Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 3 Mar 2007 12:52 In article <MPG.20536be861bedd6a98a048(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <esbpq1$8qk_005(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... [....] >> I'm assuming that this housekeeping moved into the smart >> controllers. > >The disk drive itself. Watch out. Some people call the spinning mechanical bits the disk drive and all the electronics including that which is on the assembly the "controller". The boundary has moved enough that this point of view can be understood. [.....] >Any bad sectors are mapped out so they don't get copied. Ideally, you'd like to have copies of what they have too. You can use this as an indication of the drives health. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: krw on 3 Mar 2007 13:38 In article <escck2$hcr$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net says... > In article <MPG.20536be861bedd6a98a048(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >In article <esbpq1$8qk_005(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > [....] > >> I'm assuming that this housekeeping moved into the smart > >> controllers. > > > >The disk drive itself. > > Watch out. Some people call the spinning mechanical bits the disk drive > and all the electronics including that which is on the assembly the > "controller". The boundary has moved enough that this point of view can > be understood. If you accept that there are disk controllers controlling controllers. > [.....] > >Any bad sectors are mapped out so they don't get copied. > > Ideally, you'd like to have copies of what they have too. You can use > this as an indication of the drives health. Why do you need the data off the defective sector? All you need to know is that there are defective sectors (and perhaps some other interesting statistics; density, etc.). -- Keith
From: Ken Smith on 3 Mar 2007 18:35 In article <MPG.20538aaf69470ac898a04b(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <escck2$hcr$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >says... >> In article <MPG.20536be861bedd6a98a048(a)news.individual.net>, >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> >In article <esbpq1$8qk_005(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... >> [....] >> >> I'm assuming that this housekeeping moved into the smart >> >> controllers. >> > >> >The disk drive itself. >> >> Watch out. Some people call the spinning mechanical bits the disk drive >> and all the electronics including that which is on the assembly the >> "controller". The boundary has moved enough that this point of view can >> be understood. > >If you accept that there are disk controllers controlling >controllers. Back in the era of the tape drive, there were controllers and formatters. The term "formatter" seems to no longer be used. >> [.....] >> >Any bad sectors are mapped out so they don't get copied. >> >> Ideally, you'd like to have copies of what they have too. You can use >> this as an indication of the drives health. > >Why do you need the data off the defective sector? All you need to >know is that there are defective sectors (and perhaps some other >interesting statistics; density, etc.). The how many and where they are and the fact that they are still the same and that the defect within the sector is still about the same size can all be useful information in judging the health. If the defects start to grow it is time to find out the price of a new drive. The actual data within it is less useful but knowing it doesn't change would help to be sure that the defect is not growing. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: krw on 3 Mar 2007 19:23 In article <esd0np$7gb$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net says... > In article <MPG.20538aaf69470ac898a04b(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >In article <escck2$hcr$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net > >says... > >> In article <MPG.20536be861bedd6a98a048(a)news.individual.net>, > >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >> >In article <esbpq1$8qk_005(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > >> [....] > >> >> I'm assuming that this housekeeping moved into the smart > >> >> controllers. > >> > > >> >The disk drive itself. > >> > >> Watch out. Some people call the spinning mechanical bits the disk drive > >> and all the electronics including that which is on the assembly the > >> "controller". The boundary has moved enough that this point of view can > >> be understood. > > > >If you accept that there are disk controllers controlling > >controllers. > > Back in the era of the tape drive, there were controllers and formatters. > The term "formatter" seems to no longer be used. > > > >> [.....] > >> >Any bad sectors are mapped out so they don't get copied. > >> > >> Ideally, you'd like to have copies of what they have too. You can use > >> this as an indication of the drives health. > > > >Why do you need the data off the defective sector? All you need to > >know is that there are defective sectors (and perhaps some other > >interesting statistics; density, etc.). > > The how many and where they are Statistics, sure. The drive keeps these. Noone outside the drive can make use of these anyway (LBA=>physical information isn't exposed outside the drive). > and the fact that they are still the same Once the drive has marked them bad they stay bad (and you don't see them). > and that the defect within the sector is still about the same size You'll never see any of that information. > can all > be useful information in judging the health. ...and the drive makes use of it. Noone outside the drive is going to. > If the defects start to grow > it is time to find out the price of a new drive. Sorry, but that's the drive's call. SMART tells you it _was_ time to buy a new drive. You don't have access to the information, for a number of reasons. A bit-by-bit copy won't see this information either. > The actual data within it is less useful but knowing it doesn't change > would help to be sure that the defect is not growing. You don't have access to that information. -- Keith
From: Ken Smith on 3 Mar 2007 21:00
In article <MPG.2053db8f3ea5561f98a04d(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <esd0np$7gb$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net [...] >> The how many and where they are > >Statistics, sure. The drive keeps these. Noone outside the drive >can make use of these anyway (LBA=>physical information isn't exposed >outside the drive). That is some of the information I was saying would be ideal. Note that I am talking of the ideal and not the "what we can live with". >> and the fact that they are still the same > >Once the drive has marked them bad they stay bad (and you don't see >them). The point being that there are no new ones. >> and that the defect within the sector is still about the same size > >You'll never see any of that information. > >> can all >> be useful information in judging the health. > >..and the drive makes use of it. Noone outside the drive is going >to. That seems unfortunate. It would be nice to be able to monitor that information for changes. [....] >Sorry, but that's the drive's call. SMART tells you it _was_ time to >buy a new drive. You don't have access to the information, for a >number of reasons. A bit-by-bit copy won't see this information >either. Yes, I know. Remember I said "ideally". -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |