Drive Life Best Practice? - Storage

This is a discussion on Drive Life Best Practice? - Storage ; What is the best practice for extending your hard drive's life? I remember reading about putting the MBR after the first 64 mb, [or sector or some other metric], of a drive? Or if that is not possible, then putting ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Drive Life Best Practice?

  1. Drive Life Best Practice?

    What is the best practice for extending your hard drive's life? I
    remember reading about putting the MBR after the first 64 mb, [or
    sector or some other metric], of a drive? Or if that is not possible,
    then putting the first partition after 64mb?

    I remember reading this somewhere ( I can't remember where though,
    could it have been the partition magic or system commander manual?)
    and I wonder if it still applies.

    Regards,
    Justin,
    hdd newbie

  2. Re: Drive Life Best Practice?

    Justin Goldberg wrote:

    > What is the best practice for extending your hard drive's life?


    Make sure it doest get too hot and dont use it as a football.

    > I remember reading about putting the MBR after the first
    > 64 mb, [or sector or some other metric], of a drive?


    Thats got nothing to do with its life. And doesnt apply to modern drives anyway.

    > Or if that is not possible, then putting the first partition after 64mb?


    Pointless as far as the life of the drive is concerned.

    > I remember reading this somewhere ( I can't remember where though,
    > could it have been the partition magic or system commander manual?)
    > and I wonder if it still applies.


    Nope.



  3. Re: Drive Life Best Practice?

    Previously Justin Goldberg wrote:
    > What is the best practice for extending your hard drive's life? I
    > remember reading about putting the MBR after the first 64 mb, [or
    > sector or some other metric], of a drive? Or if that is not possible,
    > then putting the first partition after 64mb?


    All irrelevant today. I also doubt it was ever relevant.

    > I remember reading this somewhere ( I can't remember where though,
    > could it have been the partition magic or system commander manual?)
    > and I wonder if it still applies.


    Definitely not.

    Arno

  4. Re: Drive Life Best Practice?

    On Aug 29, 12:38*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
    > Justin Goldberg wrote:
    > > What is the best practice for extending your hard drive's life?

    >
    > Make sure it doest get too hot and dont use it as a football.


    How do I monitor the temperature? Software?

    And what is a good temperature?

    >
    > > I remember reading about putting the MBR after the first
    > > 64 mb, [or sector or some other metric], of a drive?

    >
    > Thats got nothing to do with its life. And doesnt apply to modern drives anyway.
    >
    > > Or if that is not possible, then putting the first partition after 64mb?

    >
    > Pointless as far as the life of the drive is concerned.
    >
    > > I remember reading this somewhere ( I can't remember where though,
    > > could it have been the partition magic or system commander manual?)
    > > and I wonder if it still applies.

    >
    > Nope.



  5. Re: Drive Life Best Practice?

    On Aug 29, 12:38*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
    > Justin Goldberg wrote:
    > > What is the best practice for extending your hard drive's life?

    >
    > Make sure it doest get too hot and dont use it as a football.


    Okay, I googled my drive and found it's operating temperature is 5-55
    degrees c. The DTemp program shows "Temperature check capability not
    found".

    Also the Load Cycle Count is the only one in red, but it isn't a life
    critical attribute according to the program. It's value is 67 and it's
    threshold is 70.

    Does the drive itself say what is life critical?

  6. Re: Drive Life Best Practice?

    Justin Goldberg wrote
    > Rod Speed wrote
    >> Justin Goldberg wrote


    >>> What is the best practice for extending your hard drive's life?


    >> Make sure it doest get too hot and dont use it as a football.


    > How do I monitor the temperature? Software?


    Yep, SMART. Not always available, particularly with USB external drives.

    > And what is a good temperature?


    Below 40C is fine, below 45C is still quite acceptable.

    >>> I remember reading about putting the MBR after the first
    >>> 64 mb, [or sector or some other metric], of a drive?


    >> Thats got nothing to do with its life. And doesnt apply to modern drives anyway.


    >>> Or if that is not possible, then putting the first partition after 64mb?


    >> Pointless as far as the life of the drive is concerned.


    >>> I remember reading this somewhere ( I can't remember where though,
    >>> could it have been the partition magic or system commander manual?)
    >>> and I wonder if it still applies.


    >> Nope.




  7. Re: Drive Life Best Practice?

    Justin Goldberg wrote
    > Rod Speed wrote
    >> Justin Goldberg wrote


    >>> What is the best practice for extending your hard drive's life?


    >> Make sure it doest get too hot and dont use it as a football.


    > Okay, I googled my drive and found it's operating temperature is 5-55 degrees c.


    That max isnt good for the life of the drive.

    > The DTemp program shows "Temperature check capability not found".


    Which drive ?

    > Also the Load Cycle Count is the only one in red, but it isn't a life critical
    > attribute according to the program. It's value is 67 and it's threshold is 70.


    Post the Everest SMART report.
    http://www.majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=4181

    > Does the drive itself say what is life critical?


    Sort of. But SMART is more about reporting when a drive may be dying.



  8. Re: Drive Life Best Practice?

    Previously Justin Goldberg wrote:
    > On Aug 29, 12:38*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
    >> Justin Goldberg wrote:
    >> > What is the best practice for extending your hard drive's life?

    >>
    >> Make sure it doest get too hot and dont use it as a football.


    > Okay, I googled my drive and found it's operating temperature is 5-55
    > degrees c. The DTemp program shows "Temperature check capability not
    > found".


    > Also the Load Cycle Count is the only one in red, but it isn't a life
    > critical attribute according to the program. It's value is 67 and it's
    > threshold is 70.


    That would mean it is belkow the threshold.

    > Does the drive itself say what is life critical?


    Load Cycle Count is life critical. Typically it will
    nit result in a complete failure, but increased error rates.
    You should not use this drive anymore.

    Arno

  9. Re: Drive Life Best Practice?

    Arno Wagner wrote
    > Justin Goldberg wrote
    >> Rod Speed wrote
    >>> Justin Goldberg wrote


    >>>> What is the best practice for extending your hard drive's life?


    >>> Make sure it doest get too hot and dont use it as a football.


    >> Okay, I googled my drive and found it's operating temperature is 5-55 degrees c.
    >> The DTemp program shows "Temperature check capability not found".


    >> Also the Load Cycle Count is the only one in red,
    >> but it isn't a life critical attribute according to the
    >> program. It's value is 67 and it's threshold is 70.


    > That would mean it is belkow the threshold.


    >> Does the drive itself say what is life critical?


    > Load Cycle Count is life critical. Typically it will nit
    > result in a complete failure, but increased error
    > rates. You should not use this drive anymore.


    He's just plain wrong.



  10. Re: Drive Life Best Practice?

    On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:40:11 -0700 (PDT), Justin Goldberg
    put finger to keyboard and composed:

    >What is the best practice for extending your hard drive's life? I
    >remember reading about putting the MBR after the first 64 mb, [or
    >sector or some other metric], of a drive? Or if that is not possible,
    >then putting the first partition after 64mb?
    >
    >I remember reading this somewhere ( I can't remember where though,
    >could it have been the partition magic or system commander manual?)
    >and I wonder if it still applies.
    >
    >Regards,
    >Justin,
    >hdd newbie


    AFAIK, the MBR must always occupy physical sector 0 because that's
    where the BIOS first looks for bootstrap code. The only reason that I
    can see why the number 64 sticks in your mind is that the 64th sector
    is usually where the boot sector of the first partition resides.
    Normally there are 63 sectors per track, so the first partition starts
    at the first track boundary.

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

  11. Re: Drive Life Best Practice?

    "Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
    news:6psob4do36tit2avo6aj5nsoc6re5ai465@4ax.com...
    >
    > AFAIK, the MBR must always occupy physical sector 0 because that's
    > where the BIOS first looks for bootstrap code. The only reason that I
    > can see why the number 64 sticks in your mind is that the 64th sector
    > is usually where the boot sector of the first partition resides.
    > Normally there are 63 sectors per track, so the first partition starts
    > at the first track boundary.
    >

    No, the first partition is sector 63, but 64 is better with RAID.
    That aligns NTFS and FAT32 clusters with RAID stripes.
    The drive does not report track boundries anymore.


  12. Re: Drive Life Best Practice?

    On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:03:33 -0700, "Eric Gisin"
    put finger to keyboard and composed:

    >"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
    >news:6psob4do36tit2avo6aj5nsoc6re5ai465@4ax.com...
    >>
    >> AFAIK, the MBR must always occupy physical sector 0 because that's
    >> where the BIOS first looks for bootstrap code. The only reason that I
    >> can see why the number 64 sticks in your mind is that the 64th sector
    >> is usually where the boot sector of the first partition resides.
    >> Normally there are 63 sectors per track, so the first partition starts
    >> at the first track boundary.
    >>

    >No, the first partition is sector 63, but 64 is better with RAID.
    >That aligns NTFS and FAT32 clusters with RAID stripes.
    >The drive does not report track boundries anymore.


    I didn't say "sector 64" (counting from sector 0), I said "the 64th
    sector" (counting from the 1st).

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

  13. Re: Drive Life Best Practice?

    "Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
    news:kjgrb452hhcafp96t611c85va6ja3f22h2@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:03:33 -0700, "Eric Gisin"
    > put finger to keyboard and composed:
    >
    >>"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
    >>news:6psob4do36tit2avo6aj5nsoc6re5ai465@4ax.com...
    >>>
    >>> AFAIK, the MBR must always occupy physical sector 0 because that's
    >>> where the BIOS first looks for bootstrap code. The only reason that I
    >>> can see why the number 64 sticks in your mind is that the 64th sector
    >>> is usually where the boot sector of the first partition resides.
    >>> Normally there are 63 sectors per track, so the first partition starts
    >>> at the first track boundary.
    >>>

    >>No, the first partition is sector 63, but 64 is better with RAID.
    >>That aligns NTFS and FAT32 clusters with RAID stripes.
    >>The drive does not report track boundries anymore.

    >
    > I didn't say "sector 64" (counting from sector 0), I said "the 64th
    > sector" (counting from the 1st).
    >

    Nobody does that. Yes, I know that stupid sector register goes from 1-63.


  14. Re: Drive Life Best Practice?

    Franc Zabkar wrote in news:6psob4do36tit2avo6aj5nsoc6re5ai465@4ax.com
    > On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:40:11 -0700 (PDT), Justin Goldberg put finger to keyboard and composed:
    >
    > > What is the best practice for extending your hard drive's life? I
    > > remember reading about putting the MBR after the first 64 mb, [or
    > > sector or some other metric], of a drive? Or if that is not possible,
    > > then putting the first partition after 64mb?
    > >
    > > I remember reading this somewhere ( I can't remember where though,
    > > could it have been the partition magic or system commander manual?)
    > > and I wonder if it still applies.
    > >
    > > Regards,
    > > Justin,
    > > hdd newbie

    >
    > AFAIK, the MBR must always occupy physical sector 0 because that's
    > where the BIOS first looks for bootstrap code. The only reason that I
    > can see why the number 64 sticks in your mind is that the 64th sector
    > is usually where the boot sector of the first partition resides.


    > Normally there are 63 sectors per track, so the first partition starts
    > at the first track boundary.


    There is no such 'so' about it.

    >
    > - Franc Zabkar


  15. Re: Drive Life Best Practice?

    Eric Gisin wrote in news:g9k4ck$di5$1@news.mixmin.net
    > "Franc Zabkar" wrote in message news:6psob4do36tit2avo6aj5nsoc6re5ai465@4ax.com...
    > >
    > > AFAIK, the MBR must always occupy physical sector 0 because that's
    > > where the BIOS first looks for bootstrap code. The only reason that I
    > > can see why the number 64 sticks in your mind is that the 64th sector
    > > is usually where the boot sector of the first partition resides.
    > > Normally there are 63 sectors per track, so the first partition starts
    > > at the first track boundary.


    > No, the first partition is sector 63,


    Yup, that's what he said.

    > but 64 is better with RAID.
    > That aligns NTFS and FAT32 clusters with RAID stripes.
    > The drive does not report track boundries anymore.


    Utter nonsense.

  16. Re: Drive Life Best Practice?

    Franc Zabkar wrote in news:kjgrb452hhcafp96t611c85va6ja3f22h2@4ax.com
    > On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:03:33 -0700, "Eric Gisin" gisin@uniserve.com put finger to keyboard and composed:
    > > "Franc Zabkar" fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message news:6psob4do36tit2avo6aj5nsoc6re5ai465@4ax.com...
    > > >
    > > > AFAIK, the MBR must always occupy physical sector 0 because that's
    > > > where the BIOS first looks for bootstrap code. The only reason that I
    > > > can see why the number 64 sticks in your mind is that the 64th sector
    > > > is usually where the boot sector of the first partition resides.
    > > > Normally there are 63 sectors per track, so the first partition starts
    > > > at the first track boundary.
    > > >

    > > No, the first partition is sector 63, but 64 is better with RAID.
    > > That aligns NTFS and FAT32 clusters with RAID stripes.
    > > The drive does not report track boundries anymore.


    > I didn't say "sector 64" (counting from sector 0), I said "the 64th sector"


    Which is sector 63

    > (counting from the 1st).


    Which is sector 0.

    >
    > - Franc Zabkar


  17. Re: Drive Life Best Practice?

    "Squeeze" wrote in message
    news:48bf51f9$0$16343$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
    > Eric Gisin wrote in news:g9k4ck$di5$1@news.mixmin.net
    >> "Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
    >> news:6psob4do36tit2avo6aj5nsoc6re5ai465@4ax.com...
    >> >
    >> > AFAIK, the MBR must always occupy physical sector 0 because that's
    >> > where the BIOS first looks for bootstrap code. The only reason that I
    >> > can see why the number 64 sticks in your mind is that the 64th sector
    >> > is usually where the boot sector of the first partition resides.
    >> > Normally there are 63 sectors per track, so the first partition starts
    >> > at the first track boundary.

    >
    >> No, the first partition is sector 63,

    >
    > Yup, that's what he said.
    >
    >> but 64 is better with RAID.
    >> That aligns NTFS and FAT32 clusters with RAID stripes.
    >> The drive does not report track boundries anymore.

    >
    > Utter nonsense.


    Uber FolkNazi bull****! Show us the IDE command to do so.


  18. Re: Drive Life Best Practice?

    Eric Gisin wrote in news:g9q2ul$al9$2@news.mixmin.net
    > "Squeeze" wrote in message
    > news:48bf51f9$0$16343$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
    > > Eric Gisin wrote in news:g9k4ck$di5$1@news.mixmin.net
    > > > "Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
    > > > news:6psob4do36tit2avo6aj5nsoc6re5ai465@4ax.com...
    > > > >
    > > > > AFAIK, the MBR must always occupy physical sector 0 because that's
    > > > > where the BIOS first looks for bootstrap code. The only reason that I
    > > > > can see why the number 64 sticks in your mind is that the 64th sector
    > > > > is usually where the boot sector of the first partition resides.
    > > > > Normally there are 63 sectors per track, so the first partition starts
    > > > > at the first track boundary.

    > >
    > > > No, the first partition is sector 63,

    > >
    > > Yup, that's what he said.
    > >
    > > > but 64 is better with RAID.
    > > > That aligns NTFS and FAT32 clusters with RAID stripes.
    > > > The drive does not report track boundries anymore.

    > >
    > > Utter nonsense.

    >
    > Uber FolkNazi bull****!


    > Show us the IDE command to do so.


    And lend you any form of credibility, Gisin Newbie, by allowing you
    light of day?

    I don't think so.

    So now it is the command that doesn't exist anymore, is it?
    Sillier by the minute. Like I said, utter nonsense, as usual from you.

+ Reply to Thread