what to do with a bad drive

  • Thread starter Thread starter MooGoo
  • Start date Start date
M

MooGoo

I have a maxtor 250GB drive that has gotten a few bad blocks. I'm
wondering if it is better to reformat it or get a replacement from maxtor.

Does reformatting usually get rid bad blocks? For what it's worth, the
drive has not developed any more new bad blocks since they were first
discovered 3 weeks ago, and the drive is about 95% full. I'm guessing
it won't develop new bad blocks. Any thoughts?
 
MooGoo said:
I have a maxtor 250GB drive that has gotten a few bad blocks. I'm
wondering if it is better to reformat it or get a replacement from maxtor.
Click to expand...

IFF you can get an error code from Maxtor PowerMax and the drive is
still under warranty, then you should consider getting a replacement.
Does reformatting usually get rid bad blocks? For what it's worth, the
drive has not developed any more new bad blocks since they were first
discovered 3 weeks ago, and the drive is about 95% full. I'm guessing
it won't develop new bad blocks. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

A drive should internally (transparent to the user or OS) remap bad
sectors. Once the number of spare sectors is exhausted, then the
presence of bad sectors is noticeable.

If you run smartctl on the drive, you can get a better idea of what's
going on with the drive internally:
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=64297

If it's your first drive, you'd run:
smartctl -a /dev/hda

In my experience, once a drive starts developing bad sectors, more bad
sectors are likely to follow. YMMV.


-WD
 
~
~I have a maxtor 250GB drive that has gotten a few bad blocks. I'm
~wondering if it is better to reformat it or get a replacement from maxtor.
~
~Does reformatting usually get rid bad blocks? For what it's worth, the
~drive has not developed any more new bad blocks since they were first
~discovered 3 weeks ago, and the drive is about 95% full. I'm guessing
~it won't develop new bad blocks. Any thoughts?
~
~
In my experience once a drive starts getting bad blocks it will continue to get
worse until you start getting them in the partition table or the part of the
drive where the file system and directory are stored. At that point reading the
drive becomes problematic. Formatting or repartitioning the drive will not fix
this problem. Burn the contents onto CDROM or back it up to other media while
you can still read it. Better buy several spindles of blanks. At 700MB each
you'll need ~350 of them to backup that drive.

250GB drives have not been on the market all that long. Is this drive still
under warranty? Maybe Maxtor will replace it.

For years now I have disdained putting the eggs all in one basket approach of
using these drives of unusual size. I know three or four 80GB drives will cost
more but you won't have the pain of loosing 250GB of data or the prospect of
burning hundreds of backup CDROMS.
 
I have a maxtor 250GB drive that has gotten a few bad blocks. I'm
wondering if it is better to reformat it or get a replacement from maxtor.
Click to expand...

I just had one of these go bad on me too. Last Maxtor drive I will ever
buy since this is the second Maxtor that I have had fail in the last 5 years.
Since the data on it was sensitive, I took a hammer and screwdriver to it
and bent the platters.
Does reformatting usually get rid bad blocks? For what it's worth, the
drive has not developed any more new bad blocks since they were first
discovered 3 weeks ago, and the drive is about 95% full. I'm guessing
it won't develop new bad blocks. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

I reformatted it twice. The third time I tried, it would not even format
(Windows 2000 format would not complete the format). It continued
getting more and more bad blocks before I chunked it. This was over
a period of 2 months.

Lynn
 
Will Dormann said:
IFF you can get an error code from Maxtor PowerMax and the drive is
still under warranty, then you should consider getting a replacement.


A drive should internally (transparent to the user or OS) remap bad sectors.
Click to expand...

Clueless. Another mindless cockatoo.
It should internally (transparently) remap 'about_to_become, i.e. recoverable
read error' bad sectors. Bad sectors (unrecoverable read error 'bad' sectors)
are never remapped on reads.
They will be remapped on writes and only after they have been administered
internally as an unrecoverable read error bad sector on earlier reads.
These are the ones you *will* see at all times, at least once, whether spare
sectors are available or not.
Once the number of spare sectors is exhausted, then the presence of bad
sectors is noticeable.
Click to expand...

Any detailed drive manual will tell you different.
And since you are a regular here, you should know better by now, Dormann.
If you run smartctl on the drive, you can get a better idea of what's
going on with the drive internally:
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=64297

If it's your first drive, you'd run:
smartctl -a /dev/hda

In my experience, once a drive starts developing bad sectors, more bad
sectors are likely to follow.
Click to expand...

Of course they will. That is what the bloody system is designed for, isn't it?
 
In my experience once a drive starts getting bad blocks it will continue to
get worse until you start getting them in the partition table or the part of
the drive where the file system and directory are stored.
Click to expand...
At that point reading the drive becomes problematic.
Click to expand...

The problem becoming most notable.
Formatting or repartitioning the drive will not fix this problem.
Click to expand...

Actually, that will take care of the bad blocks in the partition tables and
directories as these will be written over and the bad blocks remapped.
It doesn't take care of the other blocks in the data areas as these are
left alone. They may be read in the verifying stage and show up there.
 
~<ttl> wrote in message ~
~> Formatting or repartitioning the drive will not fix this problem.
~
~Actually, that will take care of the bad blocks in the partition tables and
~directories as these will be written over and the bad blocks remapped.
~It doesn't take care of the other blocks in the data areas as these are
~left alone. They may be read in the verifying stage and show up there.
~
A bad choice of words on my part. Reformatting will mask the symptoms by
remapping the bad blocks. I have done this in the past and thought everything
was ok until more bad blocks appeared. I should have said that reformatting
will mask the symptoms but does not fix the underlying problem.
 
ttl said:
~
~I have a maxtor 250GB drive that has gotten a few bad blocks. I'm
~wondering if it is better to reformat it or get a replacement from maxtor.
~
~Does reformatting usually get rid bad blocks? For what it's worth, the
~drive has not developed any more new bad blocks since they were first
~discovered 3 weeks ago, and the drive is about 95% full. I'm guessing
~it won't develop new bad blocks. Any thoughts?
~
~
In my experience once a drive starts getting bad blocks it will continue to get
worse until you start getting them in the partition table or the part of the
drive where the file system and directory are stored. At that point reading the
drive becomes problematic. Formatting or repartitioning the drive will not fix
this problem. Burn the contents onto CDROM or back it up to other media while
you can still read it. Better buy several spindles of blanks. At 700MB each
you'll need ~350 of them to backup that drive.

250GB drives have not been on the market all that long. Is this drive still
under warranty? Maybe Maxtor will replace it.

For years now I have disdained putting the eggs all in one basket approach of
using these drives of unusual size. I know three or four 80GB drives will cost
more but you won't have the pain of loosing 250GB of data or the prospect of
burning hundreds of backup CDROMS.
Click to expand...


Hello,

"Burning hundreds of backup CDROMS," makes no sense, in my opinion. Why
use relatively-small CD's (650MB-700MB), at all, when DVD's (4.7GB) are
readily available, today?


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>
 
~Hello,
~
~"Burning hundreds of backup CDROMS," makes no sense, in my opinion. Why
~use relatively-small CD's (650MB-700MB), at all, when DVD's (4.7GB) are
~readily available, today?
~
This is an option if the user has a DVD-R, DVD+R. Recordable DVD has not
penetrated the market as deeply as recordable CD. Using recordable DVD reduces
the number of discs to ~53. Still a lot of recording.

Best to burn to disk as the data volume grows. Entrusting the data to a disk
drive is to invite loss of data.
 
A bad choice of words on my part. Reformatting will mask the symptoms by
remapping the bad blocks. I have done this in the past and thought everything
was ok until more bad blocks appeared. I should have said that reformatting
will mask the symptoms but does not fix the underlying problem.
Click to expand...

Right, it doesn't fix a bad power supply (or bad supply of power) or a drive
overheating.
 
John Turco said:
Hello,

"Burning hundreds of backup CDROMS," makes no sense, in my opinion. Why
use relatively-small CD's (650MB-700MB), at all, when DVD's (4.7GB) are
readily available, today?
Click to expand...

That reduces that to only dozens of DVD. Still doesn't make sense.
 
ttl said:
~Hello,
~
~"Burning hundreds of backup CDROMS," makes no sense, in my opinion. Why
~use relatively-small CD's (650MB-700MB), at all, when DVD's (4.7GB) are
~readily available, today?
~
This is an option if the user has a DVD-R, DVD+R.
Click to expand...

Hello,

DVD-RAM is best, for computer data storage, actually.
Recordable DVD has not
penetrated the market as deeply as recordable CD.
Click to expand...

True, but, DVD has become quite affordable, within the past year or so.
Using recordable DVD reduces
the number of discs to ~53. Still a lot of recording.
Click to expand...

Agreed! Compression could lower that number, further; yet, not enough to
make it very practical, probably. (Too time-consuming, as well.)
Best to burn to disk as the data volume grows. Entrusting the data to a disk
drive is to invite loss of data.
Click to expand...

Optical discs, themselves, have been known to be somewhat unreliable,
occasionally. A backup strategy, involving both DVD's and HDD's, would
appear to be the safest one.


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>
 
Folkert said:
That reduces that to only dozens of DVD. Still doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...


Hello, Folkert:

Good point! <g> Regardless, DVD is still a vast improvement over CD, in
backing-up smaller hard drives...would you not concur?


