drive keeps having partition problems - Storage

This is a discussion on drive keeps having partition problems - Storage ; On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:39:53 +0800, spodosaurus put finger to keyboard and composed: >Franc Zabkar wrote: >> AFAICS, a serial (SATA) cable could not produce the same kind of >> error. The drive would be either correctly detected or ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 66

Thread: drive keeps having partition problems

  1. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:39:53 +0800, spodosaurus
    put finger to keyboard and composed:

    >Franc Zabkar wrote:


    >> AFAICS, a serial (SATA) cable could not produce the same kind of
    >> error. The drive would be either correctly detected or not at all.

    >
    >I should have taken a photo last night of the salad like detection of a
    >WD 320GB SATAII drive that popped onto my screen during drive detection
    >with a 'bad' cable then It on a prior power on it didn't detect the
    >drive at all on one occasion.
    >
    >Ari


    Well, I did write "AFAICS" which should be taken to mean that
    sometimes I can't see very far at all. ;-)

    A photo would have been interesting.

    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

  2. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Franc Zabkar wrote:
    > On 2 Apr 2008 09:48:17 GMT, Arno Wagner put finger to
    > keyboard and composed:

    [...]
    >>
    >>It can be detected with error. SATA puts chscksums on all intructions
    >>and data transfers. I had one cable that causet the disk to be
    >>removed from the system (linux) after a few minutes, because there
    >>the kernel got too many disk errors on access.
    >>
    >>Arno


    > Then how do you explain spodosaurus's observations?


    Matches what I said: There may be errors on the cable, but
    they are detected (not: corrected), so the data on disk typically
    stays intact. If the disk is detected, then it is detected
    correctly. It may, however, fail temporarily or only be
    detected in some cases. The OS may also decide the disk is unusable.

    Arno

  3. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    On 2 Apr 2008 00:17:16 GMT, Arno Wagner put finger to
    keyboard and composed:

    >In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Franc Zabkar wrote:
    >> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 08:02:38 -0700 (PDT), mechphisto@gmail.com put
    >> finger to keyboard and composed:

    >[...]
    >> BTW, don't be alarmed by the very high numbers for Raw Read Error
    >> Rate, Seek Error Rate, and Hardware ECC Recovered for Seagate HDs. My
    >> own testing and research leads me to believe that these are normal and
    >> do not in fact reflect errors.

    >
    >Same here too. I believe these are from read accesses that were
    >started immediately after a seek and before the heads really
    >settled. This is fine, if the read and the ECC fails, the disk can do
    >a re-read with rettled heads. On writing, the disk gives the
    >heads more time after a seek.
    >
    >Arno


    I just tried booting to DOS with Smartdrv disc caching enabled for
    drive C:.

    If I execute ...

    smartudm 0 /r con

    .... on my 120GB Seagate HD, the "Seek Error Rate" increases by 8
    points each time and the "Raw Read Error Rate" and "Hardware ECC
    recovered" values both increase by 3 points. The latter two parameters
    have identical values. If your hypothesis were correct, then I would
    think that there should be at least as many read errors as seeks.

    Instead I suspect that there are no real errors at all. At the very
    least it seems to me that all three parameters reflect some kind of
    count rather than a rate, although that begs the question, why only 3
    reads for every 8 seeks?

    To test my hypothesis that the "Seek Error Rate" figure is actually a
    count, I captured the SMART data before and after a SeaTools zero fill
    operation on a 13GB ST313021A Seagate HD. The difference in the Seek
    Error Rate was 52232 counts.

    According to the U Series 8 Product Manual ...

    http://www.seagate.com/support/disc/.../ata/u8pmb.pdf

    .... this drive has 18700 tracks/inch and 3 data surfaces.

    Assuming that there are 3 seeks per track (due to the action of the
    embedded servo during head switching ???), then one would expect that
    the distance between the first and last tracks would be ...

    52232 / 18700 / 3 * 2.54 = 2.36 cm

    I measured the difference between the outside and inside diameters on
    two typical discs to be 3.5cm. Is it plausible that the usable data
    area amounts to only 2.36cm of the surface?

    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

  4. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Franc Zabkar wrote:
    > On 2 Apr 2008 00:17:16 GMT, Arno Wagner put finger to
    > keyboard and composed:


    >>Same here too. I believe these are from read accesses that were
    >>started immediately after a seek and before the heads really
    >>settled. This is fine, if the read and the ECC fails, the disk can do
    >>a re-read with rettled heads. On writing, the disk gives the
    >>heads more time after a seek.
    >>
    >>Arno


    > I just tried booting to DOS with Smartdrv disc caching enabled for
    > drive C:.


    > If I execute ...


    > smartudm 0 /r con


    > ... on my 120GB Seagate HD, the "Seek Error Rate" increases by 8
    > points each time and the "Raw Read Error Rate" and "Hardware ECC
    > recovered" values both increase by 3 points. The latter two parameters
    > have identical values. If your hypothesis were correct, then I would
    > think that there should be at least as many read errors as seeks.


    You do get the same number of read errors as ECC recoverr, don't you?
    That is why the read errors are "raw", they are before attempting ECC.

    > Instead I suspect that there are no real errors at all. At the very
    > least it seems to me that all three parameters reflect some kind of
    > count rather than a rate, although that begs the question, why only 3
    > reads for every 8 seeks?


    These are errors, but expected and recoverable ones. Calling
    them not real errors is maybe inaccurate, but captures the
    spirit. And, yes, these are counts, that get decreased
    periodically in some fashion. As to why 3 read errors for 8
    seek errors, I would think that not finding a sector is also
    a seek error, but if you have nothing, you also have
    nothing to read wrongly.

    > To test my hypothesis that the "Seek Error Rate" figure is actually a
    > count, I captured the SMART data before and after a SeaTools zero fill
    > operation on a 13GB ST313021A Seagate HD. The difference in the Seek
    > Error Rate was 52232 counts.


    > According to the U Series 8 Product Manual ...


    > http://www.seagate.com/support/disc/.../ata/u8pmb.pdf


    > ... this drive has 18700 tracks/inch and 3 data surfaces.


    > Assuming that there are 3 seeks per track (due to the action of the
    > embedded servo during head switching ???),


    Yes, that requires a seek with modern drives. Historically
    head switches could be done without in some designs, and
    were faster. Not anymore.

    > then one would expect that
    > the distance between the first and last tracks would be ...


    > 52232 / 18700 / 3 * 2.54 = 2.36 cm


    > I measured the difference between the outside and inside diameters on
    > two typical discs to be 3.5cm. Is it plausible that the usable data
    > area amounts to only 2.36cm of the surface?


    Quite. At least it directly fits what I have seen in 3.5" drives
    I opened.

    Arno


    > - Franc Zabkar
    > --
    > Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.


  5. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    "Arno Wagner" wrote:
    > Franc Zabkar wrote:
    >> I measured the difference between the outside and inside
    >> diameters on two typical discs to be 3.5cm. Is it plausible
    >> that the usable data area amounts to only 2.36cm of the
    >> surface?

    >
    > Quite. At least it directly fits what I have seen in 3.5" drives
    > I opened.



    It makes sense that the radius of the outside tracks don't
    differ too much from the radius of the inside tracks. Assuming
    that all tracks have the same number of bits, the bits on an
    outside track that had twice the radius of the inside track would
    be twice as long as the bits on the inside track. The ability of
    the electronics to interact with the magnetic media is probably
    optimized for a small range of bit lengths, and thus for a small
    range of track radii.

    *TimDaniels*



  6. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    Timothy Daniels wrote
    > Arno Wagner wrote
    >> Franc Zabkar wrote


    >>> I measured the difference between the outside and inside
    >>> diameters on two typical discs to be 3.5cm. Is it plausible that the usable data area amounts to only 2.36cm of the
    >>> surface?


