And still, your surface is not any healthier than before.
Just a different part of it is used now.
Arno said:Previously larry moe 'n curly <[email protected]> wrote:
Zeroing does nothing for HDD health. If the drive has a
problem, it needs to be replaced.
And still, your surface is not any healthier than before.
Just a different part of it is used now.
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).
That would be because you likely had an unreadable sector,
which also shows up as a pending sector afer a read attempt.
And still, your surface is not any healthier than before.
Just a different part of it is used now.
Arno Wagner wrote:
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.
But isn't the long SMART self test supposed to remove the bad sector
from use and substitute a spare sector for it?
Previously Odie said:Arno Wagner wrote
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).
The sectors used to store data in certainly are.
The healthier part.
Arno said:Previously larry moe 'n curly <[email protected]> wrote:Zeroing does nothing for HDD health. If the drive has a
problem, it needs to be replaced.
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?
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.
Odie said:123 wrote in
Nope, no such certainty at all.
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.
Previously Odie said:Arno Wagner wrote
You do like to knock your drives around for fun then, do you?
Previously Odie said:Arno Wagner wrote
It still may.
Like that data matters after a zero action.
Which proves what exactly.
Readable bad sectors, huh.
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.
Nope, that was a general point,
not a comment about the specific sector in the OP.
But was tested in manufacturing.
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.
Odie said:larry moe 'n curly wrote in
Are you a moron or just plain thick?