Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why mechanical failure causes HDD being undetectable by bi..

Last response: in Storage
Share
September 3, 2004 7:56:28 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware (More info?)

Hi!
Could someone please explain why in the case of *mechanical* failure HD
becomes sometimes undetected by BIOS and/or the operating system (e.g. win xp
or linux)?
If it was an electronic failure then such behaviour would be obious, but why
the same happens with some mechanical failures? When electronics is working in
my opinion it still should be detected by bios and/or the system (win xp or
linux), but often it is not.
I could recover about 80% of the data from my HDD (which apparently has a
mechanical failure - plates spin up and down, heads create bad noises) if only
the disk could be seen by the system all the time. But often during copying of
the data heads hit with a loud sound so badly that sometimes even the plates
stop rotating, and the disk then dissapears from the system. It is then very
difficult to make it detectable by the system again, sometimes the sytem can
detect it but only after several minutes of copying it freezes and then
dissapears again.
Recently, I was unlucky, and even after several dozens of retries it's still
undetectable by the system.

Could you please advice what to do to make the disk detectable by the system
all the time?
What causes that it is not detectable although the failure is in mechanics not
electronics?

BTW, if someone has the same disk model (Quantum Fireball ST64A011), please
let me know.

andy
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 3, 2004 9:39:03 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware (More info?)

"andy" <andy@antispam.com> wrote in message
news:k4mfj0lc7pcpoaqtl01v72ln87vi1jsphv@4ax.com...
> Hi!
> Could someone please explain why in the case of *mechanical* failure HD
> becomes sometimes undetected by BIOS and/or the operating system (e.g. win
xp
> or linux)?

Consider the options available to the HD designer. What do you want the
user to see during POST about a HD that knows itself that it can't possibly
work. The HD designer knows that many BIOSs have no ability to detect and
display a HD error status during POST. The BIOS may only be able to report
'there' or 'not there'. If you were the HD designer would you want the HD
to report 'there' during POST even when the HD itself really knew that it
wasn't there? How would you answer the query of a poster in this NG who
wanted to know why a HD reported 'there' during post but was not there for
all intents and purposes for any booting steps after POST?

Did the HD designer make the correct design choice in the first place which
would likely cause a competent user to try another HD and assume that the HD
was dead dead which in fact it is?

> If it was an electronic failure then such behaviour would be obious, but
why
> the same happens with some mechanical failures? When electronics is
working in
> my opinion it still should be detected by bios and/or the system (win xp
or
> linux), but often it is not.

What on earth for? Such would be highly misleading and a very poor design
choice.

> I could recover about 80% of the data from my HDD (which apparently has a
> mechanical failure - plates spin up and down, heads create bad noises) if
only
> the disk could be seen by the system all the time.

Huh?

> But often during copying of
> the data heads hit with a loud sound so badly that sometimes even the
plates
> stop rotating, and the disk then dissapears from the system.

Duh!

> It is then very
> difficult to make it detectable by the system again, sometimes the sytem
can
> detect it but only after several minutes of copying it freezes and then
> dissapears again.
> Recently, I was unlucky, and even after several dozens of retries it's
still
> undetectable by the system.
>
> Could you please advice what to do to make the disk detectable by the
system
> all the time?
> What causes that it is not detectable although the failure is in mechanics
not
> electronics?

The drive is DOA!

> BTW, if someone has the same disk model (Quantum Fireball ST64A011),
please
> let me know.
September 3, 2004 2:10:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware (More info?)

Thanks for your reply.

>> If it was an electronic failure then such behaviour would be obious, but
>why
>> the same happens with some mechanical failures? When electronics is
>working in
>> my opinion it still should be detected by bios and/or the system (win xp
>or
>> linux), but often it is not.
>
>What on earth for? Such would be highly misleading and a very poor design
>choice.

But I could then recover 80% of my data, and now I can recover 0% of my data.
Does it make sense for you now?

Is there any way to disable that feature? (I mean to make the malfunctioned
HDD visible to the system again?)

>The drive is DOA!

Don't get DOA.

a.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
September 3, 2004 3:24:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware (More info?)

"andy" <andy@antispam.com> wrote in message
news:k4mfj0lc7pcpoaqtl01v72ln87vi1jsphv@4ax.com...
> Hi!
> Could someone please explain why in the case of *mechanical* failure HD
> becomes sometimes undetected by BIOS and/or the operating system (e.g. win
xp
> or linux)?

*Sometimes* ... So, maybe it's the nature of the problem that prevents the
disk from being detected.

> If it was an electronic failure then such behaviour would be obious, but
why
> the same happens with some mechanical failures? When electronics is
working in
> my opinion

It is hardly a matter of opinion ...

> it still should be detected by bios and/or the system (win xp or
> linux), but often it is not.
> I could recover about 80% of the data from my HDD

How do you know? How did you come up with the 80%?

> (which apparently has a
> mechanical failure - plates spin up and down, heads create bad noises) if
only
> the disk could be seen by the system all the time. But often during
copying of
> the data heads hit with a loud sound so badly that sometimes even the
plates
> stop rotating, and the disk then dissapears from the system. It is then
very
> difficult to make it detectable by the system again, sometimes the sytem
can
> detect it but only after several minutes of copying it freezes and then
> dissapears again.

You should try to clone it as long as you can see it. However, every read
may worsen the condition of the disk, in general it is advised to cease DIY
recovery attempts (if the data is important to you) when a disk is maing
unusual and scary noises.

> Recently, I was unlucky, and even after several dozens of retries it's
still
> undetectable by the system.
>
> Could you please advice what to do to make the disk detectable by the
system
> all the time?

Your issue is a psychological one. You can not accept that there are
situations you can not resolve and have no control over. Apart from
contacting a data recovery lab, you also need to work out this problem.

> BTW, if someone has the same disk model (Quantum Fireball ST64A011),
please
> let me know.
>

Why do you want to know?

--
Joep
September 3, 2004 4:22:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware (More info?)

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 11:24:48 +0200, "Joep" <j o e p @ d i y d a t a r e c o v e
r y . n l> wrote:

>"andy" <andy@antispam.com> wrote in message
>news:k4mfj0lc7pcpoaqtl01v72ln87vi1jsphv@4ax.com...

>*Sometimes* ... So, maybe it's the nature of the problem that prevents the
>disk from being detected.

Failure to mechanics seems to be the problem causing the non-detection
problem.
Unfortunatelly the "sometimes" is now "nearly always".

>How do you know? How did you come up with the 80%?

When the disk was detectable then about 20% of files could not be read.
This was not because bad sectors (the disk did not have any AFAIK), but
because of the mechanics failure (when it started to have the symptoms of the
failure also 20% of data became unavailable).

>You should try to clone it as long as you can see it. However, every read
>may worsen the condition of the disk, in general it is advised to cease DIY
>recovery attempts (if the data is important to you) when a disk is maing
>unusual and scary noises.

Yes, it seems that the condition very quickly became much worse.

>Your issue is a psychological one. You can not accept that there are
>situations you can not resolve and have no control over. Apart from

How can I know that? If they designed it that way that it should not be
detectable when mechanics fails, then maybe also for the service purpose they
designed it also to be possible to disable that feature, making the disk
visible despite mechanical failure.
I hoped that someone knows how to disable that feature.

>Why do you want to know?

If someone has such disk with bad electronics, but good mechanics, then I
could use the mechanics to recover my data. Just for one time recovery even
opening the disk in not sufficiently clean condition possibly could work.

a.
September 3, 2004 5:06:57 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware (More info?)

andy wrote:

> Hi!
> Could someone please explain why in the case of *mechanical* failure HD
> becomes sometimes undetected by BIOS and/or the operating system (e.g. win xp
> or linux)?
> If it was an electronic failure then such behaviour would be obious, but why
> the same happens with some mechanical failures? When electronics is working in
> my opinion it still should be detected by bios and/or the system (win xp or
> linux), but often it is not.
> I could recover about 80% of the data from my HDD (which apparently has a
> mechanical failure - plates spin up and down, heads create bad noises) if only
> the disk could be seen by the system all the time. But often during copying of
> the data heads hit with a loud sound so badly that sometimes even the plates
> stop rotating, and the disk then dissapears from the system. It is then very
> difficult to make it detectable by the system again, sometimes the sytem can
> detect it but only after several minutes of copying it freezes and then
> dissapears again.
> Recently, I was unlucky, and even after several dozens of retries it's still
> undetectable by the system.
>
> Could you please advice what to do to make the disk detectable by the system
> all the time?
> What causes that it is not detectable although the failure is in mechanics not
> electronics?
>
> BTW, if someone has the same disk model (Quantum Fireball ST64A011), please
> let me know.
>
> andy
>

Maybe it stores part of its own software on the platters.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
September 3, 2004 10:55:42 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware (More info?)

>It's not a "feature". The mechanical noises and other symptoms you describe
>most likely result from a head crash, where the heads, which normally float on
>a very thin cushion of air, have contacted the disk surface and scraped the
>oxide off the disk, making it unreadable. If it can't be read, it won't come
>"ready" (as in "ready to use") and the BIOS won't detect it. Once the heads

It doesn't make sense to me. Even if part of the surface is destroyed, most of
it is not, why then not to detect the disk?

>crash, it only gets worse. If you open it up, you'll probably find bare spots
>on the disks where your data once was.

I opened it now (I don't care about the dust, since it's dead anyway), and the
surface of the first plate is in perfect condition, I can't see surfaces of
other plates, though.

>To repeat, it's not a "feature" that can be disabled. Your drive is dead. Trust
>me, I've serviced computer disk drives of various kinds since long before PC's
>existed, and I know how they fail.

I know it's broken down, but still, this behaviour of the disk is mysterious.
If it was like you said, then the disk would be dead all the time, but as I
described before sometimes it was possbile to detect it despite this failure.

Someone designed it that way, but perhaps there are ways to come round it.

a.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 4, 2004 12:59:17 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware (More info?)

"andy" <andy@antispam.com> wrote in message
news:g1dgj09nakqbs8cqgesq7o6eugr4bgj09p@4ax.com...
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> >> If it was an electronic failure then such behaviour would be obious,
but
> >why
> >> the same happens with some mechanical failures? When electronics is
> >working in
> >> my opinion it still should be detected by bios and/or the system (win
xp
> >or
> >> linux), but often it is not.
> >
> >What on earth for? Such would be highly misleading and a very poor
design
> >choice.
>
> But I could then recover 80% of my data, and now I can recover 0% of my
data.
> Does it make sense for you now?

Perfect sense and no you couldn't recover 80% of your data.

> Is there any way to disable that feature? (I mean to make the
malfunctioned
> HDD visible to the system again?)
>
> >The drive is DOA!
>
> Don't get DOA.

Dead On Arrival
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 4, 2004 1:01:16 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware (More info?)

"andy" <andy@antispam.com> wrote in message
news:09kgj0pvvlcdb63jjaidamoff9p4cmtthf@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 11:24:48 +0200, "Joep" <j o e p @ d i y d a t a r e c o
v e
> r y . n l> wrote:
>
> >"andy" <andy@antispam.com> wrote in message
> >news:k4mfj0lc7pcpoaqtl01v72ln87vi1jsphv@4ax.com...
>
> >*Sometimes* ... So, maybe it's the nature of the problem that prevents
the
> >disk from being detected.
>
> Failure to mechanics seems to be the problem causing the non-detection
> problem.
> Unfortunatelly the "sometimes" is now "nearly always".
>
> >How do you know? How did you come up with the 80%?
>
> When the disk was detectable then about 20% of files could not be read.
> This was not because bad sectors (the disk did not have any AFAIK), but
> because of the mechanics failure (when it started to have the symptoms of
the
> failure also 20% of data became unavailable).

No, now 100% is unavailable.

> >You should try to clone it as long as you can see it. However, every read
> >may worsen the condition of the disk, in general it is advised to cease
DIY
> >recovery attempts (if the data is important to you) when a disk is maing
> >unusual and scary noises.
>
> Yes, it seems that the condition very quickly became much worse.

Isn't that what I said.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 4, 2004 1:01:58 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware (More info?)

"CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:41386C70.7010200@prodigy.net...
> andy wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> > Could someone please explain why in the case of *mechanical* failure HD
> > becomes sometimes undetected by BIOS and/or the operating system (e.g.
win xp
> > or linux)?
> > If it was an electronic failure then such behaviour would be obious, but
why
> > the same happens with some mechanical failures? When electronics is
working in
> > my opinion it still should be detected by bios and/or the system (win xp
or
> > linux), but often it is not.
> > I could recover about 80% of the data from my HDD (which apparently has
a
> > mechanical failure - plates spin up and down, heads create bad noises)
if only
> > the disk could be seen by the system all the time. But often during
copying of
> > the data heads hit with a loud sound so badly that sometimes even the
plates
> > stop rotating, and the disk then dissapears from the system. It is then
very
> > difficult to make it detectable by the system again, sometimes the sytem
can
> > detect it but only after several minutes of copying it freezes and then
> > dissapears again.
> > Recently, I was unlucky, and even after several dozens of retries it's
still
> > undetectable by the system.
> >
> > Could you please advice what to do to make the disk detectable by the
system
> > all the time?
> > What causes that it is not detectable although the failure is in
mechanics not
> > electronics?
> >
> > BTW, if someone has the same disk model (Quantum Fireball ST64A011),
please
> > let me know.
> >
> > andy
> >
>
> Maybe it stores part of its own software on the platters.

Most all current HDs do that.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 4, 2004 1:03:42 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware (More info?)

"andy" <andy@antispam.com> wrote in message
news:a2bhj0duf53491j1g8sv3dankhk7gbh53d@4ax.com...
>
> >It's not a "feature". The mechanical noises and other symptoms you
describe
> >most likely result from a head crash, where the heads, which normally
float on
> >a very thin cushion of air, have contacted the disk surface and scraped
the
> >oxide off the disk, making it unreadable. If it can't be read, it won't
come
> >"ready" (as in "ready to use") and the BIOS won't detect it. Once the
heads
>
> It doesn't make sense to me. Even if part of the surface is destroyed,
most of
> it is not,

Nonsense. Once any part of the surface is destroyed then then rest dies
VERY soon thereafter.
September 4, 2004 2:56:03 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware (More info?)

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 20:59:17 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote:

>> But I could then recover 80% of my data, and now I can recover 0% of my
>data.
>> Does it make sense for you now?
>
>Perfect sense and no you couldn't recover 80% of your data.

Why?

a.
September 4, 2004 2:59:47 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware (More info?)

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 21:03:42 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote:

>Nonsense. Once any part of the surface is destroyed then then rest dies
>VERY soon thereafter.

It depends what you mean saying that.
When the disk was detectable always the same data was unavailable, therefore I
assume that if only the disk could be detectable then I could recover 80% of
the data.

a.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 4, 2004 3:00:39 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware (More info?)

"andy" <andy@antispam.com> wrote in message
news:j6qhj09dh5o5un9f79vojl1rat5luteklr@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 21:03:42 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net>
wrote:
>
> >Nonsense. Once any part of the surface is destroyed then then rest dies
> >VERY soon thereafter.
>
> It depends what you mean saying that.
> When the disk was detectable always the same data was unavailable,
therefore I
> assume that if only the disk could be detectable then I could recover 80%
of
> the data.

No, the entire surface is covered with pixie dust.
September 4, 2004 3:00:52 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware (More info?)

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 21:01:16 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote:

>> When the disk was detectable then about 20% of files could not be read.
>> This was not because bad sectors (the disk did not have any AFAIK), but
>> because of the mechanics failure (when it started to have the symptoms of
>the
>> failure also 20% of data became unavailable).
>
>No, now 100% is unavailable.

Only because the disk cannot be detected.

a.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 4, 2004 4:10:32 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware (More info?)

"andy" <andy@antispam.com> wrote in message
news:k2qhj0pjs8knu66v0blebq0knjsn8h98st@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 20:59:17 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net>
wrote:
>
> >> But I could then recover 80% of my data, and now I can recover 0% of my
> >data.
> >> Does it make sense for you now?
> >
> >Perfect sense and no you couldn't recover 80% of your data.
>
> Why?


Soot.
September 4, 2004 4:11:12 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware (More info?)

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 23:00:39 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote:

>
>"andy" <andy@antispam.com> wrote in message
>news:j6qhj09dh5o5un9f79vojl1rat5luteklr@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 21:03:42 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net>
>wrote:

>> It depends what you mean saying that.
>> When the disk was detectable always the same data was unavailable,
>therefore I
>> assume that if only the disk could be detectable then I could recover 80%
>of
>> the data.
>
>No, the entire surface is covered with pixie dust.

So what. The data could not be recovered not because of bad sectors (there
were none before failure, not sure whether there are any now - not possible to
test it), but because of the bad movements of the heads, and bad spinning of
the plates.

a.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 4, 2004 4:11:13 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware (More info?)

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 00:11:12 +0100, andy <andy@antispam.com>
wrote:

>So what. The data could not be recovered not because of bad sectors (there
>were none before failure, not sure whether there are any now - not possible to
>test it), but because of the bad movements of the heads, and bad spinning of
>the plates.

LOL, since you seem to be an expert at it, recover the data and
then you have proof!

Your drive is dead, the data is gone... move on, you're just
wasting time now.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 4, 2004 4:37:13 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware (More info?)

"Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message news:aZ4_c.301352$OB3.3524@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:41386C70.7010200@prodigy.net...
> > andy wrote:
> >
> > > Hi!
> > > Could someone please explain why in the case of *mechanical* failure HD
> > > becomes sometimes undetected by BIOS and/or the operating system (e.g.
> > > win xp or linux)?
> > > If it was an electronic failure then such behaviour would be obious, but why
> > > the same happens with some mechanical failures? When electronics is working
> > > in my opinion it still should be detected by bios and/or the system (win xp or
> > > linux), but often it is not.
> > > I could recover about 80% of the data from my HDD (which apparently has a
> > > mechanical failure - plates spin up and down, heads create bad noises) if only
> > > the disk could be seen by the system all the time. But often during copying of
> > > the data heads hit with a loud sound so badly that sometimes even the plates
> > > stop rotating, and the disk then dissapears from the system. It is then very
> > > difficult to make it detectable by the system again, sometimes the sytem can
> > > detect it but only after several minutes of copying it freezes and then
> > > dissapears again.
> > > Recently, I was unlucky, and even after several dozens of retries it's still
> > > undetectable by the system.
> > >
> > > Could you please advice what to do to make the disk detectable by the system
> > > all the time?
> > > What causes that it is not detectable although the failure is in mechanics not
> > > electronics?
> > >
> > > BTW, if someone has the same disk model (Quantum Fireball ST64A011), please
> > > let me know.
> > >
> > > andy
> > >
> >
> > Maybe it stores part of its own software on the platters.
>
> Most all current HDs do that.

Nope, "most all current HDs" probably do not.
My IBM DMVS does not and that drive is already ~5 years old.
Flashrom has become cheap enough to take all the firmware, not
just the bare minimum part to spin the drive up and load the rest.
September 5, 2004 6:19:01 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware (More info?)

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 23:53:02 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 00:11:12 +0100, andy <andy@antispam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>So what. The data could not be recovered not because of bad sectors (there
>>were none before failure, not sure whether there are any now - not possible to
>>test it), but because of the bad movements of the heads, and bad spinning of
>>the plates.
>
>LOL, since you seem to be an expert at it, recover the data and
>then you have proof!

I will if you only tell me how to make the disk visible in the system.

>Your drive is dead, the data is gone... move on, you're just
>wasting time now.

Most of the data (perhaps even all) is not gone - all plates (or most of the
plates) are not damaged, so the data are still on them and just wait to be
recovered. I will recover it if I buy another such disk model.

But in one thing you're right - I'm wasting my time talking to you. :/ 
Bye.

a.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 5, 2004 6:51:07 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware (More info?)

"andy" <andy@antispam.com> wrote in message
news:s0qkj05a6hdq7k777vi0c31r201iis3tlt@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 23:53:02 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 00:11:12 +0100, andy <andy@antispam.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>So what. The data could not be recovered not because of bad sectors
(there
> >>were none before failure, not sure whether there are any now - not
possible to
> >>test it), but because of the bad movements of the heads, and bad
spinning of
> >>the plates.
> >
> >LOL, since you seem to be an expert at it, recover the data and
> >then you have proof!
>
> I will if you only tell me how to make the disk visible in the system.
>
> >Your drive is dead, the data is gone... move on, you're just
> >wasting time now.
>
> Most of the data (perhaps even all) is not gone - all plates (or most of
the
> plates) are not damaged,

WRONG, they're covered with soot and unusable.
September 5, 2004 3:51:34 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware (More info?)

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 02:51:07 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote:


>WRONG, they're covered with soot and unusable.

How can you be sure?

a.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 5, 2004 10:42:05 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware (More info?)

andy wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 02:51:07 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>WRONG, they're covered with soot and unusable.
>
>
> How can you be sure?

The platters are moving quite fast -- thousands of RPMs. When the heads
crash they will generate generate debris above those rapidly moving
platters. Where else would those particles come to rest?
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 6, 2004 4:58:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware (More info?)

"Grinder" <grinder@no.spam.maam.net> wrote in message news:16J_c.124791$Fg5.85738@attbi_s53
> andy wrote:
> > On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 02:51:07 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote:
> >
> > > WRONG, they're covered with soot and unusable.
> >
> >
> > How can you be sure?
>
> The platters are moving quite fast -- thousands of RPMs. When the heads
> crash they will generate generate debris above those rapidly moving platters.

> Where else would those particles come to rest?

On those rapidly moving platters, right? Do you ever read your posts back?
Anywhere *except* those rapidly moving platters, of course.
They will be shot right into the casing walls where they may be swept by the
rotating air into a particle filter.

And btw, who cares what happens to the heads when you can worry about par-
ticals that escape the particle filter when they shoot off those platters, right?
September 6, 2004 5:22:01 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware (More info?)

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 18:42:05 GMT, Grinder <grinder@no.spam.maam.net> wrote:

>andy wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 02:51:07 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>WRONG, they're covered with soot and unusable.
>>
>>
>> How can you be sure?
>
>The platters are moving quite fast -- thousands of RPMs. When the heads
>crash they will generate generate debris above those rapidly moving
>platters. Where else would those particles come to rest?

But that still may not disable access to most of the data in a short period of
time. According to Ontrack opening a disk in ordinary conditions (which I
assume is even worse than those particles from head crash) usually shortens
life of a disk from 100 to 1000 times - it doesn't kill all data on disk
instantly.

a.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 6, 2004 9:44:17 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware (More info?)

"andy" <andy@antispam.com> wrote in message
news:g4bnj0dlt0u4kvsged69onssn56th7eeub@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 18:42:05 GMT, Grinder <grinder@no.spam.maam.net>
wrote:
>
> >andy wrote:
> >> On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 02:51:07 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net>
wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>WRONG, they're covered with soot and unusable.
> >>
> >>
> >> How can you be sure?
> >
> >The platters are moving quite fast -- thousands of RPMs. When the heads
> >crash they will generate generate debris above those rapidly moving
> >platters. Where else would those particles come to rest?
>
> But that still may not disable access to most of the data in a short
period of
> time. According to Ontrack opening a disk in ordinary conditions (which I
> assume is even worse than those particles from head crash) usually
shortens
> life of a disk from 100 to 1000 times - it doesn't kill all data on disk
> instantly.

That's misleading. The mean time to TOTAL failure once the lid has been
lifted is down in the hours range and can be MUCH less.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 6, 2004 6:12:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware (More info?)

"Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message news:ROS_c.315088$OB3.269021@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "andy" <andy@antispam.com> wrote in message
> news:g4bnj0dlt0u4kvsged69onssn56th7eeub@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 18:42:05 GMT, Grinder <grinder@no.spam.maam.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > >andy wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 02:51:07 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>WRONG, they're covered with soot and unusable.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> How can you be sure?
> > >
> > >The platters are moving quite fast -- thousands of RPMs. When the heads
> > >crash they will generate generate debris above those rapidly moving
> > >platters. Where else would those particles come to rest?
> >
> > But that still may not disable access to most of the data in a short
> period of
> > time. According to Ontrack opening a disk in ordinary conditions (which I
> > assume is even worse than those particles from head crash) usually
> shortens
> > life of a disk from 100 to 1000 times - it doesn't kill all data on disk
> > instantly.
>
> That's misleading. The mean time to TOTAL failure once the lid has been
> lifted is down in the hours range and can be MUCH less.

Clueless. Can't even setup his newsreader properly either.

>
>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 9, 2004 12:01:38 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware (More info?)

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message
news:2q44hpFr6o3lU1@uni-berlin.de...

> > > time. According to Ontrack opening a disk in ordinary conditions
(which I
> > > assume is even worse than those particles from head crash) usually
> > shortens
> > > life of a disk from 100 to 1000 times - it doesn't kill all data on
disk
> > > instantly.
> >
> > That's misleading. The mean time to TOTAL failure once the lid has been
> > lifted is down in the hours range and can be MUCH less.
>
> Clueless. Can't even setup his newsreader properly either.

Go ahead wacko...pull the cover from a >=60GB HD mfg in the last 2 years and
let it sit there and run with the lid off in the average home
environment...tell us all how long it lives. While it's goin watch it
carefully...you might learn something..wear glasses.
!