MHDD do i need to zeroing ? - Storage

This is a discussion on MHDD do i need to zeroing ? - Storage ; Arno Wagner wrote > Previously larry moe 'n curly wrote: > > Arno Wagner wrote: > > > > Zeroing does nothing for HDD health. If the drive has a > > > problem, it needs to be replaced. > ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 35 of 35

Thread: MHDD do i need to zeroing ?

  1. Re: MHDD do i need to zeroing ?

    Arno Wagner wrote
    > Previously larry moe 'n curly wrote:
    > > Arno Wagner wrote:

    >
    > > > Zeroing does nothing for HDD health. If the drive has a
    > > > problem, it needs to be replaced.

    >
    > > I recently jarred a Seagate 80G ST380012A while it was running, and a
    > > surface scan revealed a 16K defect that hadn't appeared in the
    > > previous scan. The defect disappeared after I zeroed the drive, and
    > > it hasn't come back.

    >
    > And still, your surface is not any healthier than before.


    > Just a different part of it is used now.


    That's not at all certain. He only said it disappeared.
    The drive may well have reused the original unreadable
    sector because there was nothing physically wrong with it.

    >
    > > > Side note: Remapping can be done today by running a full
    > > > surface scan (or long SMART selftest, which does the same
    > > > and some more tests), and, incidentially, in no other way,
    > > > unless there are pending sectors in the SMART attributes.
    > > > Then you need to zero these (or the complete drive).

    >
    > > Before I zeroed the 80G Seagate, I ran the long SMART self test with
    > > both MHDD and the DOS version of Seagate's SeaTools, but it didn't
    > > affect the 16K defect.

    >
    > That would be because you likely had an unreadable secor,
    > which also shows up as a pending sector afer a read attempt.
    >
    > Arno


  2. Re: MHDD do i need to zeroing ?



    Arno Wagner wrote:

    > Previously larry moe 'n curly wrote:


    > Zeroing does nothing for HDD health. If the drive has a
    > problem, it needs to be replaced.
    >
    > > I recently jarred a Seagate 80G ST380012A while it was running, and a
    > > surface scan revealed a 16K defect that hadn't appeared in the
    > > previous scan. The defect disappeared after I zeroed the drive, and
    > > it hasn't come back.

    >
    > And still, your surface is not any healthier than before.
    > Just a different part of it is used now.


    I zeroed the drive in case that bad area was marginal and would be
    reused later. I ran Norton 2000 Disk Doctor, which can write several
    test patterns without wiping the data, and it showed no other defects.

    > Side note: Remapping can be done today by running a full
    > surface scan (or long SMART selftest, which does the same
    > and some more tests), and, incidentially, in no other way,
    > unless there are pending sectors in the SMART attributes.
    > Then you need to zero these (or the complete drive).
    >
    > > Before I zeroed the 80G Seagate, I ran the long SMART self test with
    > > both MHDD and the DOS version of Seagate's SeaTools, but it didn't
    > > affect the 16K defect.

    >
    > That would be because you likely had an unreadable sector,
    > which also shows up as a pending sector afer a read attempt.


    But isn't the long SMART self test supposed to remove the bad sector
    from use and substitute a spare sector for it?


  3. Re: MHDD do i need to zeroing ?

    Arno Wagner wrote:
    > Previously larry moe 'n curly wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Arno Wagner wrote:

    >
    >>> Zeroing does nothing for HDD health. If the drive has a
    >>> problem, it needs to be replaced.

    >
    >> I recently jarred a Seagate 80G ST380012A while it was running, and a
    >> surface scan revealed a 16K defect that hadn't appeared in the
    >> previous scan. The defect disappeared after I zeroed the drive, and
    >> it hasn't come back.


    > And still, your surface is not any healthier than before.


    The sectors used to store data in certainly are.

    > Just a different part of it is used now.


    The healthier part.

    >>> Side note: Remapping can be done today by running a full
    >>> surface scan (or long SMART selftest, which does the same
    >>> and some more tests), and, incidentially, in no other way,
    >>> unless there are pending sectors in the SMART attributes.
    >>> Then you need to zero these (or the complete drive).

    >
    >> Before I zeroed the 80G Seagate, I ran the long SMART self test with
    >> both MHDD and the DOS version of Seagate's SeaTools, but it didn't
    >> affect the 16K defect.


    > That would be because you likely had an unreadable secor,
    > which also shows up as a pending sector afer a read attempt.





  4. Re: MHDD do i need to zeroing ?

    Previously larry moe 'n curly wrote:


    > Arno Wagner wrote:


    >> Previously larry moe 'n curly wrote:


    >> Zeroing does nothing for HDD health. If the drive has a
    >> problem, it needs to be replaced.
    >>
    >> > I recently jarred a Seagate 80G ST380012A while it was running, and a
    >> > surface scan revealed a 16K defect that hadn't appeared in the
    >> > previous scan. The defect disappeared after I zeroed the drive, and
    >> > it hasn't come back.

    >>
    >> And still, your surface is not any healthier than before.
    >> Just a different part of it is used now.


    > I zeroed the drive in case that bad area was marginal and would be
    > reused later. I ran Norton 2000 Disk Doctor, which can write several
    > test patterns without wiping the data, and it showed no other defects.


    >> Side note: Remapping can be done today by running a full
    >> surface scan (or long SMART selftest, which does the same
    >> and some more tests), and, incidentially, in no other way,
    >> unless there are pending sectors in the SMART attributes.
    >> Then you need to zero these (or the complete drive).
    >>
    >> > Before I zeroed the 80G Seagate, I ran the long SMART self test with
    >> > both MHDD and the DOS version of Seagate's SeaTools, but it didn't
    >> > affect the 16K defect.

    >>
    >> That would be because you likely had an unreadable sector,
    >> which also shows up as a pending sector afer a read attempt.


    > But isn't the long SMART self test supposed to remove the bad sector
    > from use and substitute a spare sector for it?


    Only if the sector can be read. If it cannot be, it becomes a
    "pending sector", that is reallocated on the next write, hence
    zeroing can help in some circumstances.

    Arno

  5. Re: MHDD do i need to zeroing ?

    Previously Odie wrote:
    > Arno Wagner wrote
    >> Previously larry moe 'n curly wrote:
    >> > Arno Wagner wrote:

    >>
    >> > > Zeroing does nothing for HDD health. If the drive has a
    >> > > problem, it needs to be replaced.

    >>
    >> > I recently jarred a Seagate 80G ST380012A while it was running, and a
    >> > surface scan revealed a 16K defect that hadn't appeared in the
    >> > previous scan. The defect disappeared after I zeroed the drive, and
    >> > it hasn't come back.

    >>
    >> And still, your surface is not any healthier than before.


    >> Just a different part of it is used now.


    > That's not at all certain. He only said it disappeared.
    > The drive may well have reused the original unreadable
    > sector because there was nothing physically wrong with it.


    Not my experience (whenever I had pending sectors, they
    turned into reallocated ones on write), but of course
    this is possible and my sample of disk behaviour in this
    case is pretty limited (3 or 4 instances of this specific
    problem).

    Arno

  6. Re: MHDD do i need to zeroing ?

    Arno Wagner wrote
    > Previously Odie wrote:
    > > Arno Wagner wrote
    > > > Previously larry moe 'n curly wrote:
    > > > > Arno Wagner wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > > Zeroing does nothing for HDD health. If the drive has a
    > > > > > problem, it needs to be replaced.
    > > >
    > > > > I recently jarred a Seagate 80G ST380012A while it was running, and a
    > > > > surface scan revealed a 16K defect that hadn't appeared in the
    > > > > previous scan. The defect disappeared after I zeroed the drive, and
    > > > > it hasn't come back.
    > > >
    > > > And still, your surface is not any healthier than before.

    >
    > > > Just a different part of it is used now.

    >
    > > That's not at all certain. He only said it disappeared.
    > > The drive may well have reused the original unreadable
    > > sector because there was nothing physically wrong with it.

