Nagered hard drive;'(..
in [Computer]
|
From: Jon Green on 23 Jun 2010 18:34 On 23/06/2010 10:49, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <BbednRHroYQSK7zRnZ2dnUVZ7rWdnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk>, at > 08:23:48 on Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Jon Green <jonsg(a)deadspam.com> remarked: >>> Don't think a reformat will fix them either as some on t'internet think. >> >> A low level reformat can sometimes help, but IME it usually only >> delays the inevitable. > > It won't actually write a "low level" format pattern to the drive, but > will serve to mark some sectors as "bad". However, it won't stop the rot > spreading. Exactly so. Jon -- SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam' with 'green-lines'. Blog: http://bit.ly/45cLHw Pix: http://bit.ly/d8V2NJ Website: http://www.green-lines.com/
From: John Rumm on 23 Jun 2010 19:29 On 23/06/2010 20:14, Bob Eager wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:38:18 +0100, dennis(a)home wrote: > >> "David WE Roberts"<davidweroberts(a)spamtrap.invalid> wrote in message >> news:88e06sFsovU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> >> >>> Redundant Array of Inexpensive Discs was impressive in a production >>> environment, apart from the fact that the discs were anything but >>> inexpensive. >> >> Ah well that was probably in the days of proper RAIDs. The ones where it >> was done bitwise across the disks and all the spindles and heads were >> synchronised. >> They were expensive. > > The it wouldn't have been called RAID, would it? Disk array, yes, > RAID...I think not. Some early implementations of RAID level 2 tried this. Bit level splitting of data over some drives and applying FEC to generate check and correct bits on parity drives. Its not used these days since for obvious reasons - and it kind of went against the whole raid philosophy in the first place, so calling it "proper RAID" is a Dennis'ism really. -- Cheers, John. /=================================================================\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \=================================================================/
From: dennis on 24 Jun 2010 04:08 "John Rumm" <see.my.signature(a)nowhere.null> wrote in message news:3dadnUddYdB5Bb_RnZ2dnUVZ8imdnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk... > Some early implementations of RAID level 2 tried this. Bit level splitting > of data over some drives and applying FEC to generate check and correct > bits on parity drives. > > Its not used these days since for obvious reasons - and it kind of went > against the whole raid philosophy in the first place, so calling it > "proper RAID" is a Dennis'ism really. Show me where I called it a proper RAID? You are reading stuff that hasn't been written. PS what do you think are the obvious reasons they died out?
From: tony sayer on 24 Jun 2010 04:46 In article <88febaFg67U1(a)mid.individual.net>, Paul Bird <paul(a)NOSPAMcamtutor.co.uk> scribeth thus >Roland Perry wrote: >> In message <BbednRHroYQSK7zRnZ2dnUVZ7rWdnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk>, at >> 08:23:48 on Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Jon Green <jonsg(a)deadspam.com> remarked: >>>> Don't think a reformat will fix them either as some on t'internet think. >>> >>> A low level reformat can sometimes help, but IME it usually only >>> delays the inevitable. >> >> It won't actually write a "low level" format pattern to the drive, but >> will serve to mark some sectors as "bad". However, it won't stop the rot >> spreading. > >. . . and the rot can spread remarkably quickly. Hours in my experience. > >PB Well this one was doing odd things for about a day and then went down very quickly, mainly odd screen freeze's... -- Tony Sayer
From: Bob Eager on 24 Jun 2010 05:12
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:08:51 +0100, dennis(a)home wrote: > "John Rumm" <see.my.signature(a)nowhere.null> wrote in message > news:3dadnUddYdB5Bb_RnZ2dnUVZ8imdnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk... > >> Some early implementations of RAID level 2 tried this. Bit level >> splitting of data over some drives and applying FEC to generate check >> and correct bits on parity drives. >> >> Its not used these days since for obvious reasons - and it kind of went >> against the whole raid philosophy in the first place, so calling it >> "proper RAID" is a Dennis'ism really. > > Show me where I called it a proper RAID? You are reading stuff that > hasn't been written. You said: "Ah well that was probably in the days of proper RAIDs. The ones where it was done bitwise across the disks and all the spindles and heads were synchronised. They were expensive." We repeat: it wasn't RAID. It wasn't Inexpensive. -- Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org *lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor |