From: A Kumar (thinkpad_at_akumar.org)
Date: Sun Nov 18 2001 - 14:00:00 EST
Every hard drive has some bad sectors that are hidden when it is
manufactured. Like LCDs its not economically feasible to make them
perfect.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: STeve Andre' [mailto:andres_at_msu.edu]
> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 1:29 PM
> To: THINKPAD_at_cs.utk.edu
> Subject: Re: [660X] 12gb Travelstar 20GN?
>
>
> *Ugh*
>
> If a disk is bad, it's BAD. Even in the case then you've
> found bad sectors on the disk right after it was made, you
> don't really know exactly why they were bad. Not really.
>
> Taking a larger disk and chopping off the offending part
> sounds VERY much like a beancounter found out that the
> controller on the disk was intelligent, and this could be done.
>
> Think about it for a minute: *why* are there bad sectors on
> the disk at all? Something went wrong, or something is in
> the disk causing them. Stopping the disk from getting to
> those bad spots is OK *if you know* that the bad sectors were
> there at the time of manufacture; you may then presumably
> assume that a particular spot on the disk wasn't perfect, and
> is and always will be bad.
>
> Call me paranoid. I'm glad this subject came up, because now
> I can plan on buying new disks if any of my current ibm units
> fail. I should check on maxtor as well.
>
> ...I consider this just another part of the larger problem of
> the decline of hardware overall, and the fact that razor thin
> profit margins means that something has to give. Pressing
> bad disks into service again is just another sign that the
> bottom line trumps everything else.
>
> --STeve Andre'
>
> At 05:55 PM 11/18/01 +0000, Kevin Jarrett wrote:
> >Thanks for the info. Precisely what I suspected. I don't
> much care, the
> >drive is fast and quiet, as long as more bad sectors don't 'grow'.
> >Shouldn't that be a non-issue since presumably the bad
> >areas/platters/whatever have been effectively disabled?
> >
> >Also, what program did you use to get this HD info?
> >
> >Thanks, kj
> >
> >I checked a little further about the HDD that I have that is
> identical
> >to
> >yours and this is what the HDD reports when it is properly queryed:
> >
> >PRIMARY_MASTER:
> >[IDE drive]
> >Model: IBM-DJSA-220
> >FirmWare: JSGIAC1A
> >SerialNumber: 44T44NW0958
> >Cilinders: 16383
> >Heads: 15
> >SecPerTrack: 63
> >
> >So actually it is a DJSA-220. What I suspect now is the following
> >scenario: these drives are refurbished 20G drives that had
> bad sectors
> >and the were
> >reprogrammed to report a lower capacity so they can use these
> >drives for
> >replacing other defective drives. This is just a hypothesis but
> >I don't have
> >other resonable explanation. The software I used for querying
> >reports more
> >info but some seem not to be supported by the hdd:
> >(format with a proportional font for better viewing)
> >
> >Attribute Name Value Threshold WorstValue Status
> >-----------------------------------------------------------
> >THROUGHPUT_PERF 100 40 100 &HB
> >SPIN_UP_TIME 100 33 100 &H5
> >START_STOP_COUNT 113 0 113 &H7
> >REALLOC_SECTOR_COUNT 100 5 100 &H12
> >SEEK_ERROR_RATE 100 67 100 &H33
> >SEEK_TIME_PERF 100 40 100 &HB
> >POWER_ON_HRS_COUNT 100 0 100 &H5
> >SPIN_RETRY_COUNT 100 60 100 &H12
> >POWER_CYCLE_COUNT 100 0 100 &H13
> >G_SENSE_ERROR_RATE 100 0 100 &H32
> >POWER_OFF_RETRACT_CYCLE 100 0 100 &HA
> >LOAD_UNLOAD_CYCLE_COUNT 100 50 100 &H32
> >REALLOCATION_EVENTS_COUNT100 0 100 &H12
> >RENT_PENDING_SECTOR_COUNT100 0 100 &H32
> >NCORRECTABLE_SECTOR_COUNT100 0 100 &H22
> >ULTRADMA_CRC_ERROR_RATE 100 0 100 &H8
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> >http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:57:48 EST