    >
    > Not my experience (whenever I had pending sectors, they
    > turned into reallocated ones on write), but of course
    > this is possible and my sample of disk behaviour in this
    > case is pretty limited


    > (3 or 4 instances of this specific problem).


    You do like to knock your drives around for fun then, do you?

    >
    > Arno


  7. Re: MHDD do i need to zeroing ?

    123 wrote in news:47e3173c$0$6874$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au
    > Arno Wagner wrote:
    > > Previously larry moe 'n curly wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > > Arno Wagner wrote:

    > >
    > > > > Zeroing does nothing for HDD health. If the drive has a
    > > > > problem, it needs to be replaced.

    > >
    > > > I recently jarred a Seagate 80G ST380012A while it was running, and a
    > > > surface scan revealed a 16K defect that hadn't appeared in the
    > > > previous scan. The defect disappeared after I zeroed the drive, and
    > > > it hasn't come back.

    >
    > > And still, your surface is not any healthier than before.


    > The sectors used to store data in certainly are.


    Nope, no such certainty at all.

    >
    > > Just a different part of it is used now.


    > The healthier part.


    That remains to be seen.
    It's supposed to but it was never tested before in regular surface scans.
    It's just as vulnerable an area to disaster as the user area except you
    can test the user area but not the reserved one.

    >

    [snip]

  8. Re: MHDD do i need to zeroing ?

    larry moe 'n curly wrote in
    news:d2127469-5887-4018-b1e9-4ebd451b89fe@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com
    > Arno Wagner wrote:
    >
    > > Previously larry moe 'n curly wrote:

    >
    > > Zeroing does nothing for HDD health. If the drive has a
    > > problem, it needs to be replaced.
    > >
    > > > I recently jarred a Seagate 80G ST380012A while it was running, and a
    > > > surface scan revealed a 16K defect that hadn't appeared in the
    > > > previous scan. The defect disappeared after I zeroed the drive, and
    > > > it hasn't come back.

    > >
    > > And still, your surface is not any healthier than before.
    > > Just a different part of it is used now.

    >
    > I zeroed the drive in case that bad area was marginal and would be
    > reused later. I ran Norton 2000 Disk Doctor, which can write several
    > test patterns without wiping the data, and it showed no other defects.
    >
    > > Side note: [snip]
    > >
    > > > Before I zeroed the 80G Seagate, I ran the long SMART self test with
    > > > both MHDD and the DOS version of Seagate's SeaTools, but it didn't
    > > > affect the 16K defect.

    > >
    > > That would be because you likely had an unreadable sector,
    > > which also shows up as a pending sector afer a read attempt.


    > But isn't the long SMART self test supposed to remove the bad sector
    > from use and substitute a spare sector for it?


    Are you a moron or just plain thick?

  9. Re: MHDD do i need to zeroing ?

    Arno Wagner wrote
    > Previously larry moe 'n curly wrote:
    > > Arno Wagner wrote:
    > > > Previously larry moe 'n curly wrote:

    >
    > > > Zeroing does nothing for HDD health. If the drive has a
    > > > problem, it needs to be replaced.
    > > >
    > > > > I recently jarred a Seagate 80G ST380012A while it was running, and a
    > > > > surface scan revealed a 16K defect that hadn't appeared in the
    > > > > previous scan. The defect disappeared after I zeroed the drive, and
    > > > > it hasn't come back.
    > > >
    > > > And still, your surface is not any healthier than before.
    > > > Just a different part of it is used now.


    > > I zeroed the drive in case that bad area was marginal and would be
    > > reused later.


    It still may.

    > > I ran Norton 2000 Disk Doctor, which can write several test patterns
    > > without wiping the data,


    Like that data matters after a zero action.

    > > and it showed no other defects.


    Which proves what exactly.

    >
    > > > Side note: Remapping can be done today by running a full
    > > > surface scan (or long SMART selftest, which does the same
    > > > and some more tests), and, incidentially, in no other way,
    > > > unless there are pending sectors in the SMART attributes.
    > > > Then you need to zero these (or the complete drive).
    > > >
    > > > > Before I zeroed the 80G Seagate, I ran the long SMART self test with
    > > > > both MHDD and the DOS version of Seagate's SeaTools, but it didn't
    > > > > affect the 16K defect.
    > > >
    > > > That would be because you likely had an unreadable sector,
    > > > which also shows up as a pending sector afer a read attempt.

    >
    > > But isn't the long SMART self test supposed to remove the bad sector
    > > from use and substitute a spare sector for it?


    > Only if the sector can be read.


    Readable bad sectors, huh.

    > If it cannot be, it becomes a "pending sector", that is reallocated
    > on the next write, hence zeroing can help in some circumstances.


    Yeah, if you want your drive wiped.

    >
    > Arno


  10. Re: MHDD do i need to zeroing ?

    Odie wrote:
    > 123 wrote in
    > news:47e3173c$0$6874$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au
    >> Arno Wagner wrote:
    >>> Previously larry moe 'n curly wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Arno Wagner wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> Zeroing does nothing for HDD health. If the drive has a
    >>>>> problem, it needs to be replaced.
    >>>
    >>>> I recently jarred a Seagate 80G ST380012A while it was running,
    >>>> and a surface scan revealed a 16K defect that hadn't appeared in
    >>>> the previous scan. The defect disappeared after I zeroed the
    >>>> drive, and it hasn't come back.

    >>
    >>> And still, your surface is not any healthier than before.

    >
    >> The sectors used to store data in certainly are.

    >
    > Nope, no such certainty at all.


    Wrong. A sector which is questionable for whatever reason is added to the
    bad sector list, the sectors used for data are healthier, even if only because
    the one that there was some doubt about isnt being used for data anymore.

    >>> Just a different part of it is used now.


    >> The healthier part.


    > That remains to be seen.


    Nope, that was a general point, not a comment about the specific sector in the OP.

    > It's supposed to but it was never tested before in regular surface scans.


    But was tested in manufacturing.

    > It's just as vulnerable an area to disaster as the user area
    > except you can test the user area but not the reserved one.


    Wrong again. The reserved ones arent vulnerable to damage when they are being written
    to, because by definition they wont be being written to when they are in the reserved list.



  11. Re: MHDD do i need to zeroing ?

    Previously Odie wrote:
    > Arno Wagner wrote
    >> Previously Odie wrote:
    >> > Arno Wagner wrote
    >> > > Previously larry moe 'n curly wrote:
    >> > > > Arno Wagner wrote:
    >> > >
    >> > > > > Zeroing does nothing for HDD health. If the drive has a
    >> > > > > problem, it needs to be replaced.
    >> > >
    >> > > > I recently jarred a Seagate 80G ST380012A while it was running, and a
    >> > > > surface scan revealed a 16K defect that hadn't appeared in the
    >> > > > previous scan. The defect disappeared after I zeroed the drive, and
    >> > > > it hasn't come back.
    >> > >
    >> > > And still, your surface is not any healthier than before.

    >>
    >> > > Just a different part of it is used now.

    >>
    >> > That's not at all certain. He only said it disappeared.
    >> > The drive may well have reused the original unreadable
    >> > sector because there was nothing physically wrong with it.

    >>
    >> Not my experience (whenever I had pending sectors, they
    >> turned into reallocated ones on write), but of course
    >> this is possible and my sample of disk behaviour in this
    >> case is pretty limited


    >> (3 or 4 instances of this specific problem).


    > You do like to knock your drives around for fun then, do you?


    Not at all. This is out of about 80 disk I have been operating.

    Arno

  12. Re: MHDD do i need to zeroing ?

    Previously Odie wrote:
    > Arno Wagner wrote
    >> Previously larry moe 'n curly wrote:
    >> > Arno Wagner wrote:
    >> > > Previously larry moe 'n curly wrote:

    >>
    >> > > Zeroing does nothing for HDD health. If the drive has a
    >> > > problem, it needs to be replaced.
    >> > >
    >> > > > I recently jarred a Seagate 80G ST380012A while it was running, and a
    >> > > > surface scan revealed a 16K defect that hadn't appeared in the
    >> > > > previous scan. The defect disappeared after I zeroed the drive, and
    >> > > > it hasn't come back.
    >> > >
    >> > > And still, your surface is not any healthier than before.
    >> > > Just a different part of it is used now.