    >> Quite. At least it directly fits what I have seen in 3.5" drives I opened.


    > It makes sense that the radius of the outside tracks don't differ too much from the radius of the inside tracks.
    > Assuming that all tracks have the same number of bits,


    Dud assumption. The datasheets always show that the sectors per
    track varys in bands across the platter surface with all modern drives.

    > the bits on an outside track that had twice the radius of the inside track would be twice as long as the bits on the
    > inside track.


    See above.

    > The ability of the electronics to interact with the magnetic media is probably optimized for a small range of bit
    > lengths, and thus for a small range of track radii.


    Guess again.



  7. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:25:43 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
    put finger to keyboard and composed:

    >Assuming that all tracks have the same number of bits ...


    >*TimDaniels*


    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_bit_recording

    "Zone Bit Recording (ZBR) is used by disk drives to store more sectors
    per track on outer tracks than on inner tracks. It is also called Zone
    Constant Angular Velocity."

    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

  8. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    On 4 Apr 2008 11:38:50 GMT, Arno Wagner put finger to
    keyboard and composed:

    >In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Franc Zabkar wrote:
    >> On 2 Apr 2008 00:17:16 GMT, Arno Wagner put finger to
    >> keyboard and composed:

    >
    >>>Same here too. I believe these are from read accesses that were
    >>>started immediately after a seek and before the heads really
    >>>settled. This is fine, if the read and the ECC fails, the disk can do
    >>>a re-read with rettled heads. On writing, the disk gives the
    >>>heads more time after a seek.
    >>>
    >>>Arno

    >
    >> I just tried booting to DOS with Smartdrv disc caching enabled for
    >> drive C:.

    >
    >> If I execute ...

    >
    >> smartudm 0 /r con

    >
    >> ... on my 120GB Seagate HD, the "Seek Error Rate" increases by 8
    >> points each time and the "Raw Read Error Rate" and "Hardware ECC
    >> recovered" values both increase by 3 points. The latter two parameters
    >> have identical values. If your hypothesis were correct, then I would
    >> think that there should be at least as many read errors as seeks.

    >
    >You do get the same number of read errors as ECC recoverr, don't you?
    >That is why the read errors are "raw", they are before attempting ECC.


    What bothers me about the drive's "read error" reporting is that it is
    very consistent. I would have thought that reading "preemptively"
    before the heads had settled, as you have suggested, would produce
    random results. OTOH, it makes sense that a drive manufacturer would
    attempt to squeeze more performance out of the drive by doing
    something like this.

    >> Instead I suspect that there are no real errors at all. At the very
    >> least it seems to me that all three parameters reflect some kind of
    >> count rather than a rate, although that begs the question, why only 3
    >> reads for every 8 seeks?

    >
    >These are errors, but expected and recoverable ones. Calling
    >them not real errors is maybe inaccurate, but captures the
    >spirit. And, yes, these are counts, that get decreased
    >periodically in some fashion. As to why 3 read errors for 8
    >seek errors, I would think that not finding a sector is also
    >a seek error, but if you have nothing, you also have
    >nothing to read wrongly.


    That makes sense, but only if you accept that *every* seek results in
    a seek error. Clearly you would not want the drive to write to the
    platter during a seek failure, so the fact that the zero fill
    operation completed successfully (Write Error Rate = 0) would suggest
    that there were no actual seek errors.

    BTW, if you need to be reminded that things are not always what they
    seem, then recall the following thread where a Seagate HD appears to
    report nonsensical temperature readings. However, the readings make
    some kind of sense if one interprets them differently:

    http://groups.google.com/group/comp....4?dmode=source

    >> To test my hypothesis that the "Seek Error Rate" figure is actually a
    >> count, I captured the SMART data before and after a SeaTools zero fill
    >> operation on a 13GB ST313021A Seagate HD. The difference in the Seek
    >> Error Rate was 52232 counts.

    >
    >> According to the U Series 8 Product Manual ...

    >
    >> http://www.seagate.com/support/disc/.../ata/u8pmb.pdf

    >
    >> ... this drive has 18700 tracks/inch and 3 data surfaces.

    >
    >> Assuming that there are 3 seeks per track (due to the action of the
    >> embedded servo during head switching ???),

    >
    >Yes, that requires a seek with modern drives. Historically
    >head switches could be done without in some designs, and
    >were faster. Not anymore.


    I would think that it would always be faster to read from all heads
    simultaneously. However, that would only be possible if you could
    guarantee that all heads in the stack were perfectly vertically
    aligned at all times, and that there was no temperature gradient.
    Clearly that's not the case today.

    >> then one would expect that
    >> the distance between the first and last tracks would be ...

    >
    >> 52232 / 18700 / 3 * 2.54 = 2.36 cm

    >
    >> I measured the difference between the outside and inside diameters on
    >> two typical discs to be 3.5cm. Is it plausible that the usable data
    >> area amounts to only 2.36cm of the surface?

    >
    >Quite. At least it directly fits what I have seen in 3.5" drives
    >I opened.
    >
    >Arno
    >
    >
    >> - Franc Zabkar


    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

  9. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    "Franc Zabkar" wrote:
    > "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
    >
    >>Assuming that all tracks have the same number of bits ...

    >
    > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_bit_recording
    >
    > "Zone Bit Recording (ZBR) is used by disk drives to store more sectors
    > per track on outer tracks than on inner tracks. It is also called Zone
    > Constant Angular Velocity."



    Interesting. "CHS" don't mean whut it usetuh.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cylinder-head-sector
    "CHS values no longer have a direct physical relationship to the data
    stored on disks ..." BTW, does "Zabkar" derive from "ZBR"?

    *TimDaniels*



  10. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    "Rod Speed" wrote:
    > The datasheets always show that the sectors per track
    > varys in bands across the platter surface with all modern drives.


    Could you supply a URL or two to these datasheets?

    *TimDaniels*



  11. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    Timothy Daniels wrote
    > Rod Speed wrote


    >> The datasheets always show that the sectors per track
    >> varys in bands across the platter surface with all modern drives.


    > Could you supply a URL or two to these datasheets?


    http://www.hgst.com/hdd/support/table.htm



  12. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    "Rod Speed" blurbed:
    > Timothy Daniels wrote
    >> Rod Speed wrote

    >
    >>> The datasheets always show that the sectors per track
    >>> varys in bands across the platter surface with all modern drives.

    >
    >> Could you supply a URL or two to these datasheets?

    >
    > http://www.hgst.com/hdd/support/table.htm



    I meant a URL for the datasheet of an ATA/SATA drive
    of speed 7,200rpm and circa 180GB capacity (i.e. not SCSI,
    not 15,000rpm, not 1terrabyte capacity), and which says more
    than "there are 7 recording zones".

    *TimDaniels*



  13. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    Timothy Daniels wrote
    > Rod Speed wrote
    >> Timothy Daniels wrote
    >>> Rod Speed wrote


    >>>> The datasheets always show that the sectors per track
    >>>> varys in bands across the platter surface with all modern drives.


    >>> Could you supply a URL or two to these datasheets?


    >> http://www.hgst.com/hdd/support/table.htm


    > I meant a URL for the datasheet of an ATA/SATA drive of speed 7,200rpm and circa 180GB capacity (i.e. not SCSI, not
    > 15,000rpm, not 1terrabyte capacity), and which says more than "there are 7 recording zones".


    Thats all you need, and most datasheets list the
    number of sectors per track for the tracks in the zones.



  14. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    "Rod Speed" wrote:
    > Timothy Daniels wrote
    >> Rod Speed wrote
    >>> Timothy Daniels wrote
    >>>> Rod Speed wrote

    >
    >>>>> The datasheets always show that the sectors per track
    >>>>> varys in bands across the platter surface with all modern drives.

    >
    >>>> Could you supply a URL or two to these datasheets?

    >
    >>> http://www.hgst.com/hdd/support/table.htm

    >
    >> I meant a URL for the datasheet of an ATA/SATA drive of speed
    >> 7,200rpm and circa 180GB capacity (i.e. not SCSI, not 15,000rpm,
    >> not 1terrabyte capacity), and which says more than "there are 7
    >> recording zones".

    >
    > Thats all you need, and most datasheets list the
    > number of sectors per track for the tracks in the zones.


    A URL, please.

    *TimDaniels*



  15. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    Timothy Daniels wrote
    > Rod Speed wrote
    >> Timothy Daniels wrote
    >>> Rod Speed wrote
    >>>> Timothy Daniels wrote
    >>>>> Rod Speed wrote


    >>>>>> The datasheets always show that the sectors per track varys in bands across the platter surface with all modern
    >>>>>> drives.


    >>>>> Could you supply a URL or two to these datasheets?


    >>>> http://www.hgst.com/hdd/support/table.htm


    >>> I meant a URL for the datasheet of an ATA/SATA drive of speed
    >>> 7,200rpm and circa 180GB capacity (i.e. not SCSI, not 15,000rpm,
    >>> not 1terrabyte capacity), and which says more than "there are 7
    >>> recording zones".


    >> Thats all you need, and most datasheets list the
    >> number of sectors per track for the tracks in the zones.


    > A URL, please.


    You got that above.



  16. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Timothy Daniels wrote:
    > "Rod Speed" blurbed:
    >> Timothy Daniels wrote
    >>> Rod Speed wrote

    >>
    >>>> The datasheets always show that the sectors per track
    >>>> varys in bands across the platter surface with all modern drives.

    >>
    >>> Could you supply a URL or two to these datasheets?

    >>
    >> http://www.hgst.com/hdd/support/table.htm



    > I meant a URL for the datasheet of an ATA/SATA drive
    > of speed 7,200rpm and circa 180GB capacity (i.e. not SCSI,
    > not 15,000rpm, not 1terrabyte capacity), and which says more
    > than "there are 7 recording zones".


    Typically you need a drive manual for that. It seems vendors
    have again started to not post these on the web. Datasheets
    usually do not give this information.

    ZBR has been used for quite some time, I think even my very old
    1GB IBM drive had it.

    I do like to blow up Rod as much as the next persopn,
    but he is right about this. You can see this from HDD speed
    benchmarks, e.g., where the speed levels off, while
    latency does not (i.e. the rpm, stay the same).
    Today you get something like 50%-65% speed at the end of a
    disk, compared to the beginning.

    An example for 180GB/7200rpm is here:

    http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles...94&cid=10&pg=7

    I can see about 19 speed zones, and there may be more.

    Arno



  17. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    On 4 Apr 2008 11:38:50 GMT, Arno Wagner put finger to
    keyboard and composed:

    >In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Franc Zabkar wrote:


    >> then one would expect that
    >> the distance between the first and last tracks would be ...

    >
    >> 52232 / 18700 / 3 * 2.54 = 2.36 cm

    >
    >> I measured the difference between the outside and inside diameters on
    >> two typical discs to be 3.5cm. Is it plausible that the usable data
    >> area amounts to only 2.36cm of the surface?

    >
    >Quite. At least it directly fits what I have seen in 3.5" drives
    >I opened.
    >
    >Arno
    >
    >
    >> - Franc Zabkar


    This is the product manual for the Fujitsu MPG3xxxAT drives:
    http://www.fujitsu.com/downloads/AU/...DE_5400RPM.pdf

    The specifications on page 19 include the following data:

    MPG3153AT MPG3307AT MPG3102/04/09AT
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    Number of Cylinders 28,928 + 698 30,784 + 769
    (User + Alternate & SA)

    Track Density 31,000 TPI 33,000 TPI
    -------------------------------------------------------------

    The usable data area for the MPG3153AT and MPG3307AT models is ...

    28928 / 31000 * 2.54 = 2.37 cm

    The usable data area for the MPG3102/04/09AT models is ...

    30784 / 33000 * 2.54 = 2.37 cm

    This compares well with my experimental result of 2.36cm for the
    Seagate drive.

    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

  18. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 11:19:26 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
    put finger to keyboard and composed:

    >"Rod Speed" blurbed:
    >> Timothy Daniels wrote
    >>> Rod Speed wrote

    >>
    >>>> The datasheets always show that the sectors per track
    >>>> varys in bands across the platter surface with all modern drives.

    >>
    >>> Could you supply a URL or two to these datasheets?

    >>
    >> http://www.hgst.com/hdd/support/table.htm

    >
    >
    > I meant a URL for the datasheet of an ATA/SATA drive
    >of speed 7,200rpm and circa 180GB capacity (i.e. not SCSI,
    >not 15,000rpm, not 1terrabyte capacity), and which says more
    >than "there are 7 recording zones".
    >
    >*TimDaniels*


    See pages 57 and 58 of this document:
    http://www.fujitsu.com/downloads/AU/...DE_5400RPM.pdf

    ================================================== ================
    4.6.4 Time base generator circuit

    The drive uses constant density recording to increase total capacity.
    This is different from the conventional method of recording data with
    a fixed data transfer rate at all data area. In the constant density
    recording method, data area is divided into zones by radius and the
    data transfer rate is set so that the recording density of the inner
    cylinder of each zone is nearly constant. The drive divides data area
    into 15 zones to set the data transfer rate. Table 4.1 describes the
    data transfer rate and recording density (BPI) of each zone.

    MPG3153AT/3307AT

    Zone Cylinder Transfer rate [MB/s]

    0 0 to 2655 38.59
    1 2656 to 5311 38.59
    2 5312 to 6527 38.04
    3 6528 to 9151 36.71
    4 9152 to 11839 35.29
    5 11840 to 13823 34.12
    6 13824 to 15743 32.94
    7 15744 to 18751 30.98
    8 18752 to 19583 30.59
    9 19584 to 21887 29.02
    10 21888 to 24191 27.45
    11 24192 to 25631 26.35
    12 25632 to 27039 25.29
    13 27040 to 28895 23.53
    14 28896 to 25927 22.75
    ================================================== ================

    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

  19. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 19:50:39 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
    put finger to keyboard and composed:

    >"Franc Zabkar" wrote:
    >> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
    >>
    >>>Assuming that all tracks have the same number of bits ...

    >>
    >> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_bit_recording
    >>
    >> "Zone Bit Recording (ZBR) is used by disk drives to store more sectors
    >> per track on outer tracks than on inner tracks. It is also called Zone
    >> Constant Angular Velocity."

    >
    >
    > Interesting. "CHS" don't mean whut it usetuh.
    >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cylinder-head-sector
    >"CHS values no longer have a direct physical relationship to the data
    > stored on disks ..."


    IME that's been the case since the early 1990s. The early BIOSes had a
    limited drive table with fixed CHS geometries, so until a "user
    defined drive type" setting was introduced, HDD manufacturers got
    around the problem by using sector translation (and disc drive
    overlays if required).

    >BTW, does "Zabkar" derive from "ZBR"?


    "Zabka" means "little frog", so I guess a "zabkar" is someone who
    catches them.

    >*TimDaniels*


    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

  20. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    "Arno Wagner" wrote:
    > Typically you need a drive manual for that. It seems vendors
    > have again started to not post these on the web. Datasheets
    > usually do not give this information.


    I expected as much. Rod's "help" is usually illusory.

    > An example for 180GB/7200rpm is here:
    > http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles...94&cid=10&pg=7
    > I can see about 19 speed zones, and there may be more.


    Thanks. That's pretty graphic.

    It's also interesting that the legendary "DeathStar" performed so well.
    Does it still live up to its nickname since Hitachi took it over?

    *TimDaniels*



+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast