Low-level format WD2000?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I need to low-level format this disk. Western Digitals website has this
"Disk Manager 11.0" program, but it doesn't work... I create a floppy
and boot from it. It looks like it's loading some stuff, goes to a
blank white screen for a while, and then gives me a message telling me
to reboot.

I either need a working version of this software, or a link to some
other utility. Thanks...

--
* John Oliver http://www.john-oliver.net/ *
* California gun owners - protect your rights and join the CRPA today! *
* http://www.crpa.org/ Free 3 month trial membership available *
* San Diego shooters come to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sdshooting/ *
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

John Oliver wrote:
> I need to low-level format this disk.

With modern disks it's generally better to pitch them than to attempt
a true low-level format. They're zone formatted at the factory -- a
one-time operation +/-.

If all you want to do is zero the disk, Linux dd will probably work
fine.

Western Digitals website has this
> "Disk Manager 11.0" program, but it doesn't work... I create a floppy
> and boot from it. It looks like it's loading some stuff, goes to a
> blank white screen for a while, and then gives me a message telling me
> to reboot.
>
> I either need a working version of this software, or a link to some
> other utility. Thanks...
>


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Previously CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
> John Oliver wrote:
>> I need to low-level format this disk.

> With modern disks it's generally better to pitch them than to attempt
> a true low-level format. They're zone formatted at the factory -- a
> one-time operation +/-.

...that needs special hardware and cannot be done with only the disk
istelf. The last disks that could low-level format themselves
had one dedicated servo surface. Today the servo information is
on tha data platterns and would be destroyed by any attempt of the
disk to low-lefel format itself.

> If all you want to do is zero the disk, Linux dd will probably work
> fine.

Agreed. Use dd_rescue do get a progress indicator.

Arno
--
For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Clueless Arnie is at it again.

"Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:30u3cnF33s0dcU2@uni-berlin.de
> Previously CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
> > John Oliver wrote:
> > > I need to low-level format this disk.
>
> > With modern disks it's generally better to pitch them than to attempt
> > a true low-level format. They're zone formatted at the factory -- a
> > one-time operation +/-.
>
> ..that needs special hardware and cannot be done with only the disk *istelf*.

Right, and IBM's 'servowrite self-timing technology' was a figment of
IBM's imagination and doesn't actually exist.

> The last disks that could low-level format themselves had one dedicated
> servo surface.

SCSI drives have zoned recording too and they can LLF just fine.
Contrary to popular belief 'modern' SCSI drives still exist.

> Today the servo information is on *tha* data *platterns* and would be
> destroyed by any attempt of the disk to *low-lefel* format itself.

Right and SCSI drives are a figment of the imagination too, they don't
actually exist, right Arnie?

>
> > If all you want to do is zero the disk, Linux dd will probably work
> > fine.
>
> Agreed. Use dd_rescue do get a progress indicator.
>
> Arno
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:41A979A4.6010700@prodigy.net
> John Oliver wrote:
> > I need to low-level format this disk.
>
> With modern disks it's generally better to pitch them than to attempt

> a true low-level format.

Words that confused people use when they mean 'Servo Track Writing'.

And it has nothing to do with 'attempting'.
You simply won't be able to do that for the very simple reason that a
drive won't allow it as it has no command for it.
You can't do to a drive that it doesn't allow or doesn't know about.

> They're zone formatted at the factory

So what.
ATA had 'Format Track' so zoned formatting wasn't a problem at all.
All that the firmware has to do to is read internal tables and (re)format
tracks/zones with the correct internally kept parameter.

> -- a one-time operation +/-.

In current practice.
In theory it is entirely possible to write firmware that will do it.
However, the only reason for (re)LLF-ing a drive is to LLF with a diffe-
rent sector size but which ATA doesn't support (until recently). So LLF
was stricken from the ATA command set. It may be reintroduced, now that
the "Long Logical Sector Feature Set" has been introduced in ATA/ATAPI-7.

IBM introduced 'Format Unit' to format a drive in such a way that logical
sectors are renumbered so that logical sectors and their physical counterparts
are both in sequential order again if bad sectors have been replaced by spares.

>
> If all you want to do is zero the disk, Linux dd will probably work fine.
>
> > Western Digitals website has this
> > "Disk Manager 11.0" program, but it doesn't work... I create a floppy
> > and boot from it. It looks like it's loading some stuff, goes to a
> > blank white screen for a while, and then gives me a message telling me
> > to reboot.
> >
> > I either need a working version of this software, or a link to some
> > other utility. Thanks...
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Previously Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
> Clueless Arnie is at it again.

> "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:30u3cnF33s0dcU2@uni-berlin.de
>> Previously CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>> > John Oliver wrote:
>> > > I need to low-level format this disk.
>>
>> > With modern disks it's generally better to pitch them than to attempt
>> > a true low-level format. They're zone formatted at the factory -- a
>> > one-time operation +/-.
>>
>> ..that needs special hardware and cannot be done with only the disk *istelf*.

> Right, and IBM's 'servowrite self-timing technology' was a figment of
> IBM's imagination and doesn't actually exist.

>> The last disks that could low-level format themselves had one dedicated
>> servo surface.

> SCSI drives have zoned recording too and they can LLF just fine.
> Contrary to popular belief 'modern' SCSI drives still exist.

>> Today the servo information is on *tha* data *platterns* and would be
>> destroyed by any attempt of the disk to *low-lefel* format itself.

> Right and SCSI drives are a figment of the imagination too, they don't
> actually exist, right Arnie?

>>
>> > If all you want to do is zero the disk, Linux dd will probably work
>> > fine.
>>
>> Agreed. Use dd_rescue do get a progress indicator.
>>
>> Arno

--
For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Previously Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
> Clueless Arnie is at it again.

> "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:30u3cnF33s0dcU2@uni-berlin.de
>> Previously CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>> > John Oliver wrote:
>> > > I need to low-level format this disk.
>>
>> > With modern disks it's generally better to pitch them than to attempt
>> > a true low-level format. They're zone formatted at the factory -- a
>> > one-time operation +/-.
>>
>> ..that needs special hardware and cannot be done with only the disk *istelf*.

> Right, and IBM's 'servowrite self-timing technology' was a figment of
> IBM's imagination and doesn't actually exist.

Still need special hardware. True, they can use the hdds normal heads,
but the normal electronics cannot reliably do this, under normal
condition, if it can do it at all, as there is no need for it to.
Servo-writing probably needs more precise timing that the ordinary
electronics can provide. There is a need for very low vibration (one
of the reason to get rid of the external clocking heads) and probably
a specific temperature and clean power for the sevo-writing process to
be successful.

>> The last disks that could low-level format themselves had one dedicated
>> servo surface.

> SCSI drives have zoned recording too and they can LLF just fine.
> Contrary to popular belief 'modern' SCSI drives still exist.

SCSI disks cannot LLF. They can do a surface recertification,
but that is something else. No servo information is written
in that process. Surface recertification does test all sectors
for problems. In some drives it will also reuse sectors formerly
marked as bad and reallocated if they pass the test.

As usual you display insights deep enough to fool most people without
in-depth knowledge, but fail to truely understand the subject.

Arno
--
For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:3191kcF39e6maU1@individual.net...
> Previously Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
> > Clueless Arnie is at it again.
>
> >> The last disks that could low-level format themselves had one dedicated
> >> servo surface.
>
And they did not rewrite the servo tracks.

> > SCSI drives have zoned recording too and they can LLF just fine.
> > Contrary to popular belief 'modern' SCSI drives still exist.
>
> SCSI disks cannot LLF. They can do a surface recertification,
> but that is something else. No servo information is written
> in that process. Surface recertification does test all sectors
> for problems. In some drives it will also reuse sectors formerly
> marked as bad and reallocated if they pass the test.
>
Utterly clueless as usual. A LLF is the writing of sectors, not servos.

> As usual you display insights deep enough to fool most people without
> in-depth knowledge, but fail to truely understand the subject.
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote in message news:conk9302a6c@enews2.newsguy.com
> "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:3191kcF39e6maU1@individual.net...
> > Previously Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
> > > Clueless Arnie is at it again.
> >
> > > > The last disks that could low-level format themselves had one dedicated
> > > > servo surface.
> >
> And they did not rewrite the servo tracks.

Right Eric, obviously.
Clueless Arnie not even notices how he contradicts himself in the same post.
It's the same story all over again of people posturing how they prove something
with one situation versus another and not notice how they actually prove the opposite:
When it isn't necessary to overwrite the servos on a drive with a dedicated servo sur-
face in order to Low Level Format it then that is actually the blatant -spitting in your
face- proof that Servo info has nothing whatsoever got to do with Low Level Formatting.

>
> > > SCSI drives have zoned recording too and they can LLF just fine.
> > > Contrary to popular belief 'modern' SCSI drives still exist.
> >
> > SCSI disks cannot LLF.

Yes, they can. Anyone can look it up.

> > They can do a surface recertification,

Yes Arnie, they can do that too when doing a LLF (Format Unit).

> > but that is something else.

Obviously. There usually is a reason why something is called like it is called.
But straying from the subject is not the same as denying the subject capability.
The subject is LLF, Arnie, not (re)certification.

> > No servo information is written in that process.

Exactly. Yet the drive is Low Level Formatted none the less.
Because Low Level Formatting is Low Level Formatting and
Servo Track Writing is Servo Track Writing, nomatter how
hard you try to call the one the other.

> > Surface recertification does test all sectors for problems.

The subject is Low Level Formatting. It's called 'Format Unit' in SCSI.
Certification is an option of 'Format Unit'.

> > In some drives it will also reuse sectors formerly
> > marked as bad and reallocated if they pass the test.

On 'some' drives, Arnie? You are just fishing, aren't you, Arnie?
Posturing has become second nature to you, isn't it, Arnie.
Keeping the Grown Defect List or rebuilding the Grown Defect List
are options to the 'Format Unit' command, Arnie. They don't just
happen on one drive and not another, they are user decided.
And 'passing the test' depends on whether certification is enabled.
If not, they are just re-enabled, good or bad.

> >
> Utterly clueless as usual. A LLF is the writing of sectors, not servos.

Yup, LLF (Format Unit) formats all tracks into sectors, it doesn't write
the tracks themselves. Tracks are defined by the servo marks which in
turn were written by the Servo Track Writer.

>
> > As usual you display insights deep enough to fool most people without
> > in-depth knowledge, but fail to truely understand the subject.

Nice one, Arnie! Tears to my eyes.
Have been practicing long in front of that mirror, have you, Arnie?
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Previously Eric Gisin <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote:
> "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:3191kcF39e6maU1@individual.net...
>> Previously Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
>> > Clueless Arnie is at it again.
>>
>> >> The last disks that could low-level format themselves had one dedicated
>> >> servo surface.
>>
> And they did not rewrite the servo tracks.

No, but the sector ID fileds, pre-gaps, etc.

>> > SCSI drives have zoned recording too and they can LLF just fine.
>> > Contrary to popular belief 'modern' SCSI drives still exist.
>>
>> SCSI disks cannot LLF. They can do a surface recertification,
>> but that is something else. No servo information is written
>> in that process. Surface recertification does test all sectors
>> for problems. In some drives it will also reuse sectors formerly
>> marked as bad and reallocated if they pass the test.
>>
> Utterly clueless as usual. A LLF is the writing of sectors, not servos.

Writing of sectors is a normal access from the disk's point of view.
At best you can call that a "high-level format". Low-Level format if
about ID fields, sync fields and the like and servo-info if the storage
medium needs that.

Arno
--
For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:319u5tF39chq3U2@individual.net...
> >>
> >> SCSI disks cannot LLF. They can do a surface recertification,
> >> but that is something else. No servo information is written
> >> in that process. Surface recertification does test all sectors
> >> for problems. In some drives it will also reuse sectors formerly
> >> marked as bad and reallocated if they pass the test.
> >>
> > Utterly clueless as usual. A LLF is the writing of sectors, not servos.
>
> Writing of sectors is a normal access from the disk's point of view.
> At best you can call that a "high-level format". Low-Level format if
> about ID fields, sync fields and the like and servo-info if the storage
> medium needs that.
>
Idiot troll. The servos and IDs cannot be written at the same time. There are
separate things, with separate names.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Servo-writing employs laser interferometer to position the heads with
submicron precision.
Servo signals also require precise phase between two adjacent tracks, this
is why synchro head had to be used. I wonder if IBMs technology just does
writing servo with one head while reading previously written servo with
another head..

"Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:3191kcF39e6maU1@individual.net...
>
>> Right, and IBM's 'servowrite self-timing technology' was a figment of
>> IBM's imagination and doesn't actually exist.
>
> Still need special hardware. True, they can use the hdds normal heads,
> but the normal electronics cannot reliably do this, under normal
> condition, if it can do it at all, as there is no need for it to.
> Servo-writing probably needs more precise timing that the ordinary
> electronics can provide. There is a need for very low vibration (one
> of the reason to get rid of the external clocking heads) and probably
> a specific temperature and clean power for the sevo-writing process to
> be successful.
>
>>> The last disks that could low-level format themselves had one dedicated
>>> servo surface.
>
>> SCSI drives have zoned recording too and they can LLF just fine.
>> Contrary to popular belief 'modern' SCSI drives still exist.
>
> SCSI disks cannot LLF. They can do a surface recertification,
> but that is something else. No servo information is written
> in that process. Surface recertification does test all sectors
> for problems. In some drives it will also reuse sectors formerly
> marked as bad and reallocated if they pass the test.
>
> As usual you display insights deep enough to fool most people without
> in-depth knowledge, but fail to truely understand the subject.
>
> Arno
> --
> For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
> GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
> "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Previously Eric Gisin <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote:
> "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:319u5tF39chq3U2@individual.net...
>> >>
>> >> SCSI disks cannot LLF. They can do a surface recertification,
>> >> but that is something else. No servo information is written
>> >> in that process. Surface recertification does test all sectors
>> >> for problems. In some drives it will also reuse sectors formerly
>> >> marked as bad and reallocated if they pass the test.
>> >>
>> > Utterly clueless as usual. A LLF is the writing of sectors, not servos.
>>
>> Writing of sectors is a normal access from the disk's point of view.
>> At best you can call that a "high-level format". Low-Level format if
>> about ID fields, sync fields and the like and servo-info if the storage
>> medium needs that.
>>
> Idiot troll. The servos and IDs cannot be written at the same time. There are
> separate things, with separate names.

You seem to not understand the machanism at all. Of course they can
not be written in the same instant of time. But what about a process
that does this consecutively? Is ther any sane reason why that could
not be done? I don't think so. In addition this is called low-level
formatting by people that understand the process.

I rather get the impression that you get your agression (and bad
upbringing) to bear because you have demonstrated a lack of insight
and I pointed it out.

Arno
--
For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Previously Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
> "Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote in message news:conk9302a6c@enews2.newsguy.com
>> "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:3191kcF39e6maU1@individual.net...
>> > Previously Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
>> > > Clueless Arnie is at it again.
>> >
>> > > > The last disks that could low-level format themselves had one dedicated
>> > > > servo surface.
>> >
>> And they did not rewrite the servo tracks.

> Right Eric, obviously.
> Clueless Arnie not even notices how he contradicts himself in the
> same post. It's the same story all over again of people posturing
> how they prove something with one situation versus another and not
> notice how they actually prove the opposite: When it isn't necessary
> to overwrite the servos on a drive with a dedicated servo sur- face
> in order to Low Level Format it then that is actually the blatant
> -spitting in your face- proof that Servo info has nothing whatsoever
> got to do with Low Level Formatting.

Funny. You seem to have missed that there are different techologies
and configurations. Also you completely have misunderstood what a
"servo-surface" is. Not surprisiong, really.

>>
>> > > SCSI drives have zoned recording too and they can LLF just fine.
>> > > Contrary to popular belief 'modern' SCSI drives still exist.
>> >
>> > SCSI disks cannot LLF.

> Yes, they can. Anyone can look it up.

Please do so and show me.

>> > They can do a surface recertification,

> Yes Arnie, they can do that too when doing a LLF (Format Unit).

Format Unit is not necessarily a LLF, the drive is free to simulate it.
Most/all HDDs do. The only thing a HDD actually needs to do when
getting this command with the right options is a surface recertification.
However in, e.g. SCSI floppies, this command does do a LLF.

>> > but that is something else.

> Obviously. There usually is a reason why something is called like it
> is called. But straying from the subject is not the same as denying
> the subject capability. The subject is LLF, Arnie, not
> (re)certification.

And this comment is relevant how?

>> > No servo information is written in that process.

> Exactly. Yet the drive is Low Level Formatted none the less.
> Because Low Level Formatting is Low Level Formatting and
> Servo Track Writing is Servo Track Writing, nomatter how
> hard you try to call the one the other.

I think you do not understand what "low-level" means. It means
lower than just data reading/writing.

>> > Surface recertification does test all sectors for problems.

> The subject is Low Level Formatting. It's called 'Format Unit' in SCSI.
> Certification is an option of 'Format Unit'.

>> > In some drives it will also reuse sectors formerly
>> > marked as bad and reallocated if they pass the test.

> On 'some' drives, Arnie? You are just fishing, aren't you, Arnie?

No, contrary to you I have done this in different circumstances with
different hardware.

> Posturing has become second nature to you, isn't it, Arnie.
> Keeping the Grown Defect List or rebuilding the Grown Defect List
> are options to the 'Format Unit' command, Arnie. They don't just
> happen on one drive and not another, they are user decided.
> And 'passing the test' depends on whether certification is enabled.
> If not, they are just re-enabled, good or bad.

Untrue in practice. You don't understand the level of freedom the
actual implementors of the SCSI specification have.

>> >
>> Utterly clueless as usual. A LLF is the writing of sectors, not servos.

> Yup, LLF (Format Unit) formats all tracks into sectors, it doesn't write
> the tracks themselves. Tracks are defined by the servo marks which in
> turn were written by the Servo Track Writer.

LOL! Funny one! Of couse the sevo marks also define the
sectors, since they need to be between the sectors (not enough
space for servo-marks and data parallell to each other).

>> > As usual you display insights deep enough to fool most people without
>> > in-depth knowledge, but fail to truely understand the subject.

> Nice one, Arnie! Tears to my eyes.
> Have been practicing long in front of that mirror, have you, Arnie?

Not at all, since I actually understand the subject matter. Its
just your posturing that sometimes sets me off. Anyways I think
you display of lqack of manners/bad upbringing and general lack
of true insight disqualifies you for further discourse. I will
answer to you in this thread again.

Arno
--
For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:319u5tF39chq3U2@individual.net
> Previously Eric Gisin <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote:
> > "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:3191kcF39e6maU1@individual.net...
> > > Previously Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
> > > > Clueless Arnie is at it again.
> > >
> > > > > The last disks that could low-level format themselves had one
> > > > > dedicated servo surface.
> > >
> > And they did not rewrite the servo tracks.
>
> No,

So you actually *do* know. Just *posturing* not to.

> but the sector ID fileds, pre-gaps, etc.

Gosh, Low Level Format details, Arnie? Still no servo details?
Come on, Arnie, try a little harder. Posture Arnie, Posture!

