Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Maxtor HDDs - Powermax Surface Test Error Mysteriously Dis..

Tags:
Last response: in Storage
Share
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 26, 2004 3:52:30 PM

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

Hi,

Hoping someone with experience using powermax can help me understand
this. My system specs:

Win98SE
P4 1.8ghz CPU 512mb PC2700 ram
2 Maxtor 40gb DIamondmax UDMA133 drives in RAID ARRAY (Striped) via
MBFastTrack 133 lite built into Gigabyte GA8IEXP Mobo (Promise Tech
RAID Controller).
1 Seagate 40gb HDD (Data)

2 days ago, my PC hung and I had to shutdown the system (win98se) and
reboot. When I rebooted, I did a scandisk and it got stuck at 48%
scanning the file allocation table (FAT), and promptly coughed up
"Scandisk encountered data error while reading the FAT on drive C".
Panic attack. Tried using scandisk several times with various options
- no go. Used Norton Disk Doctor (in DOS mode) - no luck either.
Strangely enough, I was still able to reboot, and because I had my
startup menu options available by default, I could always boot to
command prompt mode and even the Norton Antivirus would be able to
scan and run there. I was able to copy out my critical files from my C
Drive without any problems.

This made me think that there is simply a mismatch between the
original FAT and the backup (2nd) FAT which needs to be corrected
somehow. Or bad sectors might be the cause. So I downloaded Powermax
from Maxtor to check the 2 HDDs. It detected them properly and then I
ran an advanced surface test on the first HDD. After some time it
encountered an error and asked if I wanted to fix it. As I hadn't
completed copying out my files, I said no to the fix.

I tried running Win98 in Safe mode and that worked without any
problems. I used scandisk from within safemode and it recognised the
FAT error and fixed it along with some other errors (time stamp
errors) it encountered. Rebooted to normal windows after this, and no
problems. Did Scandisk and NDD 3-4 times including surface tests and
again no problems.

Did a powermax surface test again, and this time it certified both
HDDs as clear of errors/bad sectors!

What happened to the initial error? Does powermax's surface test
'check' the FAT to see if there is a problem there? I thought all it
does is check the surface for bad sectors? If it does check FAT then I
can understand why it's now cleared of errors, but if not... where did
my error/bad sector disappear to?

Is it time to change my HDDs??

Any help greatly appreciated on this!
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 26, 2004 9:46:08 PM

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

Most disk diags from the drive manufacturers test the file system before they test the surface of the drive. However you state that you were (apparently) well into the surface check when Powermax reported an error.

Modern hard drives have the ability to repair themselves, insofar as they can use a spare cluster to "replace" a damaged one, copying the data over if possible, and then removing the bad cluster from use.

Once the drive accomplishes that, neither Scandisk nor Powermax should see the bad cluster at all anymore. This may be what occurred in your case. Not a very technical answer, I know, but I think I have the gist of it right. :-)
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP W95/98 Systems
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"Saidean" <saidean@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:19dc7920.0404261052.4611bc58@posting.google.com...
> Hi,
>
> Hoping someone with experience using powermax can help me understand
> this. My system specs:
>
> Win98SE
> P4 1.8ghz CPU 512mb PC2700 ram
> 2 Maxtor 40gb DIamondmax UDMA133 drives in RAID ARRAY (Striped) via
> MBFastTrack 133 lite built into Gigabyte GA8IEXP Mobo (Promise Tech
> RAID Controller).
> 1 Seagate 40gb HDD (Data)
>
> 2 days ago, my PC hung and I had to shutdown the system (win98se) and
> reboot. When I rebooted, I did a scandisk and it got stuck at 48%
> scanning the file allocation table (FAT), and promptly coughed up
> "Scandisk encountered data error while reading the FAT on drive C".
> Panic attack. Tried using scandisk several times with various options
> - no go. Used Norton Disk Doctor (in DOS mode) - no luck either.
> Strangely enough, I was still able to reboot, and because I had my
> startup menu options available by default, I could always boot to
> command prompt mode and even the Norton Antivirus would be able to
> scan and run there. I was able to copy out my critical files from my C
> Drive without any problems.
>
> This made me think that there is simply a mismatch between the
> original FAT and the backup (2nd) FAT which needs to be corrected
> somehow. Or bad sectors might be the cause. So I downloaded Powermax
> from Maxtor to check the 2 HDDs. It detected them properly and then I
> ran an advanced surface test on the first HDD. After some time it
> encountered an error and asked if I wanted to fix it. As I hadn't
> completed copying out my files, I said no to the fix.
>
> I tried running Win98 in Safe mode and that worked without any
> problems. I used scandisk from within safemode and it recognised the
> FAT error and fixed it along with some other errors (time stamp
> errors) it encountered. Rebooted to normal windows after this, and no
> problems. Did Scandisk and NDD 3-4 times including surface tests and
> again no problems.
>
> Did a powermax surface test again, and this time it certified both
> HDDs as clear of errors/bad sectors!
>
> What happened to the initial error? Does powermax's surface test
> 'check' the FAT to see if there is a problem there? I thought all it
> does is check the surface for bad sectors? If it does check FAT then I
> can understand why it's now cleared of errors, but if not... where did
> my error/bad sector disappear to?
>
> Is it time to change my HDDs??
>
> Any help greatly appreciated on this!
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 27, 2004 4:31:58 AM

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

"glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message news:u4JoXf9KEHA.3472@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl
> Most disk diags from the drive manufacturers test the file system before they test the surface of the drive. However you state
> that you were (apparently) well into the surface check when Powermax reported an error.
>
> Modern hard drives have the ability to repair themselves,

> insofar as they can use a spare cluster to "replace" a damaged one,

Hard drives do not use clusters.

> copying the data over if possible, and then removing the bad cluster from use.
>
> Once the drive accomplishes that, neither Scandisk nor Powermax should see the bad cluster at all anymore. This may be what
> occurred in your case.

> Not a very technical answer, I know, but I think I have the gist of it right. :-)

Barely. And it doesnt explain what he saw.

> --
> Glen Ventura, MS MVP W95/98 Systems

> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

And now the even allow trolls to be MVPs.

>
> "Saidean" <saidean@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:19dc7920.0404261052.4611bc58@posting.google.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Hoping someone with experience using powermax can help me understand
> > this. My system specs:
> >
> > Win98SE
> > P4 1.8ghz CPU 512mb PC2700 ram
> > 2 Maxtor 40gb DIamondmax UDMA133 drives in RAID ARRAY (Striped) via
> > MBFastTrack 133 lite built into Gigabyte GA8IEXP Mobo (Promise Tech
> > RAID Controller).
> > 1 Seagate 40gb HDD (Data)
> >
> > 2 days ago, my PC hung and I had to shutdown the system (win98se) and
> > reboot. When I rebooted, I did a scandisk and it got stuck at 48%
> > scanning the file allocation table (FAT), and promptly coughed up
> > "Scandisk encountered data error while reading the FAT on drive C".
> > Panic attack. Tried using scandisk several times with various options
> > - no go. Used Norton Disk Doctor (in DOS mode) - no luck either.
> > Strangely enough, I was still able to reboot, and because I had my
> > startup menu options available by default, I could always boot to
> > command prompt mode and even the Norton Antivirus would be able to
> > scan and run there. I was able to copy out my critical files from my C
> > Drive without any problems.
> >
> > This made me think that there is simply a mismatch between the
> > original FAT and the backup (2nd) FAT which needs to be corrected
> > somehow. Or bad sectors might be the cause. So I downloaded Powermax
> > from Maxtor to check the 2 HDDs. It detected them properly and then I
> > ran an advanced surface test on the first HDD. After some time it
> > encountered an error and asked if I wanted to fix it. As I hadn't
> > completed copying out my files, I said no to the fix.
> >
> > I tried running Win98 in Safe mode and that worked without any
> > problems. I used scandisk from within safemode and it recognised the
> > FAT error and fixed it along with some other errors (time stamp
> > errors) it encountered. Rebooted to normal windows after this, and no
> > problems. Did Scandisk and NDD 3-4 times including surface tests and
> > again no problems.
> >
> > Did a powermax surface test again, and this time it certified both
> > HDDs as clear of errors/bad sectors!
> >
> > What happened to the initial error? Does powermax's surface test
> > 'check' the FAT to see if there is a problem there? I thought all it
> > does is check the surface for bad sectors? If it does check FAT then I
> > can understand why it's now cleared of errors, but if not... where did
> > my error/bad sector disappear to?
> >
> > Is it time to change my HDDs??
> >
> > Any help greatly appreciated on this!
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 27, 2004 4:31:59 AM

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

Just a hint,
a google search for "Hard drive cluster" returns 397,000 responses
Details view in defrag displays a cluster map
Start/Help/Search/"cluster" returns this text
Drive Converter (FAT32) is an improved version of the File Allocation Table
(FAT) that allows hard drives over two gigabytes to be formatted as a single
drive. Drive Converter uses smaller clusters than FAT drives, resulting in
more efficient space use. Windows 98 includes a graphical Drive Converter
conversion utility, which quickly and safely converts a hard drive from the
original FAT to FAT32.

1.Perhaps Hard drives do use clusters,
and 2.Glee earns his stripes, you havent
--
Adaware http://www.lavasoft.de
spybot http://security.kolla.de
AVG http://www.grisoft.com
Panda online scan http://www.pandasoftware.com/ActiveScan/
Catalog of removal tools http://www.pandasoftware.com/download/utilities/
Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts file
http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
links provided as a courtesy,
Grateful thanks to the authors/webmasters


"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> Stuffed Up Hugely in
news:c6kdkk$cm3kn$1@ID-79662.news.uni-berlin.de...
| "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
news:u4JoXf9KEHA.3472@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl
| > Most disk diags from the drive manufacturers test the file system before
they test the surface of the drive. However you state
| > that you were (apparently) well into the surface check when Powermax
reported an error.
| >
| > Modern hard drives have the ability to repair themselves,
|
| > insofar as they can use a spare cluster to "replace" a damaged one,
|
| Hard drives do not use clusters.
|
<<Snipped for brevity>>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 27, 2004 4:31:59 AM

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

I meat to say "sector" not "cluster".
I gave a possible scenario, not being sure from the info in the post what was fixed by scandisk in Safe Mode, nor what was found originally by Powermax. I answered the post in the win98.gen_discussion group, which is not the hang-out of disk specialists....there is no need for you to be rude.

BTW, Folkert, you calling someone else a troll is pretty funny, from what I recall of the time I spent in the pc.hardware.storage group a few years ago....why not do a search in Google groups archive, where you will see that I am certainly not a troll.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP W95/98 Systems
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message news:c6kdkk$cm3kn$1@ID-79662.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message news:u4JoXf9KEHA.3472@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl
> > Most disk diags from the drive manufacturers test the file system before they test the surface of the drive. However you state
> > that you were (apparently) well into the surface check when Powermax reported an error.
> >
> > Modern hard drives have the ability to repair themselves,
>
> > insofar as they can use a spare cluster to "replace" a damaged one,
>
> Hard drives do not use clusters.
>
> > copying the data over if possible, and then removing the bad cluster from use.
> >
> > Once the drive accomplishes that, neither Scandisk nor Powermax should see the bad cluster at all anymore. This may be what
> > occurred in your case.
>
> > Not a very technical answer, I know, but I think I have the gist of it right. :-)
>
> Barely. And it doesnt explain what he saw.
>
> > --
> > Glen Ventura, MS MVP W95/98 Systems
>
> > http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>
> And now the even allow trolls to be MVPs.
>
> >
> > "Saidean" <saidean@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:19dc7920.0404261052.4611bc58@posting.google.com...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Hoping someone with experience using powermax can help me understand
> > > this. My system specs:
> > >
> > > Win98SE
> > > P4 1.8ghz CPU 512mb PC2700 ram
> > > 2 Maxtor 40gb DIamondmax UDMA133 drives in RAID ARRAY (Striped) via
> > > MBFastTrack 133 lite built into Gigabyte GA8IEXP Mobo (Promise Tech
> > > RAID Controller).
> > > 1 Seagate 40gb HDD (Data)
> > >
> > > 2 days ago, my PC hung and I had to shutdown the system (win98se) and
> > > reboot. When I rebooted, I did a scandisk and it got stuck at 48%
> > > scanning the file allocation table (FAT), and promptly coughed up
> > > "Scandisk encountered data error while reading the FAT on drive C".
> > > Panic attack. Tried using scandisk several times with various options
> > > - no go. Used Norton Disk Doctor (in DOS mode) - no luck either.
> > > Strangely enough, I was still able to reboot, and because I had my
> > > startup menu options available by default, I could always boot to
> > > command prompt mode and even the Norton Antivirus would be able to
> > > scan and run there. I was able to copy out my critical files from my C
> > > Drive without any problems.
> > >
> > > This made me think that there is simply a mismatch between the
> > > original FAT and the backup (2nd) FAT which needs to be corrected
> > > somehow. Or bad sectors might be the cause. So I downloaded Powermax
> > > from Maxtor to check the 2 HDDs. It detected them properly and then I
> > > ran an advanced surface test on the first HDD. After some time it
> > > encountered an error and asked if I wanted to fix it. As I hadn't
> > > completed copying out my files, I said no to the fix.
> > >
> > > I tried running Win98 in Safe mode and that worked without any
> > > problems. I used scandisk from within safemode and it recognised the
> > > FAT error and fixed it along with some other errors (time stamp
> > > errors) it encountered. Rebooted to normal windows after this, and no
> > > problems. Did Scandisk and NDD 3-4 times including surface tests and
> > > again no problems.
> > >
> > > Did a powermax surface test again, and this time it certified both
> > > HDDs as clear of errors/bad sectors!
> > >
> > > What happened to the initial error? Does powermax's surface test
> > > 'check' the FAT to see if there is a problem there? I thought all it
> > > does is check the surface for bad sectors? If it does check FAT then I
> > > can understand why it's now cleared of errors, but if not... where did
> > > my error/bad sector disappear to?
> > >
> > > Is it time to change my HDDs??
> > >
> > > Any help greatly appreciated on this!
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 27, 2004 4:45:36 AM

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

"Saidean" <saidean@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:19dc7920.0404261052.4611bc58@posting.google.com...
> Hi,
>
> Hoping someone with experience using powermax can help me understand
> this. My system specs:
>
> Win98SE
> P4 1.8ghz CPU 512mb PC2700 ram
> 2 Maxtor 40gb DIamondmax UDMA133 drives in RAID ARRAY (Striped) via
> MBFastTrack 133 lite built into Gigabyte GA8IEXP Mobo (Promise Tech
> RAID Controller).
> 1 Seagate 40gb HDD (Data)
>
> 2 days ago, my PC hung and I had to shutdown the system (win98se) and
> reboot. When I rebooted, I did a scandisk and it got stuck at 48%
> scanning the file allocation table (FAT), and promptly coughed up
> "Scandisk encountered data error while reading the FAT on drive C".
> Panic attack. Tried using scandisk several times with various options
> - no go. Used Norton Disk Doctor (in DOS mode) - no luck either.
> Strangely enough, I was still able to reboot, and because I had my
> startup menu options available by default, I could always boot to
> command prompt mode and even the Norton Antivirus would be able to
> scan and run there. I was able to copy out my critical files from my C
> Drive without any problems.
>
> This made me think that there is simply a mismatch between the
> original FAT and the backup (2nd) FAT which needs to be corrected
> somehow. Or bad sectors might be the cause. So I downloaded Powermax
> from Maxtor to check the 2 HDDs. It detected them properly and then I
> ran an advanced surface test on the first HDD. After some time it
> encountered an error and asked if I wanted to fix it.

> As I hadn't completed copying out my files, I said no to the fix.

>
> I tried running Win98 in Safe mode and that worked without any
> problems.

> I used scandisk from within safemode and it recognised the FAT error and
> fixed it along with some other errors (time stamp errors) it encountered.

> Rebooted to normal windows after this, and no problems. Did Scandisk
> and NDD 3-4 times including surface tests and again no problems.
>
> Did a powermax surface test again, and this time it certified both
> HDDs as clear of errors/bad sectors!
>
> What happened to the initial error?

It got cleared.

> Does powermax's surface test 'check' the FAT to see if there is a problem
> there?

Probably not, although some utes are FS aware.

> I thought all it does is check the surface for bad sectors?

> If it does check FAT then I can understand why it's now cleared of errors,

Nope, you said you didn't allow it to.

> but if not... where did my error/bad sector disappear to?

You answered that yourself:
You used scandisk from within safemode and it recognised the FAT error and
fixed it along with some other errors (time stamp errors) it encountered.

Simple, no?

>
> Is it time to change my HDDs??
>
> Any help greatly appreciated on this!
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 27, 2004 11:08:27 AM

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

What a moron. Spend a day at pcguide.com. Hard drives do not have clusters.

"AlmostBob" <anonymous1@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:o JY73z$KEHA.1032@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Just a hint,
> a google search for "Hard drive cluster" returns 397,000 responses
> Details view in defrag displays a cluster map
> Start/Help/Search/"cluster" returns this text
> Drive Converter (FAT32) is an improved version of the File Allocation Table
> (FAT) that allows hard drives over two gigabytes to be formatted as a single
> drive. Drive Converter uses smaller clusters than FAT drives, resulting in
> more efficient space use. Windows 98 includes a graphical Drive Converter
> conversion utility, which quickly and safely converts a hard drive from the
> original FAT to FAT32.
>
> 1.Perhaps Hard drives do use clusters,
> and 2.Glee earns his stripes, you havent
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 27, 2004 9:39:30 PM

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

> > Did a powermax surface test again, and this time it certified both
> > HDDs as clear of errors/bad sectors!
> >
> > What happened to the initial error?
>
> It got cleared.
While I can understand that I 'cleared' it via scandisk in safe mode,
I ask this question because as you stated next:

> > Does powermax's surface test 'check' the FAT to see if there is a problem
> > there?
>
> Probably not, although some utes are FS aware.

what I'm still confused over is that IF (as you stated) powermax's
surface test does NOT check the FAT, then the initial problem detected
by powermax's surface test should still be there, even though the FAT
was repaired by scandisk in safe mode. Isn't this correct?

(Also what is FS aware?)


> > but if not... where did my error/bad sector disappear to?
>
> You answered that yourself:
> You used scandisk from within safemode and it recognised the FAT error and
> fixed it along with some other errors (time stamp errors) it encountered.
>
> Simple, no?
I don't see it though - IF scandisk repaired the error (which is
true), then powermax should STILL detect its error via its surface
test, since that doesn't involve the FAT. But after the FAT has been
repaired, powermax's surface test no longer showed this bad sector
error anymore.

If as a previous poster said, the HDD 'repaired itself', how does the
HDD know there are bad sectors if they were never marked? The HDD
never had any bad sectors marked or any problems with bad sectors
before this. Even now after several surface scans using scandisk, NDD
and powermax, it shows all clear.

So unless powermax DOES verify the FAT when it does the surface test,
(which would account for the error no longer being reported after
scandisk fixed it), I cannot understand how the bad sector error
reported by powermax disappeared after scandisk fixed the FAT.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 28, 2004 12:44:07 AM

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

It could be as Glee said, that it was auto-fixed by a chip on the hard
drive. But... indeed you do appear to have said Scandisk fixed the
error, two paragraphs before you ask where it went to.... "I used
scandisk from within safemode and it recognized the FAT error and fixed
it".

But, in case you are as batty as Reienstra/Gisin are nasty, just look
inside C:\Scandisk.log. What does it say in there?

Uhhhhh, I think, as the drive now passes all scans, it is still good.
Also, there was a good reason for the error-- you did crash first. Go
on, make a full system backup, though. And next week run those scans
again!


--
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
"Saidean" <saidean@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:19dc7920.0404261052.4611bc58@posting.google.com...
| Hi,
|
| Hoping someone with experience using powermax can help me understand
| this. My system specs:
|
| Win98SE
| P4 1.8ghz CPU 512mb PC2700 ram
| 2 Maxtor 40gb DIamondmax UDMA133 drives in RAID ARRAY (Striped) via
| MBFastTrack 133 lite built into Gigabyte GA8IEXP Mobo (Promise Tech
| RAID Controller).
| 1 Seagate 40gb HDD (Data)
|
| 2 days ago, my PC hung and I had to shutdown the system (win98se) and
| reboot. When I rebooted, I did a scandisk and it got stuck at 48%
| scanning the file allocation table (FAT), and promptly coughed up
| "Scandisk encountered data error while reading the FAT on drive C".
| Panic attack. Tried using scandisk several times with various options
| - no go. Used Norton Disk Doctor (in DOS mode) - no luck either.
| Strangely enough, I was still able to reboot, and because I had my
| startup menu options available by default, I could always boot to
| command prompt mode and even the Norton Antivirus would be able to
| scan and run there. I was able to copy out my critical files from my C
| Drive without any problems.
|
| This made me think that there is simply a mismatch between the
| original FAT and the backup (2nd) FAT which needs to be corrected
| somehow. Or bad sectors might be the cause. So I downloaded Powermax
| from Maxtor to check the 2 HDDs. It detected them properly and then I
| ran an advanced surface test on the first HDD. After some time it
| encountered an error and asked if I wanted to fix it. As I hadn't
| completed copying out my files, I said no to the fix.
|
| I tried running Win98 in Safe mode and that worked without any
| problems. I used scandisk from within safemode and it recognised the
| FAT error and fixed it along with some other errors (time stamp
| errors) it encountered. Rebooted to normal windows after this, and no
| problems. Did Scandisk and NDD 3-4 times including surface tests and
| again no problems.
|
| Did a powermax surface test again, and this time it certified both
| HDDs as clear of errors/bad sectors!
|
| What happened to the initial error? Does powermax's surface test
| 'check' the FAT to see if there is a problem there? I thought all it
| does is check the surface for bad sectors? If it does check FAT then I
| can understand why it's now cleared of errors, but if not... where did
| my error/bad sector disappear to?
|
| Is it time to change my HDDs??
|
| Any help greatly appreciated on this!
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 28, 2004 3:19:17 AM

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

"AlmostBob" <anonymous1@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:o JY73z$KEHA.1032@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Just a hint,
> a google search for "Hard drive cluster" returns 397,000 responses

Hardly surprising when one doesn't know how to conduct a search.

> Details view in defrag displays a cluster map
>
> Start/Help/Search/"cluster" returns this text
> Drive Converter (FAT32) is an improved version of the File Allocation Table
> (FAT) that allows hard drives over two gigabytes to be formatted as a single
> drive. Drive Converter uses smaller clusters than FAT drives, resulting in
> more efficient space use. Windows 98 includes a graphical Drive Converter
> conversion utility, which quickly and safely converts a hard drive from the
> original FAT to FAT32.

None of that has to do with how a harddrive is organized/accessed on the
hardware level. Obviously you don't even know the difference between a
physical drive (harddrive) and a logical drive (formatted partition) and how
filesystems work.

>
> 1.Perhaps Hard drives do use clusters,

Nope, they use sectors (or blocks depending on depending on
whether you speak IDE or SCSI). Filesystems use clusters.

> and 2.Glee earns his stripes,

Sure he does, applied with a whip, obviously.

> you havent

Clueless.
Can't even setup his newsreader properly so thats actually no surprise.

>
> "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> Stuffed Up Hugely in news:c6kdkk$cm3kn$1@ID-79662.news.uni-berlin.de...
> | "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message news:u4JoXf9KEHA.3472@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl
> | > Most disk diags from the drive manufacturers test the file system before
> they test the surface of the drive. However you state
> | > that you were (apparently) well into the surface check when Powermax
> reported an error.
> | >
> | > Modern hard drives have the ability to repair themselves,
> |
> | > insofar as they can use a spare cluster to "replace" a damaged one,
> |
> | Hard drives do not use clusters.
> |
> <<Snipped for brevity>>
>
>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 28, 2004 4:25:34 AM

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

"glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message news:o oIwMNALEHA.2704@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl
>
> I meat to say "sector" not "cluster".

Well, that can happen when you are a very lazy person that doesn't proofread
his posts, which you obviously didn't do this time as well. A very lazy person that
obviously lets the newsclient do the line breaking instead of doing that himself.

> I gave a possible scenario,

> not being sure from the info in the post what was fixed by scandisk in Safe Mode,

A good reason to refrain from answering, I would think.
And if you had read his post properly you would have found that he did post at
what point the drive was corrected.

> nor what was found originally by Powermax.

He was very clear on that, initially.

> I answered the post in the win98.gen_discussion group, which is not the hang-out
> of disk specialists....

Obviously more reason to refrain and let the disk specialists answer it.

> there is no need for you to be rude.

Ofcourse there is.

>
> BTW, Folkert, you calling someone else a troll is pretty funny,

Nope, it is pretty serious.

> from what I recall of the time I spent in the pc.hardware.storage
> group a few years ago....why not do a search in Google groups archive,

> where you will see that I am certainly not a troll.

You are, in my book, when you post a link to goodpost.htm but obviously have
never read it yourself and break about every rule in there and then some.

You toppost, you post using quoted printable, don't use linebreaks and to top
it off you have an account at Mindspring. Yeah, you obviously are no troll.

>
> "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message news:c6kdkk$cm3kn$1@ID-79662.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message news:u4JoXf9KEHA.3472@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl
>>> Most disk diags from the drive manufacturers test the file system before they test the surface of the drive. However you state
>>> that you were (apparently) well into the surface check when Powermax reported an error.
>>>
>>> Modern hard drives have the ability to repair themselves,
>>
>>> insofar as they can use a spare cluster to "replace" a damaged one,
>>
>> Hard drives do not use clusters.
>>
>>> copying the data over if possible, and then removing the bad cluster from use.
>>>
>>> Once the drive accomplishes that, neither Scandisk nor Powermax should see the bad cluster at all anymore. This may be what
>>> occurred in your case.
>>
>>> Not a very technical answer, I know, but I think I have the gist of it right. :-)
>>
>> Barely. And it doesnt explain what he saw.
>>
>>> --
>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP W95/98 Systems
>>
>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>
>> And now they even allow trolls to be MVPs.
>>
>>>
>>> "Saidean" <saidean@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:19dc7920.0404261052.4611bc58@posting.google.com...
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Hoping someone with experience using powermax can help me understand
>>>> this. My system specs:
>>>>
>>>> Win98SE
>>>> P4 1.8ghz CPU 512mb PC2700 ram
>>>> 2 Maxtor 40gb DIamondmax UDMA133 drives in RAID ARRAY (Striped) via
>>>> MBFastTrack 133 lite built into Gigabyte GA8IEXP Mobo (Promise Tech
>>>> RAID Controller).
>>>> 1 Seagate 40gb HDD (Data)
>>>>
>>>> 2 days ago, my PC hung and I had to shutdown the system (win98se) and
>>>> reboot. When I rebooted, I did a scandisk and it got stuck at 48%
>>>> scanning the file allocation table (FAT), and promptly coughed up
>>>> "Scandisk encountered data error while reading the FAT on drive C".
>>>> Panic attack. Tried using scandisk several times with various options
>>>> - no go. Used Norton Disk Doctor (in DOS mode) - no luck either.
>>>> Strangely enough, I was still able to reboot, and because I had my
>>>> startup menu options available by default, I could always boot to
>>>> command prompt mode and even the Norton Antivirus would be able to
>>>> scan and run there. I was able to copy out my critical files from my C
>>>> Drive without any problems.
>>>>
>>>> This made me think that there is simply a mismatch between the
>>>> original FAT and the backup (2nd) FAT which needs to be corrected
>>>> somehow. Or bad sectors might be the cause. So I downloaded Powermax
>>>> from Maxtor to check the 2 HDDs. It detected them properly and then I
>>>> ran an advanced surface test on the first HDD. After some time it
>>>> encountered an error and asked if I wanted to fix it. As I hadn't
>>>> completed copying out my files, I said no to the fix.
>>>>
>>>> I tried running Win98 in Safe mode and that worked without any
>>>> problems. I used scandisk from within safemode and it recognised the
>>>> FAT error and fixed it along with some other errors (time stamp
>>>> errors) it encountered. Rebooted to normal windows after this, and no
>>>> problems. Did Scandisk and NDD 3-4 times including surface tests and
>>>> again no problems.
>>>>
>>>> Did a powermax surface test again, and this time it certified both
>>>> HDDs as clear of errors/bad sectors!
>>>>
>>>> What happened to the initial error? Does powermax's surface test
>>>> 'check' the FAT to see if there is a problem there? I thought all it
>>>> does is check the surface for bad sectors? If it does check FAT then I
>>>> can understand why it's now cleared of errors, but if not... where did
>>>> my error/bad sector disappear to?
>>>>
>>>> Is it time to change my HDDs??
>>>>
>>>> Any help greatly appreciated on this!
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 28, 2004 11:09:03 AM

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

What did I say to piss you off? Are you one of the idiots who think disks have
clusters?

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:uyCGZzMLEHA.1120@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> It could be as Glee said, that it was auto-fixed by a chip on the hard
> drive. But... indeed you do appear to have said Scandisk fixed the
> error, two paragraphs before you ask where it went to.... "I used
> scandisk from within safemode and it recognized the FAT error and fixed
> it".
>
> But, in case you are as batty as Reienstra/Gisin are nasty, just look
> inside C:\Scandisk.log. What does it say in there?
>
> Uhhhhh, I think, as the drive now passes all scans, it is still good.
> Also, there was a good reason for the error-- you did crash first. Go
> on, make a full system backup, though. And next week run those scans
> again!
>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 28, 2004 4:05:01 PM

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:c6oenu03bs@enews4.newsguy.com...
> What did I say to piss you off?

Does "What a moron" sound familiar?

> 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.

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.

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.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 28, 2004 4:18:00 PM

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 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> 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. I am not supposed to?

> 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.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 28, 2004 6:35:39 PM

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

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:44:07 -0400, "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote:

>It could be as Glee said, that it was auto-fixed by a chip on the hard
>drive. But... indeed you do appear to have said Scandisk fixed the
>error, two paragraphs before you ask where it went to.... "I used
>scandisk from within safemode and it recognized the FAT error and fixed

Several items to clarify.

Firstly, Scandisk spends most of its time dealing with file system
logic errors that are unrelated to the HD's physical condition. Only
when Scandisk does a surface scan, does it look for defective
clusters, tho bad sectors can trip up its logic checks and repairs.

Secondly, it's important to remember that while the HD's firmware and
the OS's surface scanning do the same sort of thing, they work at
different levels, and the one is oblivious of the other.

At the hardware level, disk space is split up into physical 512-byte
sectors. These are addressed via the hard drive's own internal
hardware; everything else, from the UIDE controller backwards, can
only "ask nicely" for the HD to access these sectors.

If the HD's firmware defect management copies the contents from a
failing sector, writes it to another sector, and from then on maps the
old sector's raw address to the new one - then no software running on
the PC is any the wiser, unless it can query the vendor-specific HD
firmware in some way. Scandisk and the rest of the OS can't do that;
only HD-vendor-specific tools may have a chance there.

At the OS level, the OS sees an expanse of disk that has been set
aside as one or more volumes for its use (according to the
system-level partitioning scheme). It divides the volume into a file
system structure area and a data cluster area (a cluster contains
multiple sectors).

When Scandisk surface scan tests the cluser area, it can "fix"
clusters with failing sectors by copying them to a new cluster
address. This is the addressing scheme it sees; not raw sectors.

>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.

When the OS (including Scandisk surface scan) accesses a failing
sector, it may take several retries before the HD finds the sector and
passes CRC-OK data from it. During that time, the HD's firmware may
"fix" the defect by remapping the bad sector, which you may hear as
nyaak-nyaak noises as the heads move about.

If it takes long enough to do this - and Scandisk accepts an absurdly
long time as "normal" - then Scandisk may timeout and call the cluster
Bad, and do its own cluster-map-level relocation.

The point about all this is that a HD that has latency and perhaps
even visible bad sectors or clusters that "get better" is still a
highly suspect HD that IMO should be dragged out and pulped once the
data's been evacuated. The HD firmware may have relocated the bad
sector, with or without loss of that sector's contents, and if so, a
fresh format may find no bad clusters. Plus, because the HD keeps
"spare" sectors for this purpose, you won't see a capacity drop.

Nonetheless, this is a HD that has started to fail. You can judge
whether all these auto-fixing shenanigans go about delaying support
calls until the HD warranty expires, or a genuine attempt to make life
smoother for the user (even if unsuccessful sector moves lose data).

>Also, there was a good reason for the error-- you did crash first.

Maybe the HD defect was the good reason for the crash?



>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Running Windows-based av to kill active malware is like striking
a match to see if what you are standing in is water or petrol.
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 28, 2004 6:38:51 PM

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

Have you never in your life posted a wrong word, in error?
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP W95/98 Systems
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote in message news:c6oenu03bs@enews4.newsguy.com...
> What did I say to piss you off? Are you one of the idiots who think disks have
> clusters?
>
> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
> news:uyCGZzMLEHA.1120@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > It could be as Glee said, that it was auto-fixed by a chip on the hard
> > drive. But... indeed you do appear to have said Scandisk fixed the
> > error, two paragraphs before you ask where it went to.... "I used
> > scandisk from within safemode and it recognized the FAT error and fixed
> > it".
> >
> > But, in case you are as batty as Reienstra/Gisin are nasty, just look
> > inside C:\Scandisk.log. What does it say in there?
> >
> > Uhhhhh, I think, as the drive now passes all scans, it is still good.
> > Also, there was a good reason for the error-- you did crash first. Go
> > on, make a full system backup, though. And next week run those scans
> > again!
> >
>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 28, 2004 7:17:09 PM

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

"Saidean" <saidean@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:19dc7920.0404271639.2ba241a3@posting.google.com...
> > > Did a powermax surface test again, and this time it certified both
> > > HDDs as clear of errors/bad sectors!
> > >
> > > What happened to the initial error?
> >
> > It got cleared.
>
> While I can understand that I 'cleared' it via scandisk in safe mode,
> I ask this question because as you stated next:
>
> > > Does powermax's surface test 'check' the FAT to see if there is a problem
> > > there?
> >
> > Probably not, although some utes are FS aware.
>
> what I'm still confused over is that IF (as you stated) powermax's
> surface test does NOT check the FAT, then the initial problem detected
> by powermax's surface test should still be there, even though the FAT
> was repaired by scandisk in safe mode.

> Isn't this correct?

No, it isn't.
By correcting the FAT it also corrected the bad sector in the FAT by
overwriting it. That sectors problem was either corrected at that point
or it was replaced by a spare sector.

>
> (Also what is FS aware?)

File System aware, know where the file systems administration is and not
touch that. E.g., IBMs DFT can overwrite (=zero) bad sectors that are in
user data but refuse to do so for sectors in MBR, FAT or Directories.

>
>
> > > but if not... where did my error/bad sector disappear to?
> >
> > You answered that yourself:
> > You used scandisk from within safemode and it recognised the FAT error and
> > fixed it along with some other errors (time stamp errors) it encountered.
> >
> > Simple, no?
>
> I don't see it though - IF scandisk repaired the error (which is
> true), then powermax should STILL detect its error via its surface
> test, since that doesn't involve the FAT.

Of course does it involve the FAT, the FAT is on that 'surface'.

> But after the FAT has been repaired, powermax's surface test no longer
> showed this bad sector error anymore.

Because scandisk repaired it.
The bad sector was the cause of the FAT needing repair in the first place.

>
> If as a previous poster said, the HDD 'repaired itself', how does the
> HDD know there are bad sectors if they were never marked?

Because it can't read them, maybe? Simple eh. All it has to do is to mark
the sector(s) internally that they refused to read. On the next write to the
sector the drive can test it beforehand and decide to reuse it or replace it.

> The HDD never had any bad sectors marked or any problems with bad sectors
> before this.

A flat tyre is only a flat tyre because it wasn't flat before it became a flat tyre.

> Even now after several surface scans using scandisk, NDD and powermax, it
> shows all clear.

Yes, your tyre is no longer flat and will stay so until it springs a new leak.

>
> So unless powermax DOES verify the FAT when it does the surface test,
> (which would account for the error no longer being reported after
> scandisk fixed it), I cannot understand how the bad sector error
> reported by powermax disappeared after scandisk fixed the FAT.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 28, 2004 7:53:49 PM

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

You have been over-exposed to XP-radiation. That's all I can think!

--
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
"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote in message
news:c6oenu03bs@enews4.newsguy.com...
| What did I say to piss you off? Are you one of the idiots who think
disks have
| clusters?
|
| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:uyCGZzMLEHA.1120@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| > It could be as Glee said, that it was auto-fixed by a chip on the
hard
| > drive. But... indeed you do appear to have said Scandisk fixed the
| > error, two paragraphs before you ask where it went to.... "I used
| > scandisk from within safemode and it recognized the FAT error and
fixed
| > it".
| >
| > But, in case you are as batty as Reienstra/Gisin are nasty, just
look
| > inside C:\Scandisk.log. What does it say in there?
| >
| > Uhhhhh, I think, as the drive now passes all scans, it is still
good.
| > Also, there was a good reason for the error-- you did crash first.
Go
| > on, make a full system backup, though. And next week run those scans
| > again!
| >
|
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 28, 2004 9:21:36 PM

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:878v80lb3hl0cst38i95n0gr2dqtlir35m@4ax.com...
| On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:44:07 -0400, "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote:
|
| >It could be as Glee said, that it was auto-fixed by a chip on the
hard
| >drive. But... indeed you do appear to have said Scandisk fixed the
| >error, two paragraphs before you ask where it went to.... "I used
| >scandisk from within safemode and it recognized the FAT error and
fixed
|
| Several items to clarify.
|
| Firstly, Scandisk spends most of its time dealing with file system
| logic errors that are unrelated to the HD's physical condition. Only
| when Scandisk does a surface scan, does it look for defective
| clusters, tho bad sectors can trip up its logic checks and repairs.

Seems reasonable to me. Let me see what that nasty one (Rienstra)
said... "also scans the system area". Well! I may do so, but still be
looking for logic errors, as you say, cquirke. It is looking to see the
two FAT match & their pointers are sensible.

|
| Secondly, it's important to remember that while the HD's firmware and
| the OS's surface scanning do the same sort of thing, they work at
| different levels, and the one is oblivious of the other.

That seems reasonable too, "same sort of thing" meaning they want to
know whether the hard drive can hold it's data & "different levels"
meaning Scandisk gets what the other decides to pass it. It's a wonder
Scandisk should ever find a surface flaw, though. Well, I've never seen
a red-slashed cluster in Defrag, EVEN during my hard drive crash of
2001! However, ultimately, I refrained from running Defrag, & was just
doing six-hour Scandisks. What a horrible, stinging barrage of ugly,
dread error messages it finally did spew out! That is why the nastiness
of Rienstra/Gisin is nothing to me!

|
| At the hardware level, disk space is split up into physical 512-byte
| sectors. These are addressed via the hard drive's own internal
| hardware; everything else, from the UIDE controller backwards, can
| only "ask nicely" for the HD to access these sectors.

Sounds reasonable to me. The HDD chip has first access, if the drive is
new enough to have such a chip that does repairs/remapping.

|
| If the HD's firmware defect management copies the contents from a
| failing sector, writes it to another sector, and from then on maps the
| old sector's raw address to the new one - then no software running on
| the PC is any the wiser, unless it can query the vendor-specific HD
| firmware in some way. Scandisk and the rest of the OS can't do that;
| only HD-vendor-specific tools may have a chance there.

Sounds as reasonable now as it did in the ancient thread we first
discussed it, if I may presume to call it a discussion. Or was it you &
Blanton? Then, it was a discussion.

|
| At the OS level, the OS sees an expanse of disk that has been set
| aside as one or more volumes for its use (according to the
| system-level partitioning scheme). It divides the volume into a file
| system structure area and a data cluster area (a cluster contains
| multiple sectors).

1. MBR (Master Boot Record)
2. PBR (Partition Boot Record)
3. FAT1 & FAT2. (Pointers to used/available clusters)
4. Folders & files.

I guess those four are all there is, except for perhaps unused sectors
or portions of sectors.

|
| When Scandisk surface scan tests the cluser area, it can "fix"
| clusters with failing sectors by copying them to a new cluster
| address. This is the addressing scheme it sees; not raw sectors.

I think you have said elsewhere, if Scandisk finds a bad surface, it
must really indicate a dead/dying drive. This is because the
chip/firmware on the HDD should only be passing it good sectors. I'm
thinking, the data on a remapped sector may have been copied badly (from
a bad one the chip found), but Scandisk should only discover a logic
error in that case. The surface should be fine.

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

|
| When the OS (including Scandisk surface scan) accesses a failing
| sector, it may take several retries before the HD finds the sector and
| passes CRC-OK data from it. During that time, the HD's firmware may
| "fix" the defect by remapping the bad sector, which you may hear as
| nyaak-nyaak noises as the heads move about.
|
| If it takes long enough to do this - and Scandisk accepts an absurdly
| long time as "normal" - then Scandisk may timeout and call the cluster
| Bad, and do its own cluster-map-level relocation.
|
| The point about all this is that a HD that has latency and perhaps
| even visible bad sectors or clusters that "get better" is still a
| highly suspect HD that IMO should be dragged out and pulped once the
| data's been evacuated. The HD firmware may have relocated the bad
| sector, with or without loss of that sector's contents, and if so, a
| fresh format may find no bad clusters. Plus, because the HD keeps
| "spare" sectors for this purpose, you won't see a capacity drop.
|
| Nonetheless, this is a HD that has started to fail. You can judge
| whether all these auto-fixing shenanigans go about delaying support
| calls until the HD warranty expires, or a genuine attempt to make life
| smoother for the user (even if unsuccessful sector moves lose data).
|
| >Also, there was a good reason for the error-- you did crash first.
|
| Maybe the HD defect was the good reason for the crash?

I think I surely would take the precaution of a full system backup &
ocassionally run the manufacturers tool &/or a Scandisk /Surface. But as
it has passed further scans, I still believe it was the chicken possibly
came first, not the egg!

|
|
|
| >-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
| Running Windows-based av to kill active malware is like striking
| a match to see if what you are standing in is water or petrol.
| >-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

--
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
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 28, 2004 9:21:37 PM

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

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:un4AOaWLEHA.1612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> "cquirke (MVP Win9x)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:878v80lb3hl0cst38i95n0gr2dqtlir35m@4ax.com...
> |
> | Firstly, Scandisk spends most of its time dealing with file system
> | logic errors that are unrelated to the HD's physical condition. Only
> | when Scandisk does a surface scan, does it look for defective
> | clusters, tho bad sectors can trip up its logic checks and repairs.
>
Scandisk only deals with logical errors, unless you specify /surface which
checks for bad sectors.

> Seems reasonable to me. Let me see what that nasty one (Rienstra)
> said... "also scans the system area". Well! I may do so, but still be
> looking for logic errors, as you say, cquirke. It is looking to see the
> two FAT match & their pointers are sensible.
>
> | Secondly, it's important to remember that while the HD's firmware and
> | the OS's surface scanning do the same sort of thing, they work at
> | different levels, and the one is oblivious of the other.
>
> That seems reasonable too, "same sort of thing" meaning they want to
> know whether the hard drive can hold it's data & "different levels"
> meaning Scandisk gets what the other decides to pass it. It's a wonder
> Scandisk should ever find a surface flaw, though. Well, I've never seen
> a red-slashed cluster in Defrag, EVEN during my hard drive crash of
> 2001! However, ultimately, I refrained from running Defrag, & was just
> doing six-hour Scandisks. What a horrible, stinging barrage of ugly,
> dread error messages it finally did spew out! That is why the nastiness
> of Rienstra/Gisin is nothing to me!
>
Whatever.

> | At the hardware level, disk space is split up into physical 512-byte
> | sectors. These are addressed via the hard drive's own internal
> | hardware; everything else, from the UIDE controller backwards, can
> | only "ask nicely" for the HD to access these sectors.
>
> Sounds reasonable to me. The HDD chip has first access, if the drive is
> new enough to have such a chip that does repairs/remapping.
>
It's the firmware, not the chip. Bad sector reallocation has been around for
10 years.

> | If the HD's firmware defect management copies the contents from a
> | failing sector, writes it to another sector, and from then on maps the
> | old sector's raw address to the new one - then no software running on
> | the PC is any the wiser, unless it can query the vendor-specific HD
> | firmware in some way. Scandisk and the rest of the OS can't do that;
> | only HD-vendor-specific tools may have a chance there.
>
> Sounds as reasonable now as it did in the ancient thread we first
> discussed it, if I may presume to call it a discussion. Or was it you &
> Blanton? Then, it was a discussion.
>
> | At the OS level, the OS sees an expanse of disk that has been set
> | aside as one or more volumes for its use (according to the
> | system-level partitioning scheme). It divides the volume into a file
> | system structure area and a data cluster area (a cluster contains
> | multiple sectors).
>
> 1. MBR (Master Boot Record)
> 2. PBR (Partition Boot Record)
> 3. FAT1 & FAT2. (Pointers to used/available clusters)
> 4. Folders & files.
>
The standard terms are:
2: Boot sectors; 3: FATs; 4: Clusters

> I guess those four are all there is, except for perhaps unused sectors
> or portions of sectors.
>
> | When Scandisk surface scan tests the cluser area, it can "fix"
> | clusters with failing sectors by copying them to a new cluster
> | address. This is the addressing scheme it sees; not raw sectors.
>
It truncates the file at the first bad cluster. It cannot recover bad sectors.

> I think you have said elsewhere, if Scandisk finds a bad surface, it
> must really indicate a dead/dying drive. This is because the
> chip/firmware on the HDD should only be passing it good sectors. I'm
> thinking, the data on a remapped sector may have been copied badly (from
> a bad one the chip found), but Scandisk should only discover a logic
> error in that case. The surface should be fine.
>
If scandisk sees a bad sector, it means it had too many bad bits for ECC
correction. That happens whenever power is lost during a write. It is also
caused by long media defects, which could be a minor scratch or a failing
head.

> | >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!" But, I do
> think, unless there are multiple occasions of surface errors, one may
> continue with the hard drive, theoretically.
>
> | When the OS (including Scandisk surface scan) accesses a failing
> | sector, it may take several retries before the HD finds the sector and
> | passes CRC-OK data from it. During that time, the HD's firmware may
> | "fix" the defect by remapping the bad sector, which you may hear as
> | nyaak-nyaak noises as the heads move about.
> |
> | If it takes long enough to do this - and Scandisk accepts an absurdly
> | long time as "normal" - then Scandisk may timeout and call the cluster
> | Bad, and do its own cluster-map-level relocation.
> |
> | The point about all this is that a HD that has latency and perhaps
> | even visible bad sectors or clusters that "get better" is still a
> | highly suspect HD that IMO should be dragged out and pulped once the
> | data's been evacuated. The HD firmware may have relocated the bad
> | sector, with or without loss of that sector's contents, and if so, a
> | fresh format may find no bad clusters. Plus, because the HD keeps
> | "spare" sectors for this purpose, you won't see a capacity drop.
> |
> | Nonetheless, this is a HD that has started to fail. You can judge
> | whether all these auto-fixing shenanigans go about delaying support
> | calls until the HD warranty expires, or a genuine attempt to make life
> | smoother for the user (even if unsuccessful sector moves lose data).
> |
The only way to tell if your drive is failing is to run the manufacturer
diagnostics.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 28, 2004 11:16:23 PM

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:878v80lb3hl0cst38i95n0gr2dqtlir35m@4ax.com
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:44:07 -0400, "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>> It could be as Glee said, that it was auto-fixed by a chip on the hard drive.
>> But... indeed you do appear to have said Scandisk fixed the error,
> > two paragraphs before you ask where it went to.... "I used scandisk
>> from within safemode and it recognized the FAT error and fixed
>
> Several items to clarify.
>
> Firstly, Scandisk spends most of its time dealing with file system
> logic errors that are unrelated to the HD's physical condition.

> Only when Scandisk does a surface scan, does it look for defective
> clusters,

Not only clusters, it also scans the system area, apparently.

> tho bad sectors can trip up its logic checks and repairs.

Please explain.

>
> Secondly, it's important to remember that while the HD's firmware
> and the OS's surface scanning do the same sort of thing,

No, they don't.

> they work at different levels, and the one is oblivious of the other.
>
> At the hardware level, disk space is split up into physical 512-byte
> sectors. These are addressed via the hard drive's own internal
> hardware; everything else, from the UIDE controller backwards,
> can only "ask nicely" for the HD to access these sectors.
>
> If the HD's firmware defect management copies the contents from a
> failing sector, writes it to another sector,

That is 'failing' in the sense of 'about to fail', 'not yet failed'.
Obviously, it can only copy them when the sectors can still be read.

> and from then on maps the old sector's raw address to the new one -
> then no software running on the PC is any the wiser, unless it can query
> the vendor-specific HD firmware in some way.
> Scandisk and the rest of the OS can't do that; only
> HD-vendor-specific tools may have a chance there.
>
> At the OS level, the OS sees an expanse of disk that has been set
> aside as one or more volumes for its use (according to the system-
> level partitioning scheme). It divides the volume into a file system
> structure area and a data cluster area (a cluster contains multiple
> sectors).
>
> When Scandisk surface scan tests the cluster area, it can "fix"
> clusters with failing sectors by copying them to a new cluster address.
> This is the addressing scheme it sees; not raw sectors.
>
>> 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.
>
> When the OS (including Scandisk surface scan) accesses a failing
> sector, it may take several retries before the HD finds the sector
> and passes CRC-OK data from it.

ECC actually.

> During that time, the HD's firmware may "fix" the defect by remapping the
> bad sector, which you may hear as nyaak-nyaak noises as the heads move about.

Right, although the nyaak-nyaak noises are the retries, not the remapping.

>
> If it takes long enough to do this - and Scandisk accepts an absurdly
> long time as "normal" -

So the drive will likely succeed (or fail) well within that time.

> then Scandisk may timeout and call the cluster Bad, and do its own cluster-
> map-level relocation.

I don't think that there is relocation. Where-to? There are no spare clusters.
The cluster is marked as bad and not available anymore.

>
> The point about all this is that a HD that has latency and perhaps
> even visible bad sectors or clusters that "get better" is still a
> highly suspect HD that IMO should be dragged out and pulped once the
> data's been evacuated.

That is because you have no idea what a bad sector is and your
lower instincts are taking over: Don't understand? Smash it!

> The HD firmware may have relocated the bad
> sector, with or without loss of that sector's contents, and if so, a
> fresh format may find no bad clusters. Plus, because the HD keeps
> "spare" sectors for this purpose, you won't see a capacity drop.
>
> Nonetheless, this is a HD that has started to fail.

Or a powersupply or ps-connector that has started to fail or is getting
old and tired.

> You can judge whether all these auto-fixing shenanigans go about delaying
> support calls until the HD warranty expires, or a genuine attempt to make
> life smoother for the user

> (even if unsuccessful sector moves lose data).

Huh?

>
>> Also, there was a good reason for the error-- you did crash first.
>
> Maybe the HD defect was the good reason for the crash?
>
>
>
>> -------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Running Windows-based av to kill active malware is like striking
> a match to see if what you are standing in is water or petrol.
>> -------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 28, 2004 11:17:28 PM

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

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message news:uyCGZzMLEHA.1120@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl
>
> It could be as Glee said, that it was auto-fixed by a chip on the hard
> drive.

Strange what topposting people read in posts that isn't there.
Probably because they don't read at all.

> But... indeed you do appear to have said Scandisk fixed the error,
> two paragraphs before you ask where it went to.... "I used scandisk
> from within safemode and it recognized the FAT error and fixed it".
>
> But, in case you are as batty as Reienstra/Gisin are nasty,

Can't even get the name right.

> just look inside C:\Scandisk.log. What does it say in there?
>
> Uhhhhh, I think, as the drive now passes all scans, it is still good.

> Also, there was a good reason for the error-- you did crash first.

Clueless. Take one guess what the reason was for that crash.

> Go on, make a full system backup, though. And next week run those
> scans again!
>
>
>"Saidean" <saidean@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:19dc7920.0404261052.4611bc58@posting.google.com...
>> Hi,
>>
>> Hoping someone with experience using powermax can help me understand
>> this. My system specs:
>>
>> Win98SE
>> P4 1.8ghz CPU 512mb PC2700 ram
>> 2 Maxtor 40gb DIamondmax UDMA133 drives in RAID ARRAY (Striped) via
>> MBFastTrack 133 lite built into Gigabyte GA8IEXP Mobo (Promise Tech
>> RAID Controller).
>> 1 Seagate 40gb HDD (Data)
>>
>> 2 days ago, my PC hung and I had to shutdown the system (win98se) and
>> reboot. When I rebooted, I did a scandisk and it got stuck at 48%
>> scanning the file allocation table (FAT), and promptly coughed up
>> "Scandisk encountered data error while reading the FAT on drive C".
>> Panic attack. [snip]
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 28, 2004 11:17:29 PM

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

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message
news:c6otpd$e4tev$2@ID-79662.news.uni-berlin.de...
| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:uyCGZzMLEHA.1120@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl
| >
| > It could be as Glee said, that it was auto-fixed by a chip on the
hard
| > drive.
|
| Strange what topposting people read in posts that isn't there.
| Probably because they don't read at all.

I am content that is what Glee did say.

|
| > But... indeed you do appear to have said Scandisk fixed the error,
| > two paragraphs before you ask where it went to.... "I used scandisk
| > from within safemode and it recognized the FAT error and fixed it".
| >
| > But, in case you are as batty as Reienstra/Gisin are nasty,
|
| Can't even get the name right.

The name was the only thing I didn't get right. Consider removing a
vowel or two!

|
| > just look inside C:\Scandisk.log. What does it say in there?
| >
| > Uhhhhh, I think, as the drive now passes all scans, it is still
good.
|
| > Also, there was a good reason for the error-- you did crash first.
|
| Clueless. Take one guess what the reason was for that crash.

No one knows whether it was the chicken or the egg came first! (Or, do
they? No matter!) A software induced crash could cause a surface flaw or
visa versa! The fact that it scans well now may mean it was the crash
caused it, instead of the HDD surface went bad. I guess a true test of
whether Scandisk did a kill/relocate of data within a cluster is to run
Defrag, & see whether a cluster is red-slashed. But OP did say "Powermax
from Maxtor" found something which he chose not to fix. A subsequent run
found nothing wrong. Scandisk was run in between & fixed something.
Whatever it was, it's gone now.

(a) Could be as Glee said: the HDD chip did it.
Then, neither Powermax nor Scandisk will show a thing, provided
any data inside was copied well elsewhere. If data was copied badly,
surely Scandisk still would notice something;-- hmm, maybe that is what
happened.

(b) Scandisk did "fix" a surface flaw.
Then, it should be red-slashed in Defrag.

|
| > Go on, make a full system backup, though. And next week run those
| > scans again!
| >
| >

--
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
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 29, 2004 6:00:06 AM

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:c6pd3j01moc@enews4.newsguy.com...
| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:un4AOaWLEHA.1612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| > "cquirke (MVP Win9x)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in message
| > news:878v80lb3hl0cst38i95n0gr2dqtlir35m@4ax.com...
| > |
| > | Firstly, Scandisk spends most of its time dealing with file system
| > | logic errors that are unrelated to the HD's physical condition.
Only
| > | when Scandisk does a surface scan, does it look for defective
| > | clusters, tho bad sectors can trip up its logic checks and
repairs.
| >
| Scandisk only deals with logical errors, unless you specify /surface
which
| checks for bad sectors.

I think that's what cquirke said, all right. It does appear to me,
though, that the longer /Surface scan appears to incorporate/begin with
the shorter System scan. IOW, I doubt there is a way to get JUST a
/Surface.

Well, actually, here is the blurb from "START, Run, Scandisk,
Thorough"... "Checks the files and folders on the selected drives for
errors, and also checks the physical integrity of your disk's surface.
To change the settings that ScanDisk uses to check files and folders,
click Advanced. To change the settings that ScanDisk uses to check the
surface of your disks, click Options."

And this, at "...Options, Do not perform write testing" (which is
generally how I run it)... "Specifies whether ScanDisk reads the
contents of each sector of your disk but does not write it back or
whether ScanDisk reads the contents of each sector and then writes the
contents back to verify that the disk can be read from and written to
correctly."

Well, I guess I am getting a read test that way ("Do not perform...") of
every cluster, on top of a System check.

|
| > Seems reasonable to me. Let me see what that nasty one (Rienstra)
| > said... "also scans the system area". Well! I may do so, but still
be
| > looking for logic errors, as you say, cquirke. It is looking to see
the
| > two FAT match & their pointers are sensible.
| >
| > | Secondly, it's important to remember that while the HD's firmware
and
| > | the OS's surface scanning do the same sort of thing, they work at
| > | different levels, and the one is oblivious of the other.
| >
| > That seems reasonable too, "same sort of thing" meaning they want to
| > know whether the hard drive can hold it's data & "different levels"
| > meaning Scandisk gets what the other decides to pass it. It's a
wonder
| > Scandisk should ever find a surface flaw, though. Well, I've never
seen
| > a red-slashed cluster in Defrag, EVEN during my hard drive crash of
| > 2001! However, ultimately, I refrained from running Defrag, & was
just
| > doing six-hour Scandisks. What a horrible, stinging barrage of ugly,
| > dread error messages it finally did spew out! That is why the
nastiness
| > of Rienstra/Gisin is nothing to me!
| >
| Whatever.

Believe me, it was quite a traumatic experience, for me & for my
ceiling!

|
| > | At the hardware level, disk space is split up into physical
512-byte
| > | sectors. These are addressed via the hard drive's own internal
| > | hardware; everything else, from the UIDE controller backwards, can
| > | only "ask nicely" for the HD to access these sectors.
| >
| > Sounds reasonable to me. The HDD chip has first access, if the drive
is
| > new enough to have such a chip that does repairs/remapping.
| >
| It's the firmware, not the chip. Bad sector reallocation has been
around for
| 10 years.

I mean the chip on the hard drive, which is firmware. (I guess it was
Blanton I picked up "chip" from.)

|
| > | If the HD's firmware defect management copies the contents from a
| > | failing sector, writes it to another sector, and from then on maps
the
| > | old sector's raw address to the new one - then no software running
on
| > | the PC is any the wiser, unless it can query the vendor-specific
HD
| > | firmware in some way. Scandisk and the rest of the OS can't do
that;
| > | only HD-vendor-specific tools may have a chance there.
| >
| > Sounds as reasonable now as it did in the ancient thread we first
| > discussed it, if I may presume to call it a discussion. Or was it
you &
| > Blanton? Then, it was a discussion.
| >
| > | At the OS level, the OS sees an expanse of disk that has been set
| > | aside as one or more volumes for its use (according to the
| > | system-level partitioning scheme). It divides the volume into a
file
| > | system structure area and a data cluster area (a cluster contains
| > | multiple sectors).
| >
| > 1. MBR (Master Boot Record)
| > 2. PBR (Partition Boot Record)
| > 3. FAT1 & FAT2. (Pointers to used/available clusters)
| > 4. Folders & files.
| >
| The standard terms are:
| 2: Boot sectors; 3: FATs; 4: Clusters

Whatever. But I was a tad more decriptive!

|
| > I guess those four are all there is, except for perhaps unused
sectors
| > or portions of sectors.
| >
| > | When Scandisk surface scan tests the cluser area, it can "fix"
| > | clusters with failing sectors by copying them to a new cluster
| > | address. This is the addressing scheme it sees; not raw sectors.
| >
| It truncates the file at the first bad cluster. It cannot recover bad
sectors.

I leave you in cquirke's hands, (poor fellow)...
http://users.iafrica.com/c/cq/cquirke/scandisk.htm

|
| > I think you have said elsewhere, if Scandisk finds a bad surface, it
| > must really indicate a dead/dying drive. This is because the
| > chip/firmware on the HDD should only be passing it good sectors. I'm
| > thinking, the data on a remapped sector may have been copied badly
(from
| > a bad one the chip found), but Scandisk should only discover a logic
| > error in that case. The surface should be fine.
| >
| If scandisk sees a bad sector, it means it had too many bad bits for
ECC
| correction. That happens whenever power is lost during a write. It is
also
| caused by long media defects, which could be a minor scratch or a
failing
| head.

Watch it! Rienstra may thrash you! Scandisk deals with clusters, which
do contain multiple Sectors. I think it's really best when the HDD
chip/firmware discovers a surface flaw. Then, it will map away a single
sector, 512 bytes by cquirke's count. The smallest cluster will be about
4 KB.

|
| > | >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!" But, I
do
| > think, unless there are multiple occasions of surface errors, one
may
| > continue with the hard drive, theoretically.
| >
| > | When the OS (including Scandisk surface scan) accesses a failing
| > | sector, it may take several retries before the HD finds the sector
and
| > | passes CRC-OK data from it. During that time, the HD's firmware
may
| > | "fix" the defect by remapping the bad sector, which you may hear
as
| > | nyaak-nyaak noises as the heads move about.
| > |
| > | If it takes long enough to do this - and Scandisk accepts an
absurdly
| > | long time as "normal" - then Scandisk may timeout and call the
cluster
| > | Bad, and do its own cluster-map-level relocation.
| > |
| > | The point about all this is that a HD that has latency and perhaps
| > | even visible bad sectors or clusters that "get better" is still a
| > | highly suspect HD that IMO should be dragged out and pulped once
the
| > | data's been evacuated. The HD firmware may have relocated the bad
| > | sector, with or without loss of that sector's contents, and if so,
a
| > | fresh format may find no bad clusters. Plus, because the HD keeps
| > | "spare" sectors for this purpose, you won't see a capacity drop.
| > |
| > | Nonetheless, this is a HD that has started to fail. You can judge
| > | whether all these auto-fixing shenanigans go about delaying
support
| > | calls until the HD warranty expires, or a genuine attempt to make
life
| > | smoother for the user (even if unsuccessful sector moves lose
data).
| > |
| The only way to tell if your drive is failing is to run the
manufacturer
| diagnostics.

I believe doing so may be preferable to waiting on Scandisk.

--
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
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 29, 2004 11:59:13 AM

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:

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

I agree. It's silly to explain the same thing over and over, when Web
pages (or googling the newsgroups) have the answers.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 29, 2004 6:23:57 PM

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?
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 29, 2004 9:19:06 PM

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?
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 29, 2004 9:19:07 PM

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?
| >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 30, 2004 4:27:16 AM

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.

>
>
>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 30, 2004 1:47:38 PM

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)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 30, 2004 5:51:07 PM

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)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 30, 2004 8:57:58 PM

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:D v7590lt4durc5p9ec8kvehshghrdgqdqr@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)
|
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 1, 2004 2:33:59 AM

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
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 1, 2004 4:01:09 AM

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
!