Maxtor HDDs - Powermax Surface Test Error Mysteriously Dis..

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.disks.general (More info?)

Eric Gisin <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote in message news:c6pbfs01kqh@enews4.newsguy.com...
> "Hugh Candlin" <no@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:u9VeQPVLEHA.3016@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >
> > Eric Gisin <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote in message
> news:c6oenu03bs@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > > What did I say to piss you off?
> >
> > Does "What a moron" sound familiar?
>
> Appropriate way to deal with someone who repeats a false statement, and tries
> to use google "hard disk clusters" as proof.

I would have handled it differently, but I am sure that
I am not going to convert you to my way of thinking.
> >
> > > Are you one of the idiots who think disks have clusters?
> >
> > No. I'm one of the volunteers in microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
> > who is secure enough that I see no need to insult people less technically
> > knowledgable than average, as traumatic discontinuities usually occur.
> >
> > I would much rather demonstrate my grasp of the technicalities by explaining
> > the intricacies of the subject at hand in a straightforward manner.
>
> No, I am not going to explain disk fundamentals to newbies. I gave him
> pcguide.com, which does so.

A favorite reference of mine also, and one that I have frequently pointed
people to. I would simply have supplied the reference,
and left off the "moron" comment.
> >
> > Perhaps you could have explained that cluster is a logical concept, not a
> physical entity.
> > Instead, you didn't explain ANYTHING, leading the cognoscenti to believe
> > that you are nothing but a clueless Google jockey looking for attention.
> >
> Now you are name calling too.

No. I am not. You are reading more into that than I said.

If you check my record, you will see that I am NOT in the habit
of throwing insults at people, although I assure you that I am
perfectly capable of doing so.

I didn't say that the conclusion was true, just that your conduct
was indistinguishable from that of such people. Big difference.

> I am not supposed to?

I expressed my opinion on that already.

> > I learned a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away,
> > that knowledge doesn't make you intellectually superior
> > to anyone else if you act like a pratt while dispensing it.
> >
> >
> > Cluster Size
> >
> > An operating system function or term,
> > describing the number of sectors
> > that the operating system allocates
> > each time disc space is needed.
> >
> > "Piss me off"? No. You simply demeaned yourself and your reputation.
> >
> Hardly. I just don't have time for idiots.

What are you going to do when everyone is smarter than you are?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.disks.general (More info?)

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:21:36 -0400, "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote:
>"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in message
>| On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:44:07 -0400, "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote:

>| >Uhhhhh, I think, as the drive now passes all scans, it is still good.

>| I'm less sure. The thing to do is use the drive vendor's diagnostics,
>| or failing that to do a Scandisk surface scan in DOS mode so that you
>| can watch the cluster progress counter.

>cquirke, you snipped out where I said to do that: "Go on, make a full
>system backup, though. And next week run those scans again!"

No, I didn't miss that (tho snip it I did). I just don't think that's
a safe enough alternative to dumping a defective HD - but then I am
assuming the HD is to hold material the user wants to see again.

>But, I do think, unless there are multiple occasions of surface errors,
>one may continue with the hard drive, theoretically.

That's where we disagree. If you want HDs with "just one bad
cluster", I have a shelf full here (in case I need the logic boards).
Most of these will pass surface scan without showing any new bad
clusters, but then again, most of these will show patchy latency that
you'd miss if you ran the test unattended, or used Windows Scandisk.



>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Who is General Failure and
why is he reading my disk?
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.disks.general (More info?)

Although I did have a hard drive crash late in 2001 (just after the
warranty did expire), still most of what I say is theoretical.
Theoretically, as OP said there was a Windows crash before his Powermax
discovered an error, it could well be it was that crash was the cause of
something that was interpreted to be a surface flaw. It's gone: he scans
well now. If it should show up again, especially this time w/o a crash
of Windows first, then I would worry. (It could happen w/o a crash of
Windows, if it happens in a non-system/sensitive area.) But I understand
your side of it, I guess. So, better do a full system backup. That's
all.

I do know, when my hard drive did crash, there was little doubt about
it. It put a hole in the ceiling where my own head smashed through!

The HDD heads hung on for about a week, though. I was still able to boot
once/twice a day after multiple noisy attempts, & Windows appeared to
work flawlessly for up to 20 mins. I guess this part of the story
supports your thought, in that one could have 20 mins. of bliss on an
HDD that one knows must be full of flaw. I guess the firmware was going
nuts remapping it all away. But it was obvious the thing was dying. (I
only wish I could recall what those Scandisk errors were, but it was too
traumatic! And did I see a red-slashed cluster in Defrag?)


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in message
news:lu6290195h5qjmihimkpk61nd6go0ujuj4@4ax.com...
| On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:21:36 -0400, "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote:
| >"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in message
| >| On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:44:07 -0400, "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net>
wrote:
|
| >| >Uhhhhh, I think, as the drive now passes all scans, it is still
good.
|
| >| I'm less sure. The thing to do is use the drive vendor's
diagnostics,
| >| or failing that to do a Scandisk surface scan in DOS mode so that
you
| >| can watch the cluster progress counter.
|
| >cquirke, you snipped out where I said to do that: "Go on, make a full
| >system backup, though. And next week run those scans again!"
|
| No, I didn't miss that (tho snip it I did). I just don't think that's
| a safe enough alternative to dumping a defective HD - but then I am
| assuming the HD is to hold material the user wants to see again.
|
| >But, I do think, unless there are multiple occasions of surface
errors,
| >one may continue with the hard drive, theoretically.
|
| That's where we disagree. If you want HDs with "just one bad
| cluster", I have a shelf full here (in case I need the logic boards).
| Most of these will pass surface scan without showing any new bad
| clusters, but then again, most of these will show patchy latency that
| you'd miss if you ran the test unattended, or used Windows Scandisk.
|
|
|
| >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
| Who is General Failure and
| why is he reading my disk?
| >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.disks.general (More info?)

"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in message news:lu6290195h5qjmihimkpk61nd6go0ujuj4@4ax.com
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:21:36 -0400, "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote:
> > "cquirke (MVP Win9x)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in message
> > > On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:44:07 -0400, "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Uhhhhh, I think, as the drive now passes all scans, it is still good.
>
> > > I'm less sure. The thing to do is use the drive vendor's diagnostics,
> > > or failing that to do a Scandisk surface scan in DOS mode so that you
> > > can watch the cluster progress counter.
>
> > cquirke, you snipped out where I said to do that: "Go on, make a full
> > system backup, though. And next week run those scans again!"
>
> No, I didn't miss that (tho snip it I did). I just don't think that's
> a safe enough alternative to

> dumping a defective HD -

Problem is, what *is* a defective HD.

> but then I am assuming the HD is to hold material the user wants to see again.
>
> > But, I do think, unless there are multiple occasions of surface errors,
> > one may continue with the hard drive, theoretically.
>
> That's where we disagree. If you want HDs with "just one bad
> cluster", I have a shelf full here (in case I need the logic boards).
> Most of these will pass surface scan without showing any new bad
> clusters, but then again, most of these will show patchy latency that
> you'd miss if you ran the test unattended, or used Windows Scandisk.

Well, to run the test properly you should run a zero wipe first so
that any trace of a previous externally caused problem is erased.

>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.disks.general (More info?)

"Hugh Candlin" <no@spam.com> wrote:

>I would simply have supplied the reference,
>and left off the "moron" comment.

Well, AlmostBob's google comment was pretty moronic. Hell, I just
googled "dinosaurs alive" and got over 100,000 hits - I don't think
that's proof that dinosaurs are alive... 8)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.disks.general (More info?)

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>"Hugh Candlin" <no@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>I would simply have supplied the reference,
>>and left off the "moron" comment.
>
>Well, AlmostBob's google comment was pretty moronic. Hell, I just
>googled "dinosaurs alive" and got over 100,000 hits - I don't think
>that's proof that dinosaurs are alive... 8)

For that matter, I googled "rod speed human" and got over 200,000
hits!

8)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.disks.general (More info?)

I am not a proponent of the use of such terms as "moronic". However, if
users of such terms saw fit to apply it to AlmostBob's Google search,
what could they possibly think of these Google searches YOU are coming
up with?


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:dv7590lt4durc5p9ec8kvehshghrdgqdqr@4ax.com...
| chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
|
| >"Hugh Candlin" <no@spam.com> wrote:
| >
| >>I would simply have supplied the reference,
| >>and left off the "moron" comment.
| >
| >Well, AlmostBob's google comment was pretty moronic. Hell, I just
| >googled "dinosaurs alive" and got over 100,000 hits - I don't think
| >that's proof that dinosaurs are alive... 8)
|
| For that matter, I googled "rod speed human" and got over 200,000
| hits!
|
| 8)
|

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.disks.general (More info?)

"chrisv" wrote in message news:05j490htpqf63obkgetgj3chl4puum22qk@4ax.com...
> Well, AlmostBob's google comment was pretty moronic. Hell, I just
> googled "dinosaurs alive" and got over 100,000 hits - I don't think
> that's proof that dinosaurs are alive... 8)
>

You mean, they're not??
http://www.sandiegozoo.org/calendar/wap_dino_mtn.html

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.disks.general (More info?)

That's Hardmeier's zoo, I guess.


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
news:efj3NTyLEHA.140@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
"chrisv" wrote in message
news:05j490htpqf63obkgetgj3chl4puum22qk@4ax.com...
> Well, AlmostBob's google comment was pretty moronic. Hell, I just
> googled "dinosaurs alive" and got over 100,000 hits - I don't think
> that's proof that dinosaurs are alive... 8)
>

You mean, they're not??
http://www.sandiegozoo.org/calendar/wap_dino_mtn.html