drive keeps having partition problems - Storage

This is a discussion on drive keeps having partition problems - Storage ; Timothy Daniels wrote > 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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 66

Thread: drive keeps having partition problems

  1. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    Timothy Daniels wrote
    > 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.


    I just didnt make a distinction between the datasheet and what he calls the manual.

    With those Hitachi drives, its the OEM specs that you can see the zone detail listed in.



  2. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    Franc Zabkar wrote in news:fbgbv3lh8j91652focorvq08ntvbvtbqm9@4ax.com
    > 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 ???),


    Total and utter gibberish.

    > 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


  3. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    Timothy Daniels wrote in news:47f6641f$0$30701$4c368faf@roadrunner.com
    > "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.


    Bwahahah.

    >
    > *TimDaniels*


  4. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    Franc Zabkar wrote in news:sj6dv3tvgbgmuk31uemvhoe798hon6q9tc@4ax.com
    > 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 ...


    .... is that you take that idiot seriously ...

    > 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.


    No. Really?

    > 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.


    So it does *not* make sense.

    > 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:


    Which is why they are called mfgr dependent.

    >
    > 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.


    Nor was it ever, except for one or two experiments.

    >
    > > > 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


  5. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    Timothy Daniels wrote in news:47f6e88c$0$24106$4c368faf@roadrunner.com
    > "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.


    And you give the word Newbee a whole new meaning.
    How long have you been here? And not learned a single bit, ever.

    > 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*


  6. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    Franc Zabkar wrote in news:29qfv3t7kf3bl632pdv5tcrcb3m4723gdc@4ax.com
    > 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).


    Bull****.

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

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

    >
    > - Franc Zabkar


  7. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    Arno Wagner wrote in news:65g1kcF2f2t30U3@mid.individual.net
    > 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


    Like there is any other way.

    > and before the heads really settled.


    The heads are assumed settled once the sector mark (in the servo data)
    has been recognized (it bloody well has to since the servo data is read by
    the same head) and the synchronization field field has passed the head.
    Obviously you can't read the datafield *before* it passes the head.

    > This is fine, if the read and the ECC fails, the disk can do
    > a re-read with rettled heads.


    Pity that to be able to read the sector contents the sector marks have to
    be read first. If the drive would still have trouble to read the sector da-
    ta already, imagine how it would be even worse reading the sector marks,
    before that.

    > On writing, the disk gives the heads more time after a seek.


    Pity that the distance of the sector marks and the data field is the same for
    reading and writing. Once the sector mark is read, the data field follows
    in a fixed time. No waiting whatsoever. If not, the drive has a full rotation
    time before it can try again.

    >
    > Arno


  8. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    Rod Speed wrote in news:679hfhF2lhee0U1@mid.individual.net
    > Folkert Rienstra wrote:
    > > Yousuf Khan wrote in news:480f5492$1@news.bnb-lp.com
    > > > mechphisto@gmail.com wrote:
    > > > > > [Babble**** snipped]
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Arno
    > > > >
    > > > > Hmm, how does one look at SMART attributes?
    > > > > I normally have SMART off at the BIOS (have read SMART can just
    > > > > cause more issues than it's worth oftentimes.) If I turn it on,
    > > > > what tool can I use to view the attributes?
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > I keep the SMART warnings turned on in BIOS always. The only "more
    > > > issues than it's worth"-type problems are merely inconvenience
    > > > issues. For example, if SMART does detect an error on a drive, BIOS
    > > > will throw up the warning during boot time, and then stop the boot
    > > > process until you read the message and manually tell it to continue.
    > > > This will happen everytime you boot, and if you're rebooting often
    > > > (eg. during Windows patch updates), this can become annoying.

    > >
    > > > However, SMART is one of the most lenient error detection schemes out
    > > > there. It usually finds no errors, so if it actually finds something
    > > > then it's usually a sign that the drive truly needs to be replaced
    > > > sooner rather than later.

    > >
    > > Nonsense again.
    > > S.M.A.R.T. doesn't differentiate between internal and external
    > > induced errors. If the PS is at fault replacing the drive won't help.


    > He used the word USUALLY for a reason, fool.


    He also used the word TRULY, moron.

  9. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    mechphisto@gmail.com wrote:
    >> Have you looked at the SMART attributes (any other test is
    >> really quite meaningless today) and tun a long SMART selftest?
    >>
    >> Arno

    >
    > Hmm, how does one look at SMART attributes?
    > I normally have SMART off at the BIOS (have read SMART can just cause
    > more issues than it's worth oftentimes.) If I turn it on, what tool
    > can I use to view the attributes?



    I keep the SMART warnings turned on in BIOS always. The only "more
    issues than it's worth"-type problems are merely inconvenience issues.
    For example, if SMART does detect an error on a drive, BIOS will throw
    up the warning during boot time, and then stop the boot process until
    you read the message and manually tell it to continue. This will happen
    everytime you boot, and if you're rebooting often (eg. during Windows
    patch updates), this can become annoying.

    However, SMART is one of the most lenient error detection schemes out
    there. It usually finds no errors, so if it actually finds something
    then it's usually a sign that the drive truly needs to be replaced
    sooner rather than later.

    Yousuf Khan

  10. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    Yousuf Khan wrote in news:480f5492$1@news.bnb-lp.com
    > mechphisto@gmail.com wrote:
    > > > [Babble**** snipped]
    > > >
    > > > Arno

    > >
    > > Hmm, how does one look at SMART attributes?
    > > I normally have SMART off at the BIOS (have read SMART can just
    > > cause more issues than it's worth oftentimes.) If I turn it on, what tool
    > > can I use to view the attributes?

    >
    >
    > I keep the SMART warnings turned on in BIOS always. The only "more
    > issues than it's worth"-type problems are merely inconvenience issues.
    > For example, if SMART does detect an error on a drive, BIOS will throw
    > up the warning during boot time, and then stop the boot process until
    > you read the message and manually tell it to continue. This will happen
    > everytime you boot, and if you're rebooting often (eg. during Windows
    > patch updates), this can become annoying.


    > However, SMART is one of the most lenient error detection schemes out
    > there. It usually finds no errors, so if it actually finds something
    > then it's usually a sign that the drive truly needs to be replaced
    > sooner rather than later.


    Nonsense again.
    S.M.A.R.T. doesn't differentiate between internal and external induced errors.
    If the PS is at fault replacing the drive won't help.

    >
    > Yousuf Khan


  11. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    Folkert Rienstra wrote:
    > Yousuf Khan wrote in news:480f5492$1@news.bnb-lp.com
    >> mechphisto@gmail.com wrote:
    >>>> [Babble**** snipped]
    >>>>
    >>>> Arno
    >>>
    >>> Hmm, how does one look at SMART attributes?
    >>> I normally have SMART off at the BIOS (have read SMART can just
    >>> cause more issues than it's worth oftentimes.) If I turn it on,
    >>> what tool can I use to view the attributes?

    >>
    >>
    >> I keep the SMART warnings turned on in BIOS always. The only "more
    >> issues than it's worth"-type problems are merely inconvenience
    >> issues. For example, if SMART does detect an error on a drive, BIOS
    >> will throw up the warning during boot time, and then stop the boot
    >> process until you read the message and manually tell it to continue.
    >> This will happen everytime you boot, and if you're rebooting often
    >> (eg. during Windows patch updates), this can become annoying.

    >
    >> However, SMART is one of the most lenient error detection schemes out
    >> there. It usually finds no errors, so if it actually finds something
    >> then it's usually a sign that the drive truly needs to be replaced
    >> sooner rather than later.

    >
    > Nonsense again.
    > S.M.A.R.T. doesn't differentiate between internal and external
    > induced errors. If the PS is at fault replacing the drive won't help.


    He used the word USUALLY for a reason, fool.



  12. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    Folkert Rienstra wrote:
    > Rod Speed wrote in news:679hfhF2lhee0U1@mid.individual.net
    >> Folkert Rienstra wrote:
    >>> Yousuf Khan wrote in news:480f5492$1@news.bnb-lp.com
    >>>> mechphisto@gmail.com wrote:
    >>>>>> [Babble**** snipped]
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Arno
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Hmm, how does one look at SMART attributes?
    >>>>> I normally have SMART off at the BIOS (have read SMART can just
    >>>>> cause more issues than it's worth oftentimes.) If I turn it on,
    >>>>> what tool can I use to view the attributes?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I keep the SMART warnings turned on in BIOS always. The only "more
    >>>> issues than it's worth"-type problems are merely inconvenience
    >>>> issues. For example, if SMART does detect an error on a drive, BIOS
    >>>> will throw up the warning during boot time, and then stop the boot
    >>>> process until you read the message and manually tell it to
    >>>> continue. This will happen everytime you boot, and if you're
    >>>> rebooting often (eg. during Windows patch updates), this can
    >>>> become annoying.
    >>>
    >>>> However, SMART is one of the most lenient error detection schemes
    >>>> out there. It usually finds no errors, so if it actually finds
    >>>> something then it's usually a sign that the drive truly needs to
    >>>> be replaced sooner rather than later.
    >>>
    >>> Nonsense again.
    >>> S.M.A.R.T. doesn't differentiate between internal and external
    >>> induced errors. If the PS is at fault replacing the drive won't help.

    >
    >> He used the word USUALLY for a reason, fool.

    >
    > He also used the word TRULY, moron.


    Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag, ****wit.



  13. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    Folkert Rienstra wrote:
    > Nonsense again.
    > S.M.A.R.T. doesn't differentiate between internal and external induced errors.
    > If the PS is at fault replacing the drive won't help.



    Hello precious, your momma been spanking you again? Dry your tears and
    go tell her you're a person and you deserve to be respected.

    Yousuf Khan

  14. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    Yousuf Khan wrote
    > Folkert Rienstra wrote


    >> Nonsense again.
    >> S.M.A.R.T. doesn't differentiate between internal and external
    >> induced errors. If the PS is at fault replacing the drive won't help.

    >
    >
    > Hello precious, your momma been spanking you again?


    Nar, its those nice fellas in white coats that are his problem.

    > Dry your tears and go tell her you're a person and you deserve to be respected.


    No one respects rabid loonys except that they dont bother with those funky canvas jackets
    with extremely long sleeves anymore, just taser them and inject them to keep them under control.



  15. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    Yousuf Khan wrote in news:48121180$1@news.bnb-lp.com
    > Folkert Rienstra wrote:
    > > Nonsense again.
    > > S.M.A.R.T. doesn't differentiate between internal and external induced
    > > errors. If the PS is at fault replacing the drive won't help.

    >


    > Hello precious, your momma been spanking you again? Dry your tears and
    > go tell her you're a person and you deserve to be respected.
    >
    > Yousuf Khan


    And another troll that drops the mask.
    Trolls aren't what they used to be, these days.
    They're so easily provoked. It's so disappointing.

  16. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    Rod Speed wrote
    > Yousuf Khan wrote
    > > Folkert Rienstra wrote

    >
    > > > Nonsense again.
    > > > S.M.A.R.T. doesn't differentiate between internal and external
    > > > induced errors. If the PS is at fault replacing the drive won't help.

    > >
    > >
    > > Hello precious, your momma been spanking you again?

    >
    > Nar, its those nice fellas in white coats that are his problem.
    >
    > > Dry your tears and go tell her you're a person and you deserve to be
    > > respected.

    >
    > No one respects rabid loonys except that they dont bother with those funky
    > canvas jackets
    > with extremely long sleeves anymore, just taser them and inject them to keep
    > them under control.


    I'll bet that you know all this from personal experience, yes?

  17. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    Yousuf Khan wrote:

    > However, SMART is one of the most lenient error detection schemes out
    > there. It usually finds no errors, so if it actually finds something
    > then it's usually a sign that the drive truly needs to be replaced
    > sooner rather than later.
    >
    > Yousuf Khan


    But you can just run HDtune (free version) and it will read the SMART
    info without having to have it enabled in the bios.


    http://www.hdtune.com/


  18. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    Rod Speed wrote:

    > Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag, ****wit.
    >
    >


    Isn't that the exact same flame you have been using for the past ten
    years? Time to buy the new 'Flaming For Dummies' book as they have now
    expanded it beyond one flame.

  19. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    Rod Speed wrote:

    > No one respects rabid loonys


    And you should know that better than anyone here.

  20. Re: drive keeps having partition problems

    On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 04:14:03 GMT, Dave Seven
    put finger to keyboard and composed:

    >Yousuf Khan wrote:
    >
    >> However, SMART is one of the most lenient error detection schemes out
    >> there. It usually finds no errors, so if it actually finds something
    >> then it's usually a sign that the drive truly needs to be replaced
    >> sooner rather than later.
    >>
    >> Yousuf Khan

    >
    >But you can just run HDtune (free version) and it will read the SMART
    >info without having to have it enabled in the bios.
    >
    >
    >http://www.hdtune.com/


    The following article suggests that S.M.A.R.T is always enabled as far
    as the drive is concerned. The BIOS setting merely controls whether
    the BIOS will test the SMART health status of a disc at bootup.

    http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/

    ================================================== ===================
    My computer's BIOS has a SMART enable/disable setting. What does it
    do, and how should I set it?

    Some type of BIOS can check the SMART health status of a disk at
    bootup ... This one-time check on bootup is done if the BIOS SMART
    setting is set to 'ENABLE', and is not done if the setting is set to
    'DISABLE'.

    If this one-time check is done, and the disk's health status is found
    to be 'FAIL', then typically the BIOS will display an error message
    and refuse to boot the machine.

    For the proper functioning of smartmontools [or any other SMART
    software tool], either BIOS setting may be used.
    ================================================== ===================

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

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