Secondary HDD causing very slow boot time )-:

[27MaD]

Well , certainly i'm running a 500 GB WD HDD , but i have another 200 GB WD HDD , my problem is when i connect the second HDD , when i start the PC i see the BIOS taking decades to identify the second HDD (takes up to 3 mins).

Any thoughts?

 

[Aquinus]

The drive has to spin up before it can be identified. Some drives take a lot longer than others to get up to speed. There is no good way to get around this. If it doesn't happen in the BIOS/UEFI, it's going to happen when the OS starts. One way or another, you're going to have to wait for it to spin up.

 

[27MaD]

The drive has to spin up before it can be identified. Some drives take a lot longer than others to get up to speed. There is no good way to get around this. If it doesn't happen in the BIOS/UEFI, it's going to happen when the OS starts. One way or another, you're going to have to wait for it to spin up.

 

[eidairaman1]

Are these SATA or IDE?

 

[theFOoL]

Could be a bad drive. Run Crystal Disk Info.

What's your Motherboard?

 

[27MaD]

Are these SATA or IDE?

Both HDDs r SATA.

Could be a bad drive. Run Crystal Disk Info.

What's your Motherboard?

I remmember running hard disk Sentenial , the HDD health was 90-100%.
U can find all my specs in "system specs" under my name

 

[theFOoL]

Yea I meant to go Into specs but I went to "heatware" anyways... Probably due to your HDDs. For my build I have a Custom SSD "A msata 64GB+msata case" you should look into it

 

[Aquinus]

For what it's worth, connecting a hard drive via USB or eSATA is going to give you the same result if the drive is slow to spin up. If you really want a machine that starts quickly, no spinning drives at all should be connected to it and you ought to consider using a NAS or something to handle your mass storage needs.

 

[theFOoL]

Aquinus,

I have multiple USB HDDs plugged
into my 775 build and have no booting slowdown though I have a SSD as my Windows Drive as stated above

 

[Jetster]

If you have installed programs on these external drives it will slow the process. I would avoid this

 

[eidairaman1]

For what it's worth, connecting a hard drive via USB or eSATA is going to give you the same result if the drive is slow to spin up. If you really want a machine that starts quickly, no spinning drives at all should be connected to it and you ought to consider using a NAS or something to handle your mass storage needs.

Not a problem for my velociraptor. Sounss to me the drive is failing despite that trick test.

Really I prefer Hitachi/IBM Disk Fitness Test.

 

[dorsetknob]

If Drive is not needed for Boot (ie its Storage only or only has rarely used programs not essential for boot process)
2 choices are
USB Enclosure (plug in after boot)
Sata hot plug Drive Bay ( again power on after boot)

 

[Aquinus]

Not a problem for my velociraptor. Sounss to me the drive is failing despite that trick test.

Your velociraptor is also a 10k RPM drive that's technically a 2.5" drive in a 3.5" chassis. It has a much stronger motor (relatively speaking,) for the size of the platter. I would expect that drive to spin up very quickly. I have 7.2k RPM drives that spin up fairly quickly but, it's the 5.4k RPM drives that seem to take the most time. My 4 and 8TB externals definitely take more time than my 1TB WD Blacks or my 500GB Seagate Constellation ES.

 

[27MaD]

If you have installed programs on these external drives it will slow the process. I would avoid this

No , my second extra HDD is empty , i'm not out of storage on the current HDD , but i want to keep some extra storage.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

just how old is that 2nd drive? it might be better used as a wind chime than in your system waiting to fail, which could take out other components.

Platter drives under 1TB should be recycled.

 

[27MaD]

just how old is that 2nd drive? it might be better used as a wind chime than in your system waiting to fail, which could take out other components.

Platter drives under 1TB should be recycled.

Yeah the 2nd HDD is very old.

 

[Regeneration]

Long period of HDD initialization at POST is a strong indication the drive is failing.

Post a screenshot of CrystalDiskInfo.

Maybe its time to toss the drive away and to replace it with an SSD.

 

[eidairaman1]

Your velociraptor is also a 10k RPM drive that's technically a 2.5" drive in a 3.5" chassis. It has a much stronger motor (relatively speaking,) for the size of the platter. I would expect that drive to spin up very quickly. I have 7.2k RPM drives that spin up fairly quickly but, it's the 5.4k RPM drives that seem to take the most time. My 4 and 8TB externals definitely take more time than my 1TB WD Blacks or my 500GB Seagate Constellation ES.

Thats why I never owned anything less than 7200.

 

[27MaD]

Guys, is it a good idea to get one of those 64GB Kingstone ssd's & install the OS on it ??

 

[dorsetknob]

Guys, is it a good idea to get one of those 64GB Kingstone ssd's & install the OS on it ??

You really need a min of 120 gig these days what with Program inflation

 

[27MaD]

You really need a min of 120 gig these days what with Program inflation

120 GB only 4 the OS?

 

[John Naylor]

Drive performance is dependent upon platter diameter, areal density and rpm. A 5400 rpm drive with an areal density 1.33 times that of an older one will deliver the same theoretical transfer rate as a older 7200 rom or even 10,000 rpm drive. Same for 2.5 versus 3.5" drives....the speed of the 3.5" drive at the outer edge is almost twice that of a a 2.5" drive.

A 2018 drive might be expected to have an areal density of 1,100 GB / in ^2 One from 2016 would have an expected areal density of 800,000 .... so:

1,100 x 5.4k rpm = 5,940 ... newer, slower rpm drive could deliver data slightly faster than older higher rpm drive
800 x 7.2k rpm = 5,760

Now that's based upon the state of current technology and what's possible .... drive manufacturers are not necessarily jumping on setting up new HD designs everytime available technology gets bumped and areal density info is oft hard to some by. Also what's being offered for sale deoends more upon user impact than "benchmarks" ... if a storage subsyetem's ability to deliver data is greater than the user's ability to manipulate it, then it's basically useless. We have seen this in the laptop market where performance of 2.5" drives have recently (last 2-3 years) been dropped to 5400 rpm for power savings which mean more to the portable user who is not sacrificing expected performance compared to older 7200 rpm drives because the newer drives deliver higher areal density.

Guys, is it a good idea to get one of those 64GB Kingstone ssd's & install the OS on it ??

No. We've never installed less than 120 GB and most of thoise come back with users asking to "Clean up C cause it's full".

Due storage manufacturer's decision in the 1990s to artificially inflate drive size by redefining a GB to 1,000 MBs instead of the real 1,024, that 64 GB only fits 59.5 GB of files..... leaving the recommended 15% free to maintain performance and reliability, you're left with only 50.5 GB of space. Do not recommend anything less than 250 / 256 GB

BTW, regarding the initial post, when you say "connected", we talking internal SATA or external eSATA ?

 

[eidairaman1]

Go get a Crucial MX200 or better.

 

[micropage7]

First change the sata cable, then try to plug in to another sata ports?

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

120 GB only 4 the OS?

I have a 240 GB for my OS drive and 3 TB in storage drives. That leaves room to install a few of the more played games on the SSD and not have to worry about running out of room too soon.