New system not detecting SATA Hard Drives...

[Psymon]

Hey,

Some may know that I just built a new system (I came here for advice on building it as well) and the specs are as follows:

PSU: 620HX Corsair
CPU: Q6600
Mobo: Gigabyte P35C-DS3R rev2.0
Graphics: 8800GTX
HDD 1: WD 150gb Raptor
HDD 2: WD 500gb Caviar
RAM: 4gb XMS2 DDR2 675

Here's my issue...keep in mind these are the first SATA drives I've worked with

When I first built the system, I read a lot that it was hard to set up Vista unless you had your HDD's detected as IDE's, so I set them up through the Bios as that. Everything went fine, but obviously, I'm using SATA drivers under an IDE controller, so I might as well be using IDE drives in terms of speed/performance.

So, I decided to reformat (with new BIOS settings to set everything up as AHCI (or SATA non-RAID) and Vista obviously detected them since they were already partitioned and etc., but my bios stopped detected them. Before, on the Standard CMOS Features page of the bios, my Hard Drives as well as my optical SATA were there. Now, they aren't.

Anyways, I continued to partition and reformat the drives again, and I loaded up the SATA drivers from the Gigabyte website through a floppy disk. Went ahead with teh installation, and everything was fine, and still is, but they aren't configured as SATA's and they aren't detected in teh bios under Standard CMOS Features. It says something along the lines of:

IDE Controller 1 Master: [None]
IDE Controller 2 Master: [None]

so on, so forth...

I am ultimately stumped as to what's going on. When I go to Device Manager, I can see the IHCR9 controller installed (whereas I didn't on the first format/installation) but when I try to configure my drives and view SATA-specific information, none of it is available.

Also, when I go to the "boot Priority" option for the HDD's in the bios, it shows them as SCSI.

I'm really hoping someone can help me out with this, because I see no reason to invest money and time in SATA drives if I can't actually utilize the benifits of a SATA drive.

Thanks in advance, and for those wondering, the system is running great otherwise. Just haven't been able to test it out in games and what-not since I can't get this hard drive thing sorted out just yet.

edit: Apologizing for all the typos. I'm using a G15 keyboard and have been using a split-key designed keyboard for over 3 years. Going to take some getting used to before I'm back to typing properly.
edit 2: Also, I am a believer in researching a problem yourself and only using forums like this as a last resort. I have researched it a lot and have so far came up blank as to a solution. Someone who had askeda similar question either wasn't answered, or their "fix" wasn't working for me. So I don't know what else to do but see if someone can offer a little insight specifically to me. Thanks again

 

[Old Hippie]

I'm gonna give ya a quick "Here's what I think is goin' on".

You wanted to load the ACHI drivers from Intel to be able to use the extended SATA features....and those features will have zero impact on your drive performance. I'm suprised your machine works at all with the Bios in ACHI mode.
I would put the BIOS back to IDE mode and live happily ever after.

I see no reason to invest money and time in SATA drives if I can't actually utilize the benifits of a SATA drive.

There is very little money difference between IDE and SATA drives, and IDE ports are going the way of Old Hippies...there's very few around and they won't be back. You already get the speed performance of the SATA drives if they're in IDE, SATA, ACHI, or Old Hippie mode. Of the extra features avaliable in ACHI mode, the only one that's even remotely beneficial in a desktop machine is the hot swap. That's usually beneficial for external hard drives, but many boards already include external eSATA ports with hot swap enabled.

The last post on this page gives instructions on how to install the ACHI drivers without reformatting. IDK your board or Vista, but as long as you have a non-Intel chipset avaliable, it outta work.

Good Luck!

 

[Psymon]

Here's where I'm stumped then... and I think I need to rephrase what I was saying to explain it better.

SATA is supposed to have better transfer rates (1.5g/s, 3.0g/s) than IDE, and while reading the TGTC for Vista, he claimed that going to the Device Manager and selecting the properties on your SATA controller you should see tabs which allow you to see what your SATA transfer rate is. He then followed up to say that if you weren't able to see anything of that, then your SATA drives weren't properly set up.

So I'm assuming that for my SATA drives to be properly set up, they need to be in ACHI, not IDE (even though in IDE they are recognized by the Bios and in AHCI they aren't.)

The other thing that stumps me is, when I set them up as IDE, they were read by Vista just fine with no need to insert pre-install drivers for SATA drives. This tells me that they aren't actually being utilized as SATA drives.

If I'm completely wrong on this let me know, otherwise I'm pretty confused at this point. I read in one area that setting it up as IDE gives you slower performance because it's not set up as a SATA, and in another I read it doesn't matter.

Thanks for your reply Old Hippie, I did find it in informative.

 

[corkyg]

SATA is IDE! The alternative is PATA. Both are IDE (Internal Drive Electronics.)

All you need is for your mobo's SATA controller (in BIOS) to be active. BIOS is where it starts. Windows then follows along. AHCI? Not in any of my 4 systems. (Advanced Host Controller Index) All my SATA driuves are listed in Device Manager under SCSI/RAID.

 

[Psymon]

So the IDE is just the interface? They're both actually set up as SATA.

That doesn't really explain why I can't see the options that the TGTC was talking about in Device Manager though. Maybe my SATA drivers are messed up?

Thanks for clarifying that either way. All this time I assumed IDE was PATA

 

[Old Hippie]

That doesn't really explain why I can't see the options that the TGTC was talking about in Device Manager though.

I may be wayyyy off base here, but you need to check for those extra properties under the IDE ATA/ATAPI controllers in your device manager, not the drives themselves. Your SATA drives will show in there, along with those special features you're looking for. It looks like that's what you were doing, but I thought I'd make sure.

The other thing that stumps me is, when I set them up as IDE, they were read by Vista just fine with no need to insert pre-install drivers for SATA drives. This tells me that they aren't actually being utilized as SATA drives.

No it doesn't. The SATA drivers are now included in the install disc. The ACHI drivers are not included. That's why I told you to install the ACHI drivers during install if you felt the need.

SATA is supposed to have better transfer rates (1.5g/s, 3.0g/s) than IDE

When you do get the drives set to your satisfaction and run the speed tests, let me give you a clue. No consumer drive will even fill the SATA1 (1.5) bandwith except for burst speeds, and those don't mean shit. ATM this is all marketing FUD to encourage consumers to buy the latest and greatest.

Thanks for your reply Old Hippie, I did find it in informative.

Ahhhh, you think you could mention to my wife that not everything I say is useless?

 

[Psymon]

Originally posted by: Old Hippie

That doesn't really explain why I can't see the options that the TGTC was talking about in Device Manager though.

I may be wayyyy off base here, but you need to check for those extra properties under the IDE ATA/ATAPI controllers in your device manager, not the drives themselves. Your SATA drives will show in there, along with those special features you're looking for. It looks like that's what you were doing, but I thought I'd make sure.

I was checking under the IDE ATA/ATAPI controllers and didn't see them. Also, when I set the drives to IDE I get more controllers listed (specifically ATA) and my drives are listed as ATA in the device Manager.

The other thing that stumps me is, when I set them up as IDE, they were read by Vista just fine with no need to insert pre-install drivers for SATA drives. This tells me that they aren't actually being utilized as SATA drives.

No it doesn't. The SATA drivers are now included in the install disc. The ACHI drivers are not included. That's why I told you to install the ACHI drivers during install if you felt the need.

So, if my drives are being detected in Vista without any input from me, should I be using a preinstall driver from my mobo manufacturers website anyways? Would this cause an issue?

More specifically, I have already made the decision to RMA these drives in replacement for two other drives which I'll set up as RAID0. Does this make using preinstall SATA/RAID drivers a necessity or will Vista contain the drivers already?

The drives are arriving in a few days, and I'm hoping to have everything figured out on how to properly set them up by then so I can have a trouble-free installation. So far this thread as a whole has been greatly informative and clarifying of this technology.

SATA is supposed to have better transfer rates (1.5g/s, 3.0g/s) than IDE

When you do get the drives set to your satisfaction and run the speed tests, let me give you a clue. No consumer drive will even fill the SATA1 (1.5) bandwith except for burst speeds, and those don't mean shit. ATM this is all marketing FUD to encourage consumers to buy the latest and greatest.

Yeah, I realize that no drive on the market can reach those speeds, but I was simply using that as a reinforcement to the fact that SATA does possess greater transfer rates which is why I want them to be utilized as such. It may not be 1.5GB/s or 3.0GB/s, but it is faster.

Thanks for your reply Old Hippie, I did find it in informative.

Ahhhh, you think you could mention to my wife that not everything I say is useless?

I'll send a post card

Thanks again.

 

[Old Hippie]

More specifically, I have already made the decision to RMA these drives in replacement for two other drives which I'll set up as RAID0. Does this make using preinstall SATA/RAID drivers a necessity or will Vista contain the drivers already?

RAID 0? You'd better keep that 500 gigger for your daily/weekly back-up. I'm gonna suggest you do some major research on software and hardware RAID before you take the plunge. Many here are very familiar with RAID ( not me), but I believe you still hafta add the drivers with Vista.

I'll send a post card

Did ya find a stamp yet?


Good Luck!

 

[Roguestar]

Originally posted by: corkyg
SATA is IDE! The alternative is PATA. Both are IDE (Internal Drive Electronics.)

Integrated Drive Electronics, if we're being pedantic .


Edit: Wait a second, did I heard RAID-0? Am I going to have to break out my raid0.txt quote file again? Le sigh.

 

[corkyg]

Not pedantic, just accurate. I'll join you on the RAID O schtick.

 

[Old Hippie]

if we're being pedantic

Woah, had to look that up. All kinda educational stuff going on here!

 

[Psymon]

Here we go,

I've done a bit of research on RAID0 before I built the PC, and was considering it upon the initial purchase, but decided that it may be too much trouble.

However, setting up these hard drives was forcing me to do more research on hard drives in general, which contained some looking into the performance of RAID0 in comparison to hard drives, and my findings were (in a nutshell)...

RAID0 obviously offers increased performance, but the type of performance it offers is mostly based on the stripe block size.

However, one who did a benchmark test (did not state what stripe size he was using) found that his RAID0 performed a lot better during intensive desktop work, but he did not notice much gain during games at all. I'm assuming he was using a larger stripe size.

Then we have Koroush Ghazi, who is notorious for writing a lot of guides on PC performance and game performance, who believes RAID0 offers increased performance overall (depending on your stripe size). He even personally uses RAID0.

The only issue, and the only nuisance, I could discover (and think of) with RAID0 is the backing up. As Hippie pointed out, I may very well be saving myself a lot of money on DVD's and a lot of headaches if I keep the 500gig for backing up purposes.

When I do set up RAID0, I'll be doing it knowing the risk of data loss and etc. I don't claim to be an expert on it, nor anything else, but this is what I've found through all my research on the subject.

One thing to touch on the subject of backing up (from my personal standing) is that in the past, and currently, I've always backed up very little. Not that I failed to do so, but I never had anything to consistently back up. The only continuously changing aspect of my PC I need to backup is my collection of Music, Movies, and Art. And most of this is already backed up on DVD's.

This would be a lot easier if I placed my current 500gb in an external drive enclosure so I could simply plug it in through USB and transfer files back and forth as needed, without switching out DVD's or searching for DVD's all the time. And I may very well do that just as a convenience. However, I have absolutely no experience in doing this, and have no idea what type of enclosure to look for.

Alright, I think I've wrote enough for now. I hate text blocks and this is starting to turn into one (if its not already).

Thanks again for everyones input. I'm beginning to enjoy this forum more each time I come back.

 

[Old Hippie]

However, I have absolutely no experience in doing this, and have no idea what type of enclosure to look for.

Running RAID0 you're gonna get plenty of reinstall and/or back-up experience. Any 3.5" case will do for an external HDD. This Antec MX-1 is my current fav and can be found for 40.00 + free shipping if you wait for a sale. You board has 2 eSATA ports avaliable, and I suggest using one of those.
Acronis True Image has saved my buns many a time, but IDK if it does RAID.

Good Luck!

 

[Psymon]

I checked out the enclosure you recommended and read a review (along with some other enclosures) and it looks very good for the price. Decided to order it from that website for a total of about $55 with shipping, while other stores were charging upwards of $70 before shipping even came into play. My local BestBuy wanted $74 before tax. Cheers on the recommendation.

Acronis True Image looks a lot like Norton Ghost which is something I'll probably make good use of. With a 500G external and a ~600G RAID setup, I'll basically be able to backup my entire system on the external by itself.

Once again I appreciate the help Hippie. I learned a lot from this thread about hard drives in general.

 

[Roguestar]

Originally posted by: Old Hippie

if we're being pedantic

Woah, had to look that up. All kinda educational stuff going on here!

It's a fancy word for "Roguestar is a picky a-hole" .

 

[Old Hippie]

Hey Psymon, did you post over at HF?