What are the contents of Track 0 on a hard disk?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Folkert Rienstra said:
track.

That is the old 1 GB limited SCSI bios.

With IDE, if the drive is bigger than 528MB, per T10
specification you should expect 63 sectors per track.
Click to expand...

Okay, so it happens with SCSI only, still see those 32 sect/track around
occasionally, so I guess it's still safe to say than you should never assume
63 sect/track if you're going to use the track 0.

Also, since track 0 is used by quite some tools, first check *if* you can
write there before you dump stuff there.

DiskPatch for example stores the date for the last partition table backup in
track 0 but not after having verified the target sector is available (when
it is empty or filled with a simple byte pattern it is assumed it is
available).
 
Well, you didn't know either, Rodney.
Just a few days ago you posted the following:
Click to expand...

Hasnt got a damned thing to do with the point I was
commenting on, that the NUMBERING starts at 1, wanker.
 
Hasnt got a damned thing to do with the point I was
commenting on, that the NUMBERING starts at 1, wanker.
Click to expand...

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of your predicament
better then that pathetic effort, Rodney.
 
Some completely unemployable ****wit
thats never ever made a useful contribution
on anything at all desperately cowering behind
chrisv <[email protected]> desperately
attempted to bullshit its way out of its predicament
in message and fooled absolutely no one at all. As always.
 
On 2003-10-29 17:50, Spammay Blockay wrote:
-snip-
Thanks! I did a Deja search after I asked, and saw you had
discussed this earlier, but this clarifies things nicely.

Also... I thought that each track usually has 63 sectors,
so track 0 would be sectors 0-62, right? Intuitively I'd
think 64 (power of 2, etc.), but all the documentation I read
says 63.

- Tim
Click to expand...

63 is a prime number, which is nice if you use sector interleaving.

If you had 64 sectors and e.g. interleave 2 (common on older
harddisks) you would never see half the drive, the skips would be on the
same sectors on every rotation.

But nowadays drives usually have 1:1 interleave, so there could be other
reasons to still keep it at 63.

/Rolf
 
Rolf Blom said:
On 2003-10-29 17:50, Spammay Blockay wrote:
-snip-

63 is a prime number, which is nice if you use sector interleaving.
Huh?


If you had 64 sectors and e.g. interleave 2 (common on older harddisks)
you would never see half the drive, the skips would be on the same sectors
on every rotation.
Click to expand...

Ever heard of skew?
But nowadays drives usually have 1:1 interleave, so there could be other
reasons to still keep it at 63.
Click to expand...

No current drive has 63 sectors per track.
You may have found ~60 sectors per track
about 10 years ago on drives smaller than 1GB.
 
63 = 3x3x7

Regards
MP
Click to expand...

LOL, I cancelled that message just because I realized I was wrong, but
it seemed to have slipped by. I was tired I guess.


Anyway it related to an older types of sectoring.

/Rolf
 
Rolf Blom said:
LOL, I cancelled that message just because I realized I was wrong, but
it seemed to have slipped by. I was tired I guess.
Get more coffee :)
Anyway it related to an older types of sectoring.
NP

/Rolf
Click to expand...

MP
 
Back
Top