| 1 |
William Kenworthy wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 21:19 -0500, Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Paul Hartman wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> I didn't know you could do low level formats anymore. Really? What |
| 6 |
>>>> package provides that? Hmmm, I'm thinking about those HOURS spent |
| 7 |
>>>> formatting a 100Mb drive and then thinking about how long it will take |
| 8 |
>>>> to do a 3Tb drive. O_O I mean really O_O. LOL |
| 9 |
>>> hdparm provides it. Do a search for "ATA secure erase" or "enhanced |
| 10 |
>>> secure erase". It is as close as there is to a low-level format in |
| 11 |
> ... |
| 12 |
>> I have seen where people use dd to do this sort of thing to. I read |
| 13 |
>> somewhere that if you do a dd and put in all 1's, then all 0's then back |
| 14 |
>> again that it is very hard to get any data back off the drive. I think |
| 15 |
>> if you do it like over a dozen times, it is deemed impossible to get |
| 16 |
>> anything back. I think that is the Government standard of it's gone. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> 4 or 5 hours huh. I guess drives are a lot faster now. Back in the |
| 19 |
>> late 80's or early 90's, it took that long for those whimpy little 100Mb |
| 20 |
>> drives. Ooops, my ages is showing again. lol |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> I got to go read up on hdparm. I already have it installed here. I'm |
| 23 |
>> not planning to use this part but do want to read up on this. |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
>> Thanks. |
| 26 |
>> |
| 27 |
>> Dale |
| 28 |
>> |
| 29 |
>> :-) :-) |
| 30 |
>> |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Goggle have a well known document |
| 33 |
> (http://research.google.com/archive/disk_failures.pdf) where they |
| 34 |
> analysed hard drive failures for a very large number of drives ... the |
| 35 |
> basic upshot is that a very large portion of failures happen with no |
| 36 |
> pre-warning, so testing a drive like you are proposing not going to |
| 37 |
> prove a thing. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> They also found that smart (is quite dumb) and its tests were of little |
| 40 |
> use. |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> And high temperatures and work loads were also not a reliable guide to |
| 43 |
> trends in failure rates, both of which which surprised me. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> Some of those bathtub curves that I was trained on when setting |
| 46 |
> maintenance schedules dont hold water here! |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> This anaysis of the paper looks quite good if you want the lite view: |
| 49 |
> http://storagemojo.com/2007/02/19/googles-disk-failure-experience/ |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> BillK |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> BillK |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
Well, I am going by actual real experiences from other users of this |
| 60 |
model of drive. I don't know what google was testing but I would bet it |
| 61 |
is not the drive model I just bought. The users who bought this exact |
| 62 |
model drive report that most failures are either out of the box or |
| 63 |
within a few weeks to a month. I'm just going to try to increase my |
| 64 |
odds even if it is just a little bit. |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
Smart may not always predict a failure but it is better than nothing at |
| 67 |
all. Would you rather have a tool that may predict a failure or no tool |
| 68 |
at all? Me, I'd rather have something that at least tries too. The one |
| 69 |
drive I had to go bad, Smart predicted it very well. It said I had |
| 70 |
about 24 hrs to get my stuff off. Sure enough, the next day, it |
| 71 |
wouldn't do anything but spin. Without Smart and its prediction, I'd |
| 72 |
have lost the data on the drive with no warning at all. |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
A couple questions. What if while I am testing this drive, it dies? |
| 75 |
Does that prove that my testing benefited me then? |
| 76 |
|
| 77 |
Dale |
| 78 |
|
| 79 |
:-) :-) |
| 80 |
|
| 81 |
-- |
| 82 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! |
Archives