Low Level Formatting -- Yes or No?

[jim evans]

A few years ago the conventional wisdom was you could (should?) not do
a low level format on a drive -- that it must be done by the
manufacturer.

Now I read for a number of situations you should use Maxtor's PowerMax
utility to do a low level format, and it will not harm the drive.

Can someone clarify this conflicting advice?

jim

 

[Eric Gisin]

Back in the early PC days, LLF meant rewriting the whole track. That is no
longer possible. If you read the manual, the format track command usually
writes zeros.

PowerMax LLF writes zeros, scans for bad sectors, and combines the list of
original and new bad sectors. They use the term LLF loosely.

 

[Arno Wagner]

A few years ago the conventional wisdom was you could (should?) not do
a low level format on a drive -- that it must be done by the
manufacturer.

Now I read for a number of situations you should use Maxtor's PowerMax
utility to do a low level format, and it will not harm the drive.

Can someone clarify this conflicting advice?

A few years ago you actually could do a low level format, thereby
destroying the hdd, since it cannot do this correctly without
further assistance.

Today you cannot do a low-level format at all. The only thing
you can do is what SCSI calls a "surface recertification". This
essentially writes and reads all sectors on the hdd and replaces
defective ones with others in some way.

Arno

 

[jim evans]

Thanks.

Back in the early PC days, LLF meant rewriting the whole track. That is no
longer possible. If you read the manual, the format track command usually
writes zeros.

PowerMax LLF writes zeros, scans for bad sectors, and combines the list of
original and new bad sectors. They use the term LLF loosely.

 

[Rod Speed]

A few years ago the conventional wisdom was you
could (should?) not do a low level format on a drive
-- that it must be done by the manufacturer.

Now I read for a number of situations you should
use Maxtor's PowerMax utility to do a low level
format, and it will not harm the drive.

Can someone clarify this conflicting advice?

The story has got considerably scrambled over time and there
is a lot of variation in just what low level formatting means.

The short story is that the original proclamation that drives
should not be low level formatted applied to the use of general
LLF utes and that function in the bios of many systems, with
the early IDE drives that did need and could do a low level
format but which had to have the LLF done with their own ute.
That is long gone now.

Modern IDE drives will just write zeros thru the
sectors on the drive when told to do a LLF, like
with say that function in the motherboard bios.

The LLF function in stuff like PowerMax isnt the same
thing as writing the tracks from scratch which was the
original use of that term. They now use that to describe
what is basically defect management, scanning for bad
sectors and adding bads found to the bad sector table.
And by definition if Maxtor has that function in their ute,
it cant be dangerous to use it on their drives.

In the strictest sense a true low level format in
the original use of that term, writing the tracks
from scratch, cant be done on modern IDE drives
in the field. That can only be done in the factory.

So the short story is that its fine to use that
function in PowerMax if you need to do that.

 

[jim evans]

Thanks again to all who replied.

jim

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

A few years ago you actually could do a low level format, thereby
destroying the hdd,

since it cannot do this correctly without further assistance.

Yes, it can.
The problem was that early drives accepted parameters and using the
wrong ones would ruin the drive.
That was later removed and the drive either ignored the parameters
or returned an error. Since no drive comes unformatted and sector
size can't be changed there is little point for a Low Level Format
and most if not all drives will only reinitialize sectors (write zeroes).

Today you cannot do a low-level format at all.

Yes, you can, except no drive is offering it, except IBM.
And SCSI drives can still do it too, so there are no physical
constraints other than manufacturers not supporting it.
Todays drives can very well LLF themselfs IF there was a reason
for it (which there isn't) because they have internal tables with the
number of zones, number of tracks per zone and sectors per track.

The only thing you can do is what SCSI calls a "surface recertification".

There is no such thing in IDE except maybe IBM.
And certification is an aspect of SCSI Low Level Format (Format Unit).
It is just an extra read check that you can have Format Unit do or leave.

This essentially writes and reads all sectors on the hdd and replaces
defective ones with others

in some way.

Yes, a Low Level Format (ie Format Unit).

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

The story has got considerably scrambled over time and there
is a lot of variation in just what low level formatting means.

Which lots of people confuse with servo track writing.

The short story is that the original proclamation that drives
should not be low level formatted applied to the use of general
LLF utes and that function in the bios of many systems, with
the early IDE drives that did need and could do a low level
format but which had to have the LLF done with their own ute.
That is long gone now.

Modern IDE drives will just write zeros thru the
sectors on the drive when told to do a LLF, like
with say that function in the motherboard bios.

The LLF function in stuff like PowerMax isnt the same
thing as writing the tracks from scratch which was the
original use of that term. They now use that to describe
what is basically defect management, scanning for bad
sectors and adding bads found to the bad sector table.
And by definition if Maxtor has that function in their ute,
it cant be dangerous to use it on their drives.

In the strictest sense
Nonsense.

a true low level format in the original use of that term, writing the
tracks from scratch, cant be done on modern IDE drives in the field.

Because, modern drives have servo tracks that the old drives didn't have.
Because, modern drives don't have sector headers (ID fields) anymore.
Because that is not Low Level Formatting, that is Servotrack Writing
followed by Low Level (track) Formatting, most likely rolled into one.

