On 15 Jun 2008 23:09:20 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
>> 2) As I wrote above, but that you snipped out, if something
>
>What is you beef with me shortening postings? Don't you have a
>newsreader that shows the full history? I do this purely to
>make things easier to read.
But you snipped out a relevant portion of what I wrote then
replied as if I hadn't written it.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:46:03 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher
<wb8foz@panix.com> wrote:
>kony <spam@spam.com> writes:
>
>
>>Regardless, you do bring up a good point I had not
>>considered, that if they made a huge blunder and somehow
>>managed to divert some returned drive to replacement status
>>without having checked it thoroughly and wiped it, then if
>>the drive had intact filesystem instead of wiped as far as
>>OP has, it would expose the original owner's files.
>
>To me it appeared they had tested the drive, decided it was
>OK [the fault appeared when the drive had been run for 8 hours or so..] and
>sent it out. They clearly had no SOP of wiping such at
>the factory level. [i.e. rewriting all the bits, not just
>those the OS can see...]
This is not a proof they had no SOP of wiping drives
properly, only that one specimen wasn't. I've had plenty of
drives over the years and never had any data remaining on
them when received.
Plus, if it was just rewriting what the OS can see, how
would it guard against alternative OS with different
filesystem support? How would you have an intact filesystem
if they prevented OS from seeing, which would mean wiping
out filesystem?
Come to think of it, was this even dealing directly with
Samsung or through a 3rd party? It would be an extremely
rare thing if through the HDD manufacturer directly, these
things also tend to create at least urban myths if not front
page news on many tech sites.
>
>>Did you notify Samsung of this? I hope so, that they might
>>put more attention into preventing it.
>
>As if I could find someone who would know and care?
It has a much higher chance of success through trying than
not trying?
Arno Wagner wrote:
> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
>> 2) As I wrote above, but that you snipped out, if something
>
> What is you beef with me shortening postings? Don't you have a
> newsreader that shows the full history? I do this purely to
> make things easier to read. The old, full posting is there.
> I hide nothing by quoting selectively the parts that I want
> to comment on.
>
> Incidentially, netiquete recommends shortening postings in
> relpies to the parts you reply to.
The point is that messages should stand alone. There is no reason,
in Usenet, to assume that readers can ever read any other
messages. Thus the practice of snipping irrelevant material. If
relevant to your reply, don't snip it.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
> On 15 Jun 2008 23:09:20 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>>> 2) As I wrote above, but that you snipped out, if something
>>
>>What is you beef with me shortening postings? Don't you have a
>>newsreader that shows the full history? I do this purely to
>>make things easier to read.
> But you snipped out a relevant portion of what I wrote then
> replied as if I hadn't written it.
Not true. I did not consider it relevant and I have explained
why. And what I consider relevant is my decision. Anybody
else can make their own decision of course and disagree with
me. But what I cite or do not cite in my posting is not
your decision at all.
>>They clearly had no SOP of wiping such at the factory level. [i.e.
>>rewriting all the bits, not just those the OS can see...]
>This is not a proof they had no SOP of wiping drives
>properly, only that one specimen wasn't. I've had plenty of
>drives over the years and never had any data remaining on
>them when received.
Which says nothing.
>Plus, if it was just rewriting what the OS can see, how would it guard
>against alternative OS with different filesystem support?
The platter stores bits. Some large percentage of those are available
through its controller, and can be used to build file systems of all
kinds.
But others are ones solely for the use of the drive itself. One example
is spare sectors held in reserve.
But others are even LESS user-accessable; those that in effect, paint
lines on the bare platter for the higher order systems to use. There are
going to be written originally at the factory, likely before the drives
electronics are installed/activated.
>How would you have an intact filesystem if they prevented OS from
>seeing, which would mean wiping out filesystem?
If Samsung had subjected the drive to through testing/rewriting the
platter bits; it would not have kept an intact user filesystem.
>Come to think of it, was this even dealing directly with Samsung or
>through a 3rd party? It would be an extremely rare thing if through the
>HDD manufacturer directly, these things also tend to create at least
>urban myths if not front page news on many tech sites.
It was their warrantee center. Contract or not, it was their agents,
using their policies..
>>As if I could find someone who would know and care?
>It has a much higher chance of success through trying than
>not trying?
Let me know when you find the person I should talk with....
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
> On 15 Jun 2008 23:05:24 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>>Read the story I linked. Should open your eyes.
>>
> I was already aware of this, but it is not a hard drive
> manufacturer handling RMAs, and not of someone who has a
> malfuncitonal drive they've already wiped out the filesystem
> and much data thereon. Show an example of that happening...
The argument here would be that if the HDD manufacturers
do this, then they would keep it secret. That means the
absence of evidence is not conclusive either way.
However, the next closest thing are PC repair shops, and
for them there is evidence. If you do not have proof either
way, you can always try to find an analog situation and
get some indications from there. If you do not understand
that mode of argumentation, not my problem.
> Plus, as I'd written if there was something illegal then
> destroy the drive.
And I re-iterate, the illegality is not an issue. An issue
is whether it is something you care about being found or not.
Illegality is a rather weak criterion for that.
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> wrote:
> kony <spam@spam.com> writes:
[...]
>>How would you have an intact filesystem if they prevented OS from
>>seeing, which would mean wiping out filesystem?
> If Samsung had subjected the drive to through testing/rewriting the
> platter bits; it would not have kept an intact user filesystem.
You cannot know that. Even an intense R/W test can reconstruct the
original data afterwards.
>>Come to think of it, was this even dealing directly with Samsung or
>>through a 3rd party? It would be an extremely rare thing if through the
>>HDD manufacturer directly, these things also tend to create at least
>>urban myths if not front page news on many tech sites.
> It was their warrantee center. Contract or not, it was their agents,
> using their policies..
And possibly implementing them the cheapest way possible. Also,
the policies for HDDs in laptops may or may not be similar to
those for RMAed drives. Your samle shows, however, that at
least part of Samsung is not concerned about habding one
customer's data to a different customer.
>>It has a much higher chance of success through trying than
>>not trying?
> Let me know when you find the person I should talk with....
I don't think complaining will do anything. Take the object lesson
(wipe your drives before RMA or if you cannot, do not RMA them)
and be done. As to the joker that is only concerned about illegal
stuff, what about passwords, credit-card numbers, personal email and
photographs, etc...?
On 16 Jun 2008 17:57:26 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>> On 15 Jun 2008 23:05:24 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net>
>> wrote:
>
>
>>>Read the story I linked. Should open your eyes.
>>>
>
>> I was already aware of this, but it is not a hard drive
>> manufacturer handling RMAs, and not of someone who has a
>> malfuncitonal drive they've already wiped out the filesystem
>> and much data thereon. Show an example of that happening...
>
>The argument here would be that if the HDD manufacturers
>do this, then they would keep it secret. That means the
>absence of evidence is not conclusive either way.
Oh? If someone secretly takes data but it never effects the
person whose data was taken would it really matter? I would
have to think this is far fetched, that the person who has a
problem as a results would at least take them to court, it
would be public record and greatly publicized.
Regardless, the idea that we can assume something to be a
risk does depend on it happening, evidence. We could
arbitrarily say there's a real chance of being hit by an
asteroid right where we're sitting right now, but without
evidence of people being hit on a regular basis, the idea
that it's been kept secret is a bit out there.
>
>However, the next closest thing are PC repair shops, and
>for them there is evidence. If you do not have proof either
>way, you can always try to find an analog situation and
>get some indications from there. If you do not understand
>that mode of argumentation, not my problem.
I understand the argument, but understanding it doesn't
validate it.
>
>> Plus, as I'd written if there was something illegal then
>> destroy the drive.
>
>And I re-iterate, the illegality is not an issue. An issue
>is whether it is something you care about being found or not.
>Illegality is a rather weak criterion for that.
On the contrary, if you have nothing illegal, and no effect
ever comes of it because it's that "secret" you imply, we
might as well say it's irrelevant.
There are much much worse things to worry about if one wants
to be unreasonable. There is a greater chance someone has a
virus on their system and all their data was already
exposed. Based on real world evidence, there are real
examples of people's homes being broken into and their
computer stolen thus exposing the data yet everyone doesn't
encrypt all their data. There's a greater chance of someone
just intercepting your mail but everyone doesn't have a PO
box instead of local curbside or community mail. There' s a
greater chance (unless this "secret" is a really, really
well kept one) you'd be kidnapped and forced to give up the
information anyway. There's a chance every time your home
doorbell rings that it is a home invader about to enter.
All these things actually happen, have evidence to support
them, and yet they aren't reasonable to dwell on. There's a
reasonable limit to wild speculation. The world is not 100%
safe no matter what you do, but without any evidence of a
potential problem occurring it would be unreasonable to
assume one.
On 16 Jun 2008 13:38:45 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>> On 15 Jun 2008 23:09:20 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net>
>> wrote:
>
>
>>>> 2) As I wrote above, but that you snipped out, if something
>>>
>>>What is you beef with me shortening postings? Don't you have a
>>>newsreader that shows the full history? I do this purely to
>>>make things easier to read.
>
>> But you snipped out a relevant portion of what I wrote then
>> replied as if I hadn't written it.
>
>Not true. I did not consider it relevant and I have explained
>why.
.... and yet you then attempted to argue against it.
Get over it, you choose what you wrote and so did I, having
at least as much right to state what I did as you did to
snip it.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:50:02 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher
<wb8foz@panix.com> wrote:
>kony <spam@spam.com> writes:
>
>>>They clearly had no SOP of wiping such at the factory level. [i.e.
>>>rewriting all the bits, not just those the OS can see...]
>
>>This is not a proof they had no SOP of wiping drives
>>properly, only that one specimen wasn't. I've had plenty of
>>drives over the years and never had any data remaining on
>>them when received.
>
>Which says nothing.
That, along with the fact that many other people have also
had drives replaced, says quite a lot about the rate of it
happening.
>
>>Plus, if it was just rewriting what the OS can see, how would it guard
>>against alternative OS with different filesystem support?
>
>The platter stores bits. Some large percentage of those are available
>through its controller, and can be used to build file systems of all
>kinds.
We were talking about an intact filesystem, but now you're
off on some wild tangent. For the sake of argument, yes all
of those bits in a (user) writable area are available, and
that only through the controller so the controller bit of
info was irrelevant. No you can't arbitrarily build file
systems of all kinds, the very most an unwiped drive can
have happen is the prior files reconstructed.
I suppose in that context, yes you can take any filesystem
and writing files to it, that does build a filesystem
referencing the files since that's what a filesystem
effectively does, but the distinction is irrelevant for the
purpose of distinguishing data recovery efforts.
>
>But others are ones solely for the use of the drive itself. One example
>is spare sectors held in reserve.
Which has no bearing, you're just listing random data on
hard drives in general.
>
>But others are even LESS user-accessable; those that in effect, paint
>lines on the bare platter for the higher order systems to use. There are
>going to be written originally at the factory, likely before the drives
>electronics are installed/activated.
Which also has no real bearing on the discussion.
>
>>How would you have an intact filesystem if they prevented OS from
>>seeing, which would mean wiping out filesystem?
>
>If Samsung had subjected the drive to through testing/rewriting the
>platter bits; it would not have kept an intact user filesystem.
Exactly, which is why it was very obviously not put through
their normal processes, why it is an extremely unusual thing
to have received, and why I asked if it was actually
processed by Samsung or through some 3rd party.
>
>>Come to think of it, was this even dealing directly with Samsung or
>>through a 3rd party? It would be an extremely rare thing if through the
>>HDD manufacturer directly, these things also tend to create at least
>>urban myths if not front page news on many tech sites.
>
>It was their warrantee center. Contract or not, it was their agents,
>using their policies..
>
>>>As if I could find someone who would know and care?
>
>>It has a much higher chance of success through trying than
>>not trying?
>
>Let me know when you find the person I should talk with....
How about you make the first effort through their contact
page for the hard drives / RMA process? If it had been a
drive I received, I'd have made the effort already, but
since you have the drive and information to convey it seems
you should have just done it rather than playing "discuss" a
simple thing.
On 16 Jun 2008 18:02:02 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> wrote:
>> kony <spam@spam.com> writes:
>[...]
>>>How would you have an intact filesystem if they prevented OS from
>>>seeing, which would mean wiping out filesystem?
>
>> If Samsung had subjected the drive to through testing/rewriting the
>> platter bits; it would not have kept an intact user filesystem.
>
>You cannot know that. Even an intense R/W test can reconstruct the
>original data afterwards.
Please be more specific about what you mean. A typical
multipass wipe will prevent anyone from reconstructing the
data later. This has been demonstrated countless times with
nobody able to do it. Oh, but maybe that's a "secret" too.
Not likely, it's the kind of thing someone would brag about
unless you want to be extra extra paranoid and claim the
pros can't but some secret government organization does.
>
>>>Come to think of it, was this even dealing directly with Samsung or
>>>through a 3rd party? It would be an extremely rare thing if through the
>>>HDD manufacturer directly, these things also tend to create at least
>>>urban myths if not front page news on many tech sites.
>
>> It was their warrantee center. Contract or not, it was their agents,
>> using their policies..
>
>And possibly implementing them the cheapest way possible. Also,
>the policies for HDDs in laptops may or may not be similar to
>those for RMAed drives. Your samle shows, however, that at
>least part of Samsung is not concerned about habding one
>customer's data to a different customer.
A sample of one means little, in any aspect of any larger
group. We can contrast that with all other customers that
didn't receive a drive with an intact filesystem on it
meaning those went through further process than this one
sample. The one sample is an indication that there is not
100% effective wiping, IF we have all and accurate
information about the situation, but if you're holding out
on everything in life that's 100%, you'll be in for a long
wait most of the time.
>
>>>It has a much higher chance of success through trying than
>>>not trying?
>
>> Let me know when you find the person I should talk with....
>
>I don't think complaining will do anything.
Complaining no, informing of it happening. That has
infinitely higher chances of them being more aware of the
problem than if they're never told. Same as any problem
with anything, from beta software to automobile recalls to
(take your pick).
>Take the object lesson
>(wipe your drives before RMA or if you cannot, do not RMA them)
>and be done. As to the joker that is only concerned about illegal
>stuff, what about passwords, credit-card numbers, personal email and
>photographs, etc...?
.... but you just got done saying it must've been a "secret"
that nobody knows about. Do you think nobody would notice
if their accounts were ransacked, their credit cards had
charges for places they'd never shopped, etc? Oh, I suppose
they're not saying anything because they are part of the
conspiracy to keep it a secret.
Go ahead and go through all kinds of special measures of you
like, but be sure to come back and tell us if there is ever
one time someone had their data taken by a hard drive
manufacturer from an RMA processed drive. Until then, you
ARE being paranoid, it is a textbook example of that.
On Jun 14, 3:07*pm, David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> wrote:
> kony <s...@spam.com> writes:
> >Just send the drive in as-is. *They could not allow anyone
> >to steal data off of drives as it would ruin their business,
>
> I got a replacement laptop drive from Samsung. It had a complete NTFS
> filesystem from someone in Brazil. [He liked Christina Aguilera...]
>
> It failed within days; it would work only when cold. I got a third one
> and it was empty...
My drive is a Samsung, so I better make sure it's wiped!
One of the reasons I'd like to RMA it is because I have a RAID-1
setup, and I have heard that different HD brands may be slightly
different in size even if they claim to be the same size. So if I
put in a different HD, the RAID controller might reject it if it finds
out it is slightly smaller than the other drive in the array.
Arno Wagner wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
> I don't think complaining will do anything. Take the object lesson
> (wipe your drives before RMA or if you cannot, do not RMA them)
> and be done. As to the joker that is only concerned about illegal
> stuff, what about passwords, credit-card numbers, personal email
> and photographs, etc...?
In addition, a returned drive MAY be worth as much as 50 dollars to
the manufacturer (remember, it costs money to rework, restock, and
resell it, together with a new warranty). How much of this do you
really think they are willing to spend on investigating that drive
for important or illegal data?
You are lost in the data anonymity.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
> On 16 Jun 2008 17:57:26 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>> On 15 Jun 2008 23:05:24 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Read the story I linked. Should open your eyes.
>>>>
>>
>>> I was already aware of this, but it is not a hard drive
>>> manufacturer handling RMAs, and not of someone who has a
>>> malfuncitonal drive they've already wiped out the filesystem
>>> and much data thereon. Show an example of that happening...
>>
>>The argument here would be that if the HDD manufacturers
>>do this, then they would keep it secret. That means the
>>absence of evidence is not conclusive either way.
> Oh? If someone secretly takes data but it never effects the
> person whose data was taken would it really matter? I would
> have to think this is far fetched, that the person who has a
> problem as a results would at least take them to court, it
> would be public record and greatly publicized.
> Regardless, the idea that we can assume something to be a
> risk does depend on it happening, evidence. We could
> arbitrarily say there's a real chance of being hit by an
> asteroid right where we're sitting right now, but without
> evidence of people being hit on a regular basis, the idea
> that it's been kept secret is a bit out there.
>>
>>However, the next closest thing are PC repair shops, and
>>for them there is evidence. If you do not have proof either
>>way, you can always try to find an analog situation and
>>get some indications from there. If you do not understand
>>that mode of argumentation, not my problem.
> I understand the argument, but understanding it doesn't
> validate it.
>>
>>> Plus, as I'd written if there was something illegal then
>>> destroy the drive.
>>
>>And I re-iterate, the illegality is not an issue. An issue
>>is whether it is something you care about being found or not.
>>Illegality is a rather weak criterion for that.
> On the contrary, if you have nothing illegal, and no effect
> ever comes of it because it's that "secret" you imply, we
> might as well say it's irrelevant.
> There are much much worse things to worry about if one wants
> to be unreasonable. There is a greater chance someone has a
> virus on their system and all their data was already
> exposed. Based on real world evidence, there are real
> examples of people's homes being broken into and their
> computer stolen thus exposing the data yet everyone doesn't
> encrypt all their data. There's a greater chance of someone
> just intercepting your mail but everyone doesn't have a PO
> box instead of local curbside or community mail. There' s a
> greater chance (unless this "secret" is a really, really
> well kept one) you'd be kidnapped and forced to give up the
> information anyway. There's a chance every time your home
> doorbell rings that it is a home invader about to enter.
> All these things actually happen, have evidence to support
> them, and yet they aren't reasonable to dwell on. There's a
> reasonable limit to wild speculation. The world is not 100%
> safe no matter what you do, but without any evidence of a
> potential problem occurring it would be unreasonable to
> assume one.
I think we can conclude this. I have made my view clear,
you have and they are different and based on different
assumptions. I do not see us reaching commong ground here.
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
> On 16 Jun 2008 13:38:45 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>> On 15 Jun 2008 23:09:20 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> 2) As I wrote above, but that you snipped out, if something
>>>>
>>>>What is you beef with me shortening postings? Don't you have a
>>>>newsreader that shows the full history? I do this purely to
>>>>make things easier to read.
>>
>>> But you snipped out a relevant portion of what I wrote then
>>> replied as if I hadn't written it.
>>
>>Not true. I did not consider it relevant and I have explained
>>why.
> ... and yet you then attempted to argue against it.
> Get over it, you choose what you wrote and so did I, having
> at least as much right to state what I did as you did to
> snip it.
Well, legally I did not snip, but included part of your message.
There is of course no requirement at all for this, but it is
convenient to include short quotations to illustrate what
I was responding to. In common usenet usage, and because
messages are short, a "short quotation" can be the full message.
The only legal and morel requirement is to make sure the
quoted parts are attributed correctly. This is done here
with a head comment and a matching indention level.
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage void.no.spam.com@gmail.com <void.no.spam.com@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 3:07*pm, David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> wrote:
>> kony <s...@spam.com> writes:
>> >Just send the drive in as-is. *They could not allow anyone
>> >to steal data off of drives as it would ruin their business,
>>
>> I got a replacement laptop drive from Samsung. It had a complete NTFS
>> filesystem from someone in Brazil. [He liked Christina Aguilera...]
>>
>> It failed within days; it would work only when cold. I got a third one
>> and it was empty...
> My drive is a Samsung, so I better make sure it's wiped!
> One of the reasons I'd like to RMA it is because I have a RAID-1
> setup, and I have heard that different HD brands may be slightly
> different in size even if they claim to be the same size.
Ahh, no. But a size claim like "120GB" is not really a size
claim, but an approximation. If you look a bit closer, you will
find your disk size is something like "LBA 312,581,808" (as
Samsung likes to state it) or 312581808sectors of 512 Bytes
each. If you get a replacement that has the same number of
sectors or more, it will work in your RAID1. To identify such
a drive, you can either use something fairly larger (a 160GB
dribe in your case) or look up the exact size of the potential
replacement on the manufacturers website. It is typically
advertised there, because of this RAID issue, and also because
People frequently do not understand what a GB is (namely
1,000,000,000 Bytes).
> So if I
> put in a different HD, the RAID controller might reject it if it finds
> out it is slightly smaller than the other drive in the array.
On 16 Jun 2008 22:26:15 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
>I think we can conclude this. I have made my view clear,
>you have and they are different and based on different
>assumptions. I do not see us reaching commong ground here.
On 16 Jun 2008 22:34:52 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage void.no.spam.com@gmail.com <void.no.spam.com@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 3:07*pm, David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> kony <s...@spam.com> writes:
>>> >Just send the drive in as-is. *They could not allow anyone
>>> >to steal data off of drives as it would ruin their business,
>>>
>>> I got a replacement laptop drive from Samsung. It had a complete NTFS
>>> filesystem from someone in Brazil. [He liked Christina Aguilera...]
>>>
>>> It failed within days; it would work only when cold. I got a third one
>>> and it was empty...
>
>> My drive is a Samsung, so I better make sure it's wiped!
>
>> One of the reasons I'd like to RMA it is because I have a RAID-1
>> setup, and I have heard that different HD brands may be slightly
>> different in size even if they claim to be the same size.
>
>Ahh, no. But a size claim like "120GB" is not really a size
>claim, but an approximation. If you look a bit closer, you will
>find your disk size is something like "LBA 312,581,808" (as
>Samsung likes to state it) or 312581808sectors of 512 Bytes
>each. If you get a replacement that has the same number of
>sectors or more, it will work in your RAID1. To identify such
>a drive, you can either use something fairly larger (a 160GB
>dribe in your case) or look up the exact size of the potential
>replacement on the manufacturers website. It is typically
>advertised there, because of this RAID issue, and also because
>People frequently do not understand what a GB is (namely
>1,000,000,000 Bytes).
>
>> So if I
>> put in a different HD, the RAID controller might reject it if it finds
>> out it is slightly smaller than the other drive in the array.
>
>Indeed. See above on how to get around this.
>
>Arno
I think you are missing his point, that he is receiving an
RMA replacement drive and has hopes that what he receives,
which he has no control over, will be as large or larger in
actual down-to-the-byte capacity as the remaining member of
the array.
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
> On 16 Jun 2008 22:34:52 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage void.no.spam.com@gmail.com <void.no.spam.com@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 14, 3:07*pm, David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> kony <s...@spam.com> writes:
>>>> >Just send the drive in as-is. *They could not allow anyone
>>>> >to steal data off of drives as it would ruin their business,
>>>>
>>>> I got a replacement laptop drive from Samsung. It had a complete NTFS
>>>> filesystem from someone in Brazil. [He liked Christina Aguilera...]
>>>>
>>>> It failed within days; it would work only when cold. I got a third one
>>>> and it was empty...
>>
>>> My drive is a Samsung, so I better make sure it's wiped!
>>
>>> One of the reasons I'd like to RMA it is because I have a RAID-1
>>> setup, and I have heard that different HD brands may be slightly
>>> different in size even if they claim to be the same size.
>>
>>Ahh, no. But a size claim like "120GB" is not really a size
>>claim, but an approximation. If you look a bit closer, you will
>>find your disk size is something like "LBA 312,581,808" (as
>>Samsung likes to state it) or 312581808sectors of 512 Bytes
>>each. If you get a replacement that has the same number of
>>sectors or more, it will work in your RAID1. To identify such
>>a drive, you can either use something fairly larger (a 160GB
>>dribe in your case) or look up the exact size of the potential
>>replacement on the manufacturers website. It is typically
>>advertised there, because of this RAID issue, and also because
>>People frequently do not understand what a GB is (namely
>>1,000,000,000 Bytes).
>>
>>> So if I
>>> put in a different HD, the RAID controller might reject it if it finds
>>> out it is slightly smaller than the other drive in the array.
>>
>>Indeed. See above on how to get around this.
>>
>>Arno
> I think you are missing his point, that he is receiving an
> RMA replacement drive and has hopes that what he receives,
> which he has no control over, will be as large or larger in
> actual down-to-the-byte capacity as the remaining member of
> the array.
Yes. But it is not needed to RMA for that reason, you can go
to a different model/brand, if you look at the exact size.
As for my personal RMA experience, I have allways
reeived a drive the exact same size or larger so far.
But that was in only about 6 instances and only Maxtor
and Seagate and one (by now historic) Deathstar.
In message <e9ae54pvqb9i2v2ardh3ae63dbtvtfs4ni@4ax.com> kony
<spam@spam.com> wrote:
>I think you are missing his point, that he is receiving an
>RMA replacement drive and has hopes that what he receives,
>which he has no control over, will be as large or larger in
>actual down-to-the-byte capacity as the remaining member of
>the array.
If it isn't, you contact the company and have them ship a suitable
replacement.
On Jun 14, 5:02*am, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage void.no.spam....@gmail.com <void.no.spam....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 1:04 pm, Grinder <grin...@no.spam.maam.com> wrote:
> >> void.no.spam....@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > I have a 120 GB hard drive that my RAID controller encountered an
> >> > error with, so I am trying to wipe it and return it to the
> >> > manufacturer. *But when I use Copywipe to wipe it, Copywipe encounters
> >> > an error at 52%. *It asks me if I want to continue, and I enter Y, but
> >> > then Copywipe freezes the system. *So it looks like Copywipe will only
> >> > be able to wipe half the drive. *Any way I can get past that error and
> >> > wipe the rest of it? *Any other wiping software that can handle a bad
> >> > drive?
>
> >> Probably not, but you can try dban.
> > I am running DBAN now, and after 4 hours, it has already completed 3
> > passes. *After 4 hours, Copywipe had only completed 20% of the first
> > pass. *And DBAN has an error counter that says 0. *So that seems
> > strange.
> > I believe that DBAN will write all zeros for the last pass. *After it
> > is done, is there any way for me to verify that it actually wiped the
> > drive, and that the drive has all zeros?
>
> Under Linux do:
> * cat <device> | hex
>
> THis will list all non-zero areas and compress the lsiting for
> zero areas into one line ach.
The Knoppix CD does not appear to have the "hex" command.
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage void.no.spam.com@gmail.com <void.no.spam.com@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 5:02*am, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage void.no.spam....@gmail.com <void.no.spam....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 13, 1:04 pm, Grinder <grin...@no.spam.maam.com> wrote:
>> >> void.no.spam....@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > I have a 120 GB hard drive that my RAID controller encountered an
>> >> > error with, so I am trying to wipe it and return it to the
>> >> > manufacturer. *But when I use Copywipe to wipe it, Copywipe encounters
>> >> > an error at 52%. *It asks me if I want to continue, and I enter Y, but
>> >> > then Copywipe freezes the system. *So it looks like Copywipe will only
>> >> > be able to wipe half the drive. *Any way I can get past that error and
>> >> > wipe the rest of it? *Any other wiping software that can handle a bad
>> >> > drive?
>>
>> >> Probably not, but you can try dban.
>> > I am running DBAN now, and after 4 hours, it has already completed 3
>> > passes. *After 4 hours, Copywipe had only completed 20% of the first
>> > pass. *And DBAN has an error counter that says 0. *So that seems
>> > strange.
>> > I believe that DBAN will write all zeros for the last pass. *After it
>> > is done, is there any way for me to verify that it actually wiped the
>> > drive, and that the drive has all zeros?
>>
>> Under Linux do:
>> * cat <device> | hex
>>
>> THis will list all non-zero areas and compress the lsiting for
>> zero areas into one line ach.
> The Knoppix CD does not appear to have the "hex" command.
Hmm. You are right, it seems hex is not in knoppix.
''hexdump'' has similar functionality and will also
aggregate lines that are the same.
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:20:46 -0600, DevilsPGD
<spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>In message <e9ae54pvqb9i2v2ardh3ae63dbtvtfs4ni@4ax.com> kony
><spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>I think you are missing his point, that he is receiving an
>>RMA replacement drive and has hopes that what he receives,
>>which he has no control over, will be as large or larger in
>>actual down-to-the-byte capacity as the remaining member of
>>the array.
>
>If it isn't, you contact the company and have them ship a suitable
>replacement.
>
>Heard of "fit-for-purpose"?
It's worth a try but unless the drive was advertised for
particular raid array purposes, there is no lack of fitness
issue.
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:20:46 -0600, DevilsPGD
> <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
>> In message <e9ae54pvqb9i2v2ardh3ae63dbtvtfs4ni@4ax.com> kony
>> <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think you are missing his point, that he is receiving an
>>> RMA replacement drive and has hopes that what he receives,
>>> which he has no control over, will be as large or larger in
>>> actual down-to-the-byte capacity as the remaining member of
>>> the array.
>>
>> If it isn't, you contact the company and have them ship a suitable
>> replacement.
>>
>> Heard of "fit-for-purpose"?
>
> It's worth a try but unless the drive was advertised for
> particular raid array purposes, there is no lack of fitness
> issue.
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:20:46 -0600, DevilsPGD
> <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>>In message <e9ae54pvqb9i2v2ardh3ae63dbtvtfs4ni@4ax.com> kony
>><spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I think you are missing his point, that he is receiving an
>>>RMA replacement drive and has hopes that what he receives,
>>>which he has no control over, will be as large or larger in
>>>actual down-to-the-byte capacity as the remaining member of
>>>the array.
>>
>>If it isn't, you contact the company and have them ship a suitable
>>replacement.
>>
>>Heard of "fit-for-purpose"?
> It's worth a try but unless the drive was advertised for
> particular raid array purposes, there is no lack of fitness
> issue.
kony wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
> I think you are missing his point, that he is receiving an RMA
> replacement drive and has hopes that what he receives, which he
> has no control over, will be as large or larger in actual
> down-to-the-byte capacity as the remaining member of the array.
I am not sure, but I believe you will find that the drives are the
identical size. The differences in good sectors will have been
absorbed into the 'replacement sectors' array used to keep the
system at the advertised size.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:04:42 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:20:46 -0600, DevilsPGD
>> <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <e9ae54pvqb9i2v2ardh3ae63dbtvtfs4ni@4ax.com> kony
>>> <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think you are missing his point, that he is receiving an
>>>> RMA replacement drive and has hopes that what he receives,
>>>> which he has no control over, will be as large or larger in
>>>> actual down-to-the-byte capacity as the remaining member of
>>>> the array.
>>>
>>> If it isn't, you contact the company and have them ship a suitable
>>> replacement.
>>>
>>> Heard of "fit-for-purpose"?
>>
>> It's worth a try but unless the drive was advertised for
>> particular raid array purposes, there is no lack of fitness
>> issue.
>
>Wrong. Thats not what fit for purpose means.
>
They don't advertise it as "fit for n.nn size array
purposes".
On 18 Jun 2008 11:27:54 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:20:46 -0600, DevilsPGD
>> <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
>>>In message <e9ae54pvqb9i2v2ardh3ae63dbtvtfs4ni@4ax.com> kony
>>><spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I think you are missing his point, that he is receiving an
>>>>RMA replacement drive and has hopes that what he receives,
>>>>which he has no control over, will be as large or larger in
>>>>actual down-to-the-byte capacity as the remaining member of
>>>>the array.
>>>
>>>If it isn't, you contact the company and have them ship a suitable
>>>replacement.
>>>
>>>Heard of "fit-for-purpose"?
>
>> It's worth a try but unless the drive was advertised for
>> particular raid array purposes, there is no lack of fitness
>> issue.
>
>There is. A disk-image would also not fit.
>
>Arno
Not from the manufacturer's standpoint. Whether the user
and use makes it fit for some exact size is not what the
manufacturer advertised.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:21:20 -0400, CBFalconer
<cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>kony wrote:
>>
>... snip ...
>>
>> I think you are missing his point, that he is receiving an RMA
>> replacement drive and has hopes that what he receives, which he
>> has no control over, will be as large or larger in actual
>> down-to-the-byte capacity as the remaining member of the array.
>
>I am not sure, but I believe you will find that the drives are the
>identical size. The differences in good sectors will have been
>absorbed into the 'replacement sectors' array used to keep the
>system at the advertised size.
This is probably true if it is replaced with an identical
model drive, but is there a guarantee it will be replaced
with an identical model? Offhand I don't recall times when
one was replaced with a (newer?) model that was slightly
smaller, but I do that a drive may be replaced with a
different model.
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
> On 18 Jun 2008 11:27:54 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:20:46 -0600, DevilsPGD
>>> <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>In message <e9ae54pvqb9i2v2ardh3ae63dbtvtfs4ni@4ax.com> kony
>>>><spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I think you are missing his point, that he is receiving an
>>>>>RMA replacement drive and has hopes that what he receives,
>>>>>which he has no control over, will be as large or larger in
>>>>>actual down-to-the-byte capacity as the remaining member of
>>>>>the array.
>>>>
>>>>If it isn't, you contact the company and have them ship a suitable
>>>>replacement.
>>>>
>>>>Heard of "fit-for-purpose"?
>>
>>> It's worth a try but unless the drive was advertised for
>>> particular raid array purposes, there is no lack of fitness
>>> issue.
>>
>>There is. A disk-image would also not fit.
>>
>>Arno
> Not from the manufacturer's standpoint. Whether the user
> and use makes it fit for some exact size is not what the
> manufacturer advertised.
The manufacturer happens to also advertise an exact size
in the disk datasheet. They can get away with sending a larger
replacement, but never a smaller one.
Re: Any way to wipe this drive? 