MHDD do i need to zeroing ?

Eric Gisin wrote
> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly RemoveThis @my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:c5105c20-73a2-4079-80b8-74a32dac997c@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Arno Wagner wrote:
> >
> > > Zeroing does nothing for HDD health. If the drive has a problem, it
> > > needs to be replaced.
> >
> > I recently jarred a Seagate 80G ST380012A while it was running, and a
> > surface scan revealed a 16K defect that hadn't appeared in the
> > previous scan. The defect disappeared after I zeroed the drive, and
> > it hasn't come back.

> That's a write error caused by the head going off track.

Unless he runs scans continuously when he isn't *writing* to the drive
that's not at all the only possibility.
 >> Stay informed about: MHDD do i need to zeroing ? 

larry moe 'n curly wrote
> Arno Wagner wrote:
>
> > Zeroing does nothing for HDD health. If the drive has a problem, it
> > needs to be replaced.

> I recently jarred a Seagate 80G ST380012A while it was running, and a
> surface scan revealed a 16K defect that hadn't appeared in the previous
> scan.

> The defect disappeared after I zeroed the drive, and it hasn't come back.

Really?
Wow, it worked as it was supposed too. Who could have ever thought that.

Oh uh, which proves what exactly?

>
> > Side note: Remapping can be done today by running a full surface scan
> > (or long SMART selftest, which does the same and some more tests), and,
> > incidentially, in no other way, unless there are pending sectors in the
> > SMART attributes. Then you need to zero these (or the complete drive).

> Before I zeroed the 80G Seagate, I ran the long SMART self test with
> both MHDD and the DOS version of Seagate's SeaTools, but it didn't
> affect the 16K defect.

Of course it didn't. The SMART internal self test is a read only test.
It does nothing (more) that normal use won't do.
You only come to see bad sectors when they are in the pending list which
means that they can't be read and only a re-write can take care of it.
User intervention is needed since the drive itself can't decide whether
the data in the bad sector is in someone's file or not.
The SMART internal self test doesn't allow user intervention.
 >> Stay informed about: MHDD do i need to zeroing ? 

Arno Wagner wrote:

> Previously larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly RemoveThis @my-deja.com> wrote:

> Zeroing does nothing for HDD health. If the drive has a
> problem, it needs to be replaced.
>
> > I recently jarred a Seagate 80G ST380012A while it was running, and a
> > surface scan revealed a 16K defect that hadn't appeared in the
> > previous scan. The defect disappeared after I zeroed the drive, and
> > it hasn't come back.
>
> And still, your surface is not any healthier than before.
> Just a different part of it is used now.

I zeroed the drive in case that bad area was marginal and would be
reused later. I ran Norton 2000 Disk Doctor, which can write several
test patterns without wiping the data, and it showed no other defects.

> Side note: Remapping can be done today by running a full
> surface scan (or long SMART selftest, which does the same
> and some more tests), and, incidentially, in no other way,
> unless there are pending sectors in the SMART attributes.
> Then you need to zero these (or the complete drive).
>
> > Before I zeroed the 80G Seagate, I ran the long SMART self test with
> > both MHDD and the DOS version of Seagate's SeaTools, but it didn't
> > affect the 16K defect.
>
> That would be because you likely had an unreadable sector,
> which also shows up as a pending sector afer a read attempt.

But isn't the long SMART self test supposed to remove the bad sector
from use and substitute a spare sector for it?
 >> Stay informed about: MHDD do i need to zeroing ? 

Previously larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly.TakeThisOut@my-deja.com> wrote:


> Arno Wagner wrote:

>> Zeroing does nothing for HDD health. If the drive has a
>> problem, it needs to be replaced.

> I recently jarred a Seagate 80G ST380012A while it was running, and a
> surface scan revealed a 16K defect that hadn't appeared in the
> previous scan. The defect disappeared after I zeroed the drive, and
> it hasn't come back.

And still, your surface is not any healthier than before.
Just a different part of it is used now.

>> Side note: Remapping can be done today by running a full
>> surface scan (or long SMART selftest, which does the same
>> and some more tests), and, incidentially, in no other way,
>> unless there are pending sectors in the SMART attributes.
>> Then you need to zero these (or the complete drive).

> Before I zeroed the 80G Seagate, I ran the long SMART self test with
> both MHDD and the DOS version of Seagate's SeaTools, but it didn't
> affect the 16K defect.

That would be because you likely had an unreadable secor,
which also shows up as a pending sector afer a read attempt.

Arno
 >> Stay informed about: MHDD do i need to zeroing ? 

Arno Wagner wrote
> Previously larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly.RemoveThis@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Arno Wagner wrote:
>
> > > Zeroing does nothing for HDD health. If the drive has a
> > > problem, it needs to be replaced.
>
> > I recently jarred a Seagate 80G ST380012A while it was running, and a
> > surface scan revealed a 16K defect that hadn't appeared in the
> > previous scan. The defect disappeared after I zeroed the drive, and
> > it hasn't come back.
>
> And still, your surface is not any healthier than before.

> Just a different part of it is used now.

That's not at all certain. He only said it disappeared.
The drive may well have reused the original unreadable
sector because there was nothing physically wrong with it.

>
> > > Side note: Remapping can be done today by running a full
> > > surface scan (or long SMART selftest, which does the same
> > > and some more tests), and, incidentially, in no other way,
> > > unless there are pending sectors in the SMART attributes.
> > > Then you need to zero these (or the complete drive).
>
> > Before I zeroed the 80G Seagate, I ran the long SMART self test with
> > both MHDD and the DOS version of Seagate's SeaTools, but it didn't
> > affect the 16K defect.
>
> That would be because you likely had an unreadable secor,
> which also shows up as a pending sector afer a read attempt.
>
> Arno
 >> Stay informed about: MHDD do i need to zeroing ? 

Previously larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly DeleteThis @my-deja.com> wrote:


> Arno Wagner wrote:

>> Previously larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly DeleteThis @my-deja.com> wrote:

>> Zeroing does nothing for HDD health. If the drive has a
>> problem, it needs to be replaced.
>>
>> > I recently jarred a Seagate 80G ST380012A while it was running, and a
>> > surface scan revealed a 16K defect that hadn't appeared in the
>> > previous scan. The defect disappeared after I zeroed the drive, and
>> > it hasn't come back.
>>
>> And still, your surface is not any healthier than before.
>> Just a different part of it is used now.

> I zeroed the drive in case that bad area was marginal and would be
> reused later. I ran Norton 2000 Disk Doctor, which can write several
> test patterns without wiping the data, and it showed no other defects.

>> Side note: Remapping can be done today by running a full
>> surface scan (or long SMART selftest, which does the same
>> and some more tests), and, incidentially, in no other way,
>> unless there are pending sectors in the SMART attributes.
>> Then you need to zero these (or the complete drive).
>>
>> > Before I zeroed the 80G Seagate, I ran the long SMART self test with
>> > both MHDD and the DOS version of Seagate's SeaTools, but it didn't
>> > affect the 16K defect.
>>
>> That would be because you likely had an unreadable sector,
>> which also shows up as a pending sector afer a read attempt.

> But isn't the long SMART self test supposed to remove the bad sector
> from use and substitute a spare sector for it?

Only if the sector can be read. If it cannot be, it becomes a
"pending sector", that is reallocated on the next write, hence
zeroing can help in some circumstances.

Arno
 >> Stay informed about: MHDD do i need to zeroing ? 

Previously Odie <Fr8dnot.RemoveThis@slapdog.org> wrote:
> Arno Wagner wrote
>> Previously larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly.RemoveThis@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > Arno Wagner wrote:
>>
>> > > Zeroing does nothing for HDD health. If the drive has a
>> > > problem, it needs to be replaced.
>>
>> > I recently jarred a Seagate 80G ST380012A while it was running, and a
>> > surface scan revealed a 16K defect that hadn't appeared in the
>> > previous scan. The defect disappeared after I zeroed the drive, and
>> > it hasn't come back.
>>
>> And still, your surface is not any healthier than before.

>> Just a different part of it is used now.

> That's not at all certain. He only said it disappeared.
> The drive may well have reused the original unreadable
> sector because there was nothing physically wrong with it.

Not my experience (whenever I had pending sectors, they
turned into reallocated ones on write), but of course
this is possible and my sample of disk behaviour in this
case is pretty limited (3 or 4 instances of this specific
problem).

Arno
 >> Stay informed about: MHDD do i need to zeroing ? 

Arno Wagner <me.DeleteThis@privacy.net> wrote:
> Previously larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly.DeleteThis@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Arno Wagner wrote:
>
>>> Zeroing does nothing for HDD health. If the drive has a
>>> problem, it needs to be replaced.
>
>> I recently jarred a Seagate 80G ST380012A while it was running, and a
>> surface scan revealed a 16K defect that hadn't appeared in the
>> previous scan. The defect disappeared after I zeroed the drive, and
>> it hasn't come back.

> And still, your surface is not any healthier than before.

The sectors used to store data in certainly are.

> Just a different part of it is used now.

The healthier part.

>>> Side note: Remapping can be done today by running a full
>>> surface scan (or long SMART selftest, which does the same
>>> and some more tests), and, incidentially, in no other way,
>>> unless there are pending sectors in the SMART attributes.
>>> Then you need to zero these (or the complete drive).
>
>> Before I zeroed the 80G Seagate, I ran the long SMART self test with
>> both MHDD and the DOS version of Seagate's SeaTools, but it didn't
>> affect the 16K defect.

> That would be because you likely had an unreadable secor,
> which also shows up as a pending sector afer a read attempt.
 >> Stay informed about: MHDD do i need to zeroing ? 

Arno Wagner wrote
> Previously Odie <Fr8dnot RemoveThis @slapdog.org> wrote:
> > Arno Wagner wrote
> > > Previously larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly RemoveThis @my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > Arno Wagner wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Zeroing does nothing for HDD health. If the drive has a
> > > > > problem, it needs to be replaced.
> > >
> > > > I recently jarred a Seagate 80G ST380012A while it was running, and a
> > > > surface scan revealed a 16K defect that hadn't appeared in the
> > > > previous scan. The defect disappeared after I zeroed the drive, and
> > > > it hasn't come back.
> > >
> > > And still, your surface is not any healthier than before.
>
> > > Just a different part of it is used now.
>
> > That's not at all certain. He only said it disappeared.
> > The drive may well have reused the original unreadable
> > sector because there was nothing physically wrong with it.
>
> Not my experience (whenever I had pending sectors, they
> turned into reallocated ones on write), but of course
> this is possible and my sample of disk behaviour in this
> case is pretty limited

> (3 or 4 instances of this specific problem).

You do like to knock your drives around for fun then, do you?

>
> Arno
 >> Stay informed about: MHDD do i need to zeroing ? 

123 wrote in news:47e3173c$0$6874$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au
> Arno Wagner <me.RemoveThis@privacy.net> wrote:
> > Previously larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly.RemoveThis@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Arno Wagner wrote:
> >
> > > > Zeroing does nothing for HDD health. If the drive has a
> > > > problem, it needs to be replaced.
> >
> > > I recently jarred a Seagate 80G ST380012A while it was running, and a
> > > surface scan revealed a 16K defect that hadn't appeared in the
> > > previous scan. The defect disappeared after I zeroed the drive, and
> > > it hasn't come back.
>
> > And still, your surface is not any healthier than before.

> The sectors used to store data in certainly are.

Nope, no such certainty at all.

>
> > Just a different part of it is used now.

> The healthier part.

That remains to be seen.
It's supposed to but it was never tested before in regular surface scans.
It's just as vulnerable an area to disaster as the user area except you
can test the user area but not the reserved one.

>
[snip]
 >> Stay informed about: MHDD do i need to zeroing ? 

larry moe 'n curly wrote in
news:d2127469-5887-4018-b1e9-4ebd451b89fe@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com
> Arno Wagner wrote:
>
> > Previously larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly.TakeThisOut@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Zeroing does nothing for HDD health. If the drive has a
> > problem, it needs to be replaced.
> >
> > > I recently jarred a Seagate 80G ST380012A while it was running, and a
> > > surface scan revealed a 16K defect that hadn't appeared in the
> > > previous scan. The defect disappeared after I zeroed the drive, and
> > > it hasn't come back.
> >
> > And still, your surface is not any healthier than before.
> > Just a different part of it is used now.
>
> I zeroed the drive in case that bad area was marginal and would be
> reused later. I ran Norton 2000 Disk Doctor, which can write several
> test patterns without wiping the data, and it showed no other defects.
>
> > Side note: [snip]
> >
> > > Before I zeroed the 80G Seagate, I ran the long SMART self test with
> > > both MHDD and the DOS version of Seagate's SeaTools, but it didn't
> > > affect the 16K defect.
> >
> > That would be because you likely had an unreadable sector,
> > which also shows up as a pending sector afer a read attempt.

> But isn't the long SMART self test supposed to remove the bad sector
> from use and substitute a spare sector for it?

Are you a moron or just plain thick?
 >> Stay informed about: MHDD do i need to zeroing ? 

Arno Wagner wrote
> Previously larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly.TakeThisOut@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Arno Wagner wrote:
> > > Previously larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly.TakeThisOut@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > Zeroing does nothing for HDD health. If the drive has a
> > > problem, it needs to be replaced.
> > >
> > > > I recently jarred a Seagate 80G ST380012A while it was running, and a
> > > > surface scan revealed a 16K defect that hadn't appeared in the
> > > > previous scan. The defect disappeared after I zeroed the drive, and
> > > > it hasn't come back.
> > >
> > > And still, your surface is not any healthier than before.
> > > Just a different part of it is used now.

> > I zeroed the drive in case that bad area was marginal and would be
> > reused later.

It still may.

> > I ran Norton 2000 Disk Doctor, which can write several test patterns
> > without wiping the data,

Like that data matters after a zero action.

> > and it showed no other defects.

Which proves what exactly.

>
> > > Side note: Remapping can be done today by running a full
> > > surface scan (or long SMART selftest, which does the same
> > > and some more tests), and, incidentially, in no other way,
> > > unless there are pending sectors in the SMART attributes.
> > > Then you need to zero these (or the complete drive).
> > >
> > > > Before I zeroed the 80G Seagate, I ran the long SMART self test with
> > > > both MHDD and the DOS version of Seagate's SeaTools, but it didn't
> > > > affect the 16K defect.
> > >
> > > That would be because you likely had an unreadable sector,
> > > which also shows up as a pending sector afer a read attempt.
>
> > But isn't the long SMART self test supposed to remove the bad sector
> > from use and substitute a spare sector for it?

> Only if the sector can be read.

Readable bad sectors, huh.

> If it cannot be, it becomes a "pending sector", that is reallocated
> on the next write, hence zeroing can help in some circumstances.

Yeah, if you want your drive wiped.

>
> Arno
 >> Stay informed about: MHDD do i need to zeroing ? 

Previously Odie <Fr8dnot.DeleteThis@slapdog.org> wrote:
> Arno Wagner wrote
>> Previously Odie <Fr8dnot.DeleteThis@slapdog.org> wrote:
>> > Arno Wagner wrote
>> > > Previously larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly.DeleteThis@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > > > Arno Wagner wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > > Zeroing does nothing for HDD health. If the drive has a
>> > > > > problem, it needs to be replaced.
>> > >
>> > > > I recently jarred a Seagate 80G ST380012A while it was running, and a
>> > > > surface scan revealed a 16K defect that hadn't appeared in the
>> > > > previous scan. The defect disappeared after I zeroed the drive, and
>> > > > it hasn't come back.
>> > >
>> > > And still, your surface is not any healthier than before.
>>
>> > > Just a different part of it is used now.
>>
>> > That's not at all certain. He only said it disappeared.
>> > The drive may well have reused the original unreadable
>> > sector because there was nothing physically wrong with it.
>>
>> Not my experience (whenever I had pending sectors, they
>> turned into reallocated ones on write), but of course
>> this is possible and my sample of disk behaviour in this
>> case is pretty limited

>> (3 or 4 instances of this specific problem).

> You do like to knock your drives around for fun then, do you?

Not at all. This is out of about 80 disk I have been operating.

Arno
 >> Stay informed about: MHDD do i need to zeroing ?