MHDD do i need to zeroing ?

Previously Odie <Fr8dnot.TakeThisOut@slapdog.org> wrote:
> 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.

And now I know that you are not Odie. Seems some person with low
self esteem needed to steal some identity again in order to be heard
at all. Face it, you still do not have a clue.

Arno

Odie <Fr8dnot DeleteThis @SlapDog.org> wrote:
> 123 wrote in
> news:47e3173c$0$6874$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au
>> 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.
>
> Nope, no such certainty at all.

Wrong. A sector which is questionable for whatever reason is added to the
bad sector list, the sectors used for data are healthier, even if only because
the one that there was some doubt about isnt being used for data anymore.

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

>> The healthier part.

> That remains to be seen.

Nope, that was a general point, not a comment about the specific sector in the OP.

> It's supposed to but it was never tested before in regular surface scans.

But was tested in manufacturing.

> 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.

Wrong again. The reserved ones arent vulnerable to damage when they are being written
to, because by definition they wont be being written to when they are in the reserved list.