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>
 
~Hello,
~
~DVD-RAM is best, for computer data storage, actually.
~
~>Recordable DVD has not
~> penetrated the market as deeply as recordable CD.
~
~True, but, DVD has become quite affordable, within the past year or so.
~
~>Using recordable DVD reduces
~> the number of discs to ~53. Still a lot of recording.
~
~Agreed! Compression could lower that number, further; yet, not enough to
~make it very practical, probably. (Too time-consuming, as well.)
~
~> Best to burn to disk as the data volume grows. Entrusting the data to a disk
~> drive is to invite loss of data.
~
~Optical discs, themselves, have been known to be somewhat unreliable,
~occasionally. A backup strategy, involving both DVD's and HDD's, would
~appear to be the safest one.
~
~
~Cordially,
~ John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>


I'll accept your judgement on the DVD format since I am not up to date on the
varying formats. I need to read some on the relative merits of the competing
formats.

I priced DVD burners at CompUSA and at retail I figured that it would cost
between $200 and $300 including the discs needed for such a burn. If the user
already has the burner then it's just the cost of the media. The best burners
were right around $200. Maybe less if I went to clones R us around the corner
and bought a Plextor.

Most of the folks filling 250GB hard drives are collecting jpgs, mpegs, mp3 or
zipped warez. Compression will not buy much on precompressed data and as you
note it is time consuming as well.

I always run my CDR burns as disc at once with a full test phase at 8-12x. So
far (knock on wood) I have not had a large number of flakey CDROMs.

What is the life expectancy of the spindle grade discs that have been burned as
above and stored in jewell cases? Is any manufacturer making an archive grade
CDR blank?
 
ttl said:
~Hello,
~
~DVD-RAM is best, for computer data storage, actually.
~
~>Recordable DVD has not
~> penetrated the market as deeply as recordable CD.
~
~True, but, DVD has become quite affordable, within the past year or so.
~
~>Using recordable DVD reduces
~> the number of discs to ~53. Still a lot of recording.
~
~Agreed! Compression could lower that number, further; yet, not enough to
~make it very practical, probably. (Too time-consuming, as well.)
~
~> Best to burn to disk as the data volume grows. Entrusting the data to a disk
~> drive is to invite loss of data.
~
~Optical discs, themselves, have been known to be somewhat unreliable,
~occasionally. A backup strategy, involving both DVD's and HDD's, would
~appear to be the safest one.
~
~
~Cordially,
~ John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

I'll accept your judgement on the DVD format since I am not up to date on the
varying formats. I need to read some on the relative merits of the competing
formats.
Click to expand...

Hello,

DVD-RAM's chief advantage, is that it can be accessed, virtually the
same as a HDD. This makes it perfect for data, naturally.

Its downside is its comparative lack of hardware compatibility. Not many
PC drives can write to (or even >read<) DVD-RAM, and Panasonic is its
major supporter. (My SW-9571 is such a writer.)

The situation is worse, yet, among stand-alone (video) units -- once
again, only Panasonic, itself, seems to produce any DVD-RAM models. I
own one (DMR-E50P DVD recorder), personally, and it's easier to use
(and more convenient) than a VCR.

DVD-RAM is great, as it can be rewritten, up to 100,000 times!
I priced DVD burners at CompUSA and at retail I figured that it would cost
between $200 and $300 including the discs needed for such a burn. If the user
already has the burner then it's just the cost of the media. The best burners
were right around $200. Maybe less if I went to clones R us around the corner
and bought a Plextor.
Click to expand...

Scour the Internet, for bargains! The Panasonic SW-9571 (OEM), merely
cost me $148 (with free shipping), at LiveWarehouse
<http://shop.store.yahoo.com/livewarehouse>, in June '03.

Try these search engines, please:

Price Watch <http://www.pricewatch.com>

Froogle <http://froogle.google.com>

Here's a prime place to find various goodies, too:

eBay said:
Most of the folks filling 250GB hard drives are collecting jpgs, mpegs, mp3 or
zipped warez. Compression will not buy much on precompressed data and as you
note it is time consuming as well.
Click to expand...

Not I! My image and video files, combined, wouldn't begin to fill up
either of my present 160GB hard disks (or my 30GB USB external drive,
for that matter).

Further, I'm far too honest to ever download any "warez" or MP3
rip-offs. said:
I always run my CDR burns as disc at once with a full test phase at 8-12x. So
far (knock on wood) I have not had a large number of flakey CDROMs.

What is the life expectancy of the spindle grade discs that have been burned as
above and stored in jewell cases? Is any manufacturer making an archive grade
CDR blank?
Click to expand...

I don't know whether "spindle grade discs" are notably worse than
others; keeping them in cases is the important thing. As for "archive
grade CDR blank," nobody can guarantee longevity.

Good luck!


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>
 
Back
Top