That can only be done in the factory.

It IS only done in the factory (or datarecovery and repair centers).

Low Level Formatting can be done in the field IF the drive supports it.
Like those from IBM/Hitachi.

So the short story is that its fine to use that
function in PowerMax if you need to do that.

Right.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

A few years ago the conventional wisdom was you could (should?) not do
a low level format on a drive -- that it must be done by the manufacturer.

Since no drives come unformatted it obviously IS done by the manufacturer.
Since you can't change parameters and the format is already there it is highly
questionable if you would be changing anything that wasn't already there.
That is why 'Format Track' has been questionable ever since drives went
with /embedded/ servo tracks for head positioning and rewriting the
tracks (not so much the formatting of the tracks but rather the position-
ing of the track under the heads with a stepper motor driven head beam or
it's dedicated servo platter driven equivalent) became a thing of the past.
Format Track is no longer supported by the ATA spec.

Now I read for a number of situations you should use Maxtor's PowerMax
utility to do a low level format, and it will not harm the drive.

Why would Maxtor give you an utility that would kill your drive?

Can someone clarify this conflicting advice?

Does the term "Old Wives Tale" ring a bell?

 

[Rod Speed]

Which lots of people confuse with servo track writing.

The original use of the term LLF was with
drives that didnt even have servo tracks at all.

Nonsense.

Even you should be able to manage a more
convincing troll than that, child. Try harder boy.

Because, modern drives have servo tracks that the old drives didn't have.
Duh.

Because, modern drives don't have sector headers (ID fields) anymore.

Irrelevant to what can be done when rewriting the entire track.

Because that is not Low Level Formatting, that is Servotrack Writing
followed by Low Level (track) Formatting, most likely rolled into one.

You dont get to rule that that aint LLFing, child.

It IS only done in the factory (or datarecovery and repair centers).

Wot I said, wanker.

Low Level Formatting can be done in the field IF
the drive supports it. Like those from IBM/Hitachi.

You dont get to proclaim that thats
the only valid use of that term, ****wit.

Right.

As always. Unlike some pathetic excuse for a troll.

 

[Tod]

I heard that low level formatting a drive voids the manufacturer's warranty

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

I heard that low level formatting a drive voids the manufacturer's warranty

I have heard that the marsians are holding pictures in front of
the rover's camera to make it appear that Mars is uninhabited.

 

[Arno Wagner]

I have heard that the marsians are holding pictures in front of
the rover's camera to make it appear that Mars is uninhabited.

You shouldn't listen to TV too much. It melts the brain. (Or so
I have heard...)

Arno

 

[Jim Jones]

You shouldn't listen to TV too much. It
melts the brain. (Or so I have heard...)

Not a problem for him, no brain.

The problem is actually the drugs its on, not TV anyway.

 

[Guest]

Because, modern drives have servo tracks that the old drives
didn't have.

I had a Toshiba ST-506/412 type drive with servo, but itcould be low
level formatted by the user, despite the fact that there were no
separate head and platter surface for just the servo marks (5
platters, 10 data heads). How was the servo handled?

 

[Eric Gisin]

There is a type of servo called wedge that occupies a few degrees after the
index mark. The rest of the track can be formatted.

 

[Arno Wagner]

I had a Toshiba ST-506/412 type drive with servo, but itcould be low
level formatted by the user, despite the fact that there were no
separate head and platter surface for just the servo marks (5
platters, 10 data heads). How was the servo handled?

The drive faked the low-level format, thereby preserving the
servo information?

Arno

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

I had a Toshiba ST-506/412 type drive with servo, but it could be low
level formatted by the user, despite the fact that there were no separate
head and platter surface for just the servo marks (5 platters, 10 data heads).

How was the servo handled?

It wasn't. Because, like I said elsewhere, Low Level Formatting has nothing
to do with servo track writing. All it does is divide a track up into sectors.
The tracks themselfs are written by the servo track writer and consist of
little more than servo marks.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

The original use of the term LLF was with
drives that didnt even have servo tracks at all.

Right.
Which obviously confirms what I say about LLF having nothing to
do with servo track writing.

Even you should be able to manage a more convincing troll than that, child.

Yup, I could, but why the hell should I want too?
To appear to be looking more like you?

Try harder boy.

No thanks, Gramps.

So 'Duh' yourself.

Duh.

Yes, frighteningly simple, isn't it.

Irrelevant to what can be done when rewriting the entire track.

As long as you understand your own rambling, that is fine with me, Grampy.
There obviously is no "from scratch" with a harddrive once it has left the
factory so it is your own ramblings re "from scratch" that are irrelevant.

You dont get to rule that that aint LLFing, child.

Neither you that it is, Grampy.

Wot I said, wanker.

Obvious lie, Liar.

You dont get to proclaim that thats
the only valid use of that term, ****wit.

What's 'that', Grampy?

As always.

Gestures of grandeur befitting a troll.

Unlike some pathetic excuse for a troll.

Like yourself, Roddy? If you say so.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some pathetic excuse for a troll claiming to be
in message just the puerile shit any 3 year old could leave for dead.

Try harder, trollchild. You might actually
manage to wow someone, sometime.