEM CDs are fine.

I think maybe I'll *use* my PC for a few hours now.


Tad radical...

Maybe risk rebooting it before bedtime!


Sure to produce tears before bedtime!!


Survived a reboot! (To Disk 1, Partition 1 - that's H, FWIW. Not a lot
it seems, in view of the apparent complexity you referred to.)

I'll get back on the case tomorrow. That is, unless I get preoccupied
with *using* my PC a little longer, instead of 'fixing' it. Severe
withdrawal symptoms after such a long abstinence this week g.

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK
  #10  
Old November 11th 05, 04:26 PM
Terry Pinnell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why this configuration not working?

Terry Pinnell wrote:


- I eventually succeeded in getting OS copies also into partitions on
the 2 identical 200GB HDs. (That's the 200GB added a few weeks ago via
an extra PCI card; and the latest identical 200GB, bought as
replacement for the faulty 60GB.)


Correction: I have so far only copied the OS to the H partition, not
E. In view of the problems I was having, I'm a little reluctant to
make that extra copy for the moment. Although of course that is
precisely the arrangement I had for over 3 years, with the two
original 60GB disks both having an XP OS partition as well as a data
partition. And that never gave me any problems at any time (apart from
those due to the bad blocks).

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
P/I-P55T2P4: Mouse not working on PS/2 or serial port Michel Kuhn Asus Motherboards 4 May 26th 05 10:31 PM
P/I-P55T2P4: Mouse not working on PS/2 or serial port Michel Kuhn Asus Motherboards 0 May 20th 05 11:47 PM
LITEON's dark secret? No Longer a LiteOn Customer Homebuilt PC's 49 April 15th 04 04:41 AM
Working space and Colorvision Profiler Pro Greg Printers 15 January 24th 04 01:14 AM
Q on reinstalling HP Officejet v40 SW; getting setup and working John Kuthe Printers 0 January 12th 04 02:57 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.