    >> > I zeroed the drive in case that bad area was marginal and would be
    >> > reused later.


    > It still may.


    >> > I ran Norton 2000 Disk Doctor, which can write several test patterns
    >> > without wiping the data,


    > Like that data matters after a zero action.


    >> > and it showed no other defects.


    > Which proves what exactly.


    >>
    >> > > Side note: Remapping can be done today by running a full
    >> > > surface scan (or long SMART selftest, which does the same
    >> > > and some more tests), and, incidentially, in no other way,
    >> > > unless there are pending sectors in the SMART attributes.
    >> > > Then you need to zero these (or the complete drive).
    >> > >
    >> > > > Before I zeroed the 80G Seagate, I ran the long SMART self test with
    >> > > > both MHDD and the DOS version of Seagate's SeaTools, but it didn't
    >> > > > affect the 16K defect.
    >> > >
    >> > > That would be because you likely had an unreadable sector,
    >> > > which also shows up as a pending sector afer a read attempt.

    >>
    >> > But isn't the long SMART self test supposed to remove the bad sector
    >> > from use and substitute a spare sector for it?


    >> Only if the sector can be read.


    > Readable bad sectors, huh.


    And now I know that you are not Odie. Seems some person with low
    self esteem needed to steal some identity again in order to be heard
    at all. Face it, you still do not have a clue.

    Arno

  13. Re: MHDD do i need to zeroing ?

    123 wrote
    > Odie wrote:
    > > 123 wrote
    > > > Arno Wagner wrote:
    > > > > Previously larry moe 'n curly wrote:
    > > > > > Arno Wagner wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > > > Zeroing does nothing for HDD health. If the drive has a
    > > > > > > problem, it needs to be replaced.
    > > > >
    > > > > > I recently jarred a Seagate 80G ST380012A while it was running,
    > > > > > and a surface scan revealed a 16K defect that hadn't appeared in
    > > > > > the previous scan. The defect disappeared after I zeroed the
    > > > > > drive, and it hasn't come back.
    > > >
    > > > > And still, your surface is not any healthier than before.

    > >
    > > > The sectors used to store data in certainly are.

    > >
    > > Nope, no such certainty at all.

    >
    > Wrong. A sector which is questionable for whatever reason is added to the
    > bad sector list, the sectors used for data are healthier, even if only because
    > the one that there was some doubt about isnt being used for data anymore.
    >
    > > > > Just a different part of it is used now.

    >
    > > > The healthier part.

    >
    > > That remains to be seen.


    > Nope, that was a general point,


    Sure it was, Rod.

    > not a comment about the specific sector in the OP.


    Sure it was, Rod. Like OP's disk is any different than anyone else's.

    >
    > > It's supposed to but it was never tested before in regular surface scans.


    > But was tested in manufacturing.


    Gee, you got me. Nope: So was the 'bad' sector. Oops.

    >
    > > It's just as vulnerable an area to disaster as the user area
    > > except you can test the user area but not the reserved one.


    > Wrong again.


    Yeah right.

    > The reserved ones arent vulnerable to damage when they are being written
    > to, because by definition they wont be being written to when they are in the
    > reserved list.


    Bwahahah.

  14. Re: MHDD do i need to zeroing ?

    Some gutless ****wit pseudokraut desperately pretending to be
    Odie and fooling absolutely no one at
    all, as always, desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
    out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.



  15. Re: MHDD do i need to zeroing ?



    Odie wrote:

    > larry moe 'n curly wrote in
    > news:d2127469-5887-4018-b1e9-4ebd451b89fe@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com


    > > But isn't the long SMART self test supposed to remove the bad sector
    > > from use and substitute a spare sector for it?

    >
    > Are you a moron or just plain thick?


    Thick, just as your mommy likes it

    Now, go back to being Garfield's idiot dog friend.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2