Your precious "sector ID *fileds*, pre-gaps, etc" are on the data
platters of that dedicated servo platter drive example of yours.
Just as they were there on that steppermotor_driven_head_actuator_drive
that preceded the dedicated_servo_platter_drive that had no servo at all
to begin with. The tracks simply were there where the stepper motor stopped.
Low Level Format never messed with servo, not then, not now.

Servo marks just tell the servo system where to stop and steer the voicecoil
actuator so that it follows the track and by that it mimics the steppermotor
type actuator. On No-ID drives it also tells where the track starts so that
the data system knows where the sectors start, where the sector splits are.

>
> > > > SCSI drives have zoned recording too and they can LLF just fine.
> > > > Contrary to popular belief 'modern' SCSI drives still exist.
> > >
> > > SCSI disks cannot LLF. They can do a surface recertification,
> > > but that is something else. No servo information is written
> > > in that process. Surface recertification does test all sectors
> > > for problems. In some drives it will also reuse sectors formerly
> > > marked as bad and reallocated if they pass the test.
> > >
> > Utterly clueless as usual. A LLF is the writing of sectors, not servos.
>
> Writing of sectors is a normal access from the disk's point of view.

Oh no, one confirmation after the other that LLF has nothing got to do
with servo track writing. Aren't you rapidly falling off your beliefs, Arnie?

> At best you can call that a "high-level format".

No Arnie, 'normal access' is 'normal access'.
If it is not, then you must call it something else.

>Low-Level format if about ID fields, sync fields and the like

Yup, you are starting to get it. Of course 'modern' drives don't
have ID fields anymore so that is basically a thing of the past, but
I'll bet you knew that too, eh Arnie? Just your usual posturing again.
Sector IDs are now part of a table in RAM. LLF now is basically an
operation that takes place in RAM by adjusting the conversion tables.
Next to that is initializing the new data fields so that a read returns
valid ECC data.

> and servo-info if the storage medium needs that.

Damn, now you started fishing again.
The storage medium doesn't need servo info, Arnie, the Servo System does.
And all it needs to know is where a track is and which one it is, and enough
servo marks to keep it focused on it, all info that is unrelated to the number
of sectors in a track (the track 'format').

>
> Arno
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Previously Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> Previously Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
>> "Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote in message news:conk9302a6c@enews2.newsguy.com
>>> "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:3191kcF39e6maU1@individual.net...
[...]

That would be

"I will _not_ answer to you in this thread again."

Arno
--
For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> "I will _not_ answer to you in this thread again."
>

It is amazing how long it takes, for some people, to come to this brilliant
solution....
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:31b8e2F3a42soU1@individual.net
> Previously Eric Gisin <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote:
> > "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:319u5tF39chq3U2@individual.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > SCSI disks cannot LLF. They can do a surface recertification,
> > > > > but that is something else. No servo information is written
> > > > > in that process. Surface recertification does test all sectors
> > > > > for problems. In some drives it will also reuse sectors formerly
> > > > > marked as bad and reallocated if they pass the test.
> > > > >
> > > > Utterly clueless as usual. A LLF is the writing of sectors, not servos.
> > >
> > > Writing of sectors is a normal access from the disk's point of view.
> > > At best you can call that a "high-level format". Low-Level format if
> > > about ID fields, sync fields and the like and servo-info if the storage
> > > medium needs that.
> > >
> > Idiot troll. The servos and IDs cannot be written at the same time.
> > These are separate things, with separate names.
>
> You seem to not understand the machanism at all.

Rotflol. Obviously you 'seem' to do so.
It is all about 'pose' and 'posture', isn't it, Arnie.

> Of course they can not be written in the same instant of time.

Gosh, what an eye opener.
Since they are at different spots on the track that's a shot for
open goal. Arnie, you are sooooo clever that it is frightening!

> But what about a process that does this consecutively?
(Like there is any other way on a rotating media)

Lol. Too stupid to realize that you just again proved that Servo
Track Writing and Low Level formatting are two different things.

> Is ther any sane reason why that could not be done?

Exactly.
And you did your level best up till now to prove that Low Level For-
matting couldn't be done because of that they couldn't be separated.

And now you say the exact opposite. Stupid stupid scam artist Arnie.

> I don't think so.

Right Arnie, you don't think so. You don't know it at all but you 'think'
so. You make things up on the spot, don't you Arnie. You have 'insight'.

> In addition this is called low-level formatting by people that
> understand the process.

No Arnie, by people that are so mentally retarded that they can't think
straight for themselfs and parrot whatever they read on commercial
websites that only cover technical issues to just have a platform to
sell adverts from.

>
> I rather get the impression that you get your agression (and bad
> upbringing) to bear because you have demonstrated a lack of insight
> and I pointed it out.

Right, and you are the one that is preying people into believing that
being polite equals being knowledgable.
Of course it is also widely known that the worst scam artists usually
are most polite people too. Know your tricks of the trade, right Arnie?
A trick that you 'think' you master so well, as afterall you have 'insight',
that therefor everything you make up automatically becomes fact.

>
> Arno
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Previously Peter <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> "I will _not_ answer to you in this thread again."
>>

> It is amazing how long it takes, for some people, to come to this brilliant
> solution....

Yes, I know. Sometimes I just cannot resist. Sorry about that.


--
For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:31b96aF38k65sU1@individual.net
> Previously Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
> > "Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote in message news:conk9302a6c@enews2.newsguy.com
> > > "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:3191kcF39e6maU1@individual.net...
> > > > Previously Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
> > > > > Clueless Arnie is at it again.
> > > >
> > > > > > The last disks that could low-level format themselves had one dedicated
> > > > > > servo surface.
> > > >
> > > And they did not rewrite the servo tracks.

[Lots of Arnie's posturing snipped]

> > > > As usual you display insights deep enough to fool most people without
> > > > in-depth knowledge, but fail to truely understand the subject.
>
> > Nice one, Arnie! Tears to my eyes.
> > Have been practicing long in front of that mirror, have you, Arnie?
>
> Not at all, since I actually understand the subject matter.

Of course you do Arnie, of course you do. You have spectacular insight.

We got a magnificent view at your unfallible insights when you said recently:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=<2sg5urF1gsp3eU1@uni-berlin.de

" > > Hard disks coating is much more difficult to erase.
>
> Indeed. However if a conductive platter is spinning in
> a magnetic field, there will be locally induced currents.
> They in turn can erase a disk within some time.
> There was a number of incidents of this type
> with notebook HDDs in german trains some years ago.
> The trains were this happened had newly introduced
> fold-down tables with strong magnets at the corners.
>
> Notebook HDDs have less distance between their case surface
> and the platters. And it might have taken up to an hour or more
> with a disk spinning most of the time for the damage to happen.
> "

A direct stray magnetic field, not strong enough to erase bits by
itself, will induce a huge current in the platter so that its magnetic
field will erase the bits. Yup, you know your physics alright, Arnie.
Have we forgotten that Notebook HDs have glass substrate platters?

Thank you so very much for your precious insights Arnie.
Without them I would never have guessed that glass is such a wonderful
conductive material.

By the way, you had no problem to keep yourself from responding then.
Even someone so full of it as you probably realized that no amount of
posturing would have helped you out of that predicament there, isn't it,
Arnie.

> Its just your posturing that sometimes sets me off. Anyways I think
> you display of lqack of manners/bad upbringing and general lack
> of true insight disqualifies you for further discourse.

> I will answer to you in this thread again.

I'll bet you will. And ofcourse you already did after you read your own
post back *after* you send it. Which is quite amazing, knowing that you
never read your own posts, whether that's before or after sending.
Gosh, I haven't upset you, have I, Arnie?

>
> Arno
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom