Ok so too hot is the issue. Got you. Well well that sucks. So the sectors
sort of lost their state and now the whole thing needs to be reformatted?
That is what I am going to do. I turns out I can get all the data that is
on it elsewhere. No didn't back anything up but I know how to do it.
Now why did you suggerst a deep format? The last time I did that was on a
SCSI and that was the end of that SCSI. Yes it wasn't healthy to begin with
but the deep format was the nail in its coffin.
I have moved the disk to a cooler location and it turns out I am getting
most of the data off that partition. So since what is left is trivial I
will reformat that partition. In fact I will do whatever you suggest to fix
this. The heat problem I am working on but tell me plx how you think I
should nurse the Maxtor back to health.
--
George Hester
_________________________________
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:52q82jF1q26glU1@mid.individual.net...
> George Hester <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Pending sectors." What does that mean?
>
> Those are sectors that cant be read and will
> be reallocated when that sector is next written.
>
> They arent reallocated on the read problem so you can use
> whatever methods you like to try to get the data out of them.
>
> > My sectors are pending to be used
>
> Nope, pending to be reallocated.
>
> > what more is there? Also I really don't understand the
> > geometry of a "Partition" as it relates to a disk (platter).
>
> Its just the starting and ending cylinder/head/sector value in the
partition table entry.
>
> Modern hard drives actually use the logical block numbers, not the CHS
value
> for access and the partition table entry format is essentially a relic of
the past.
>
> > I assume some a set oif sectors which are contiguous is what makes up a
partition???
>
> Yes.
>
> > If that is the case my drive might be 1/2 broke?
>
> Nope, no evidence of any problem with the partition table entry.
>
> > What could have casused this?
>
> What was done when the partition table entry was initially created
> with those CHS values that specify the start and end of the partition.
>
> It was traditional to start and end partitions on full cylinder
> boundarys but there isnt really any good reason to do that.
>
> > As far as I know nothing untoward happened the machine has been
> > running for 1 month now and this issue just came out of thin air.
>
> Because you are running the drive much too hot
> and that is what has produced those bad sectors.
>
> > VWWall I try to give as much information as I am asked and
> > if not asked as much as I see the need to. Since I wam not
> > having BIOS troubles I didn't think to include it.
>
> He's suggesting that the bios may be too old to support LBA48.
>
> That isnt likely to be the problem as long as
> the OS does, and you say below that it does.
>
> > True the BIOS does not see the true size of
> > the disk but in fact none of my machines do.
>
> That is an entirely different problem. Hard drive manufacturers
> state the size of the drive in binary GBs, 1,000,000,000 bytes.
> Partitions are usually shown in terms of binary GBs, 1,073,741,824 bytes.
>
> > And everything seems to be fine for years this way.
>
> Yeah, its an entirely cosmetic issue.
>
> > Yes Windows 2000 SP4 with the registry set correctly.
>
> Then you have LBA48 and so it wont be due to the drive wrapping around.
>
> And if a drive wraps around due to the lack of LBA48, you will see
> much bigger problems with the data on the drive than you are seeing.
>
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> >> VWWall <vwall@DEADearthlink.net> wrote:
> >>> Rod Speed wrote:
> >>>> VWWall <vwall@DEADearthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>> George Hester wrote:
> >>>>>> Ok got it the report is very big. But what I will do is just
> >>>>>> post the parts that have to do with the drive in question:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --------[ EVEREST Home Edition (c) 2003-2005 Lavalys,
> >>>>> [big snip of report]
> >>>>>> --------[ Debug - Video
> >>>>>> BIOS
>
>>>>>> ]--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> >>>>>> --------------------
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> C000:0000 U.@..7400............S....f.m.IBM VGA Compatible
> >>>>>> BIOS. ..f..a...
> >>>>>> C000:0040 ....STB PowerGraph 64 Video (TRIO64V+) Enhanced
> >>>>>> VGA BIOS. Versio
> >>>>>> C000:0080 n 1.5..Copyright 1987-1992 Phoenix Technologies
> >>>>>> Ltd.............
> >>
> >>>>> This looks like a very old BIOS. Is it?
> >>
> >>>> That is the video bios. Not relevant to LBA48
> >>
> >>> Of course. The video BIOS is always at C000:0040, as anyone knows
> >>> who has used debug to find it. :-) With a date that old, it's
> >>> likely that the MB BIOS is also old.
> >>
> >> Not necessarily.
> >>
> >>> Which is why I asked:
> >>
> >>>>> What date do you see on boot-up?
> >>
> >>>>> What size are the disks in question? What size are the
> >>>>> partitions? Looks like the WD is 60GB and the Maxtor 320GB.
> >>
> >>>>> A BIOS that old must be LBA28.
> >>
> >>>> Nope, not when its the video bios.
> >>
> >>> See above, unless your mind reading ability is better.
> >>
> >> See above. It isnt relevant anyway.
> >>
> >>>>> I'm wondering if the problem came from overwriting one of the
> >>>>> partitions. This can happen if you attempt to use a drive >137GB,
> >>>>> (128GiB), on an old LBA28 BIOS, by making smaller partitions.
> >>
> >>>> What matters is whether he has LBA48 from the 2K service pack or
> >>>> not.
> >>
> >>> That's SP-4, for Win2K is it not?
> >>
> >> Yep.
> >>
> >>> I've seen strange things happen when either the BIOS *or* the OS is
> >>> not set up for LBA48.
> >>
> >> Not the effect he is getting which is due to the pending sectors.
> >>
> >>> This is a good example of what happens when someone posts without
> >>> giving all the facts.
> >>
> >> Nope, you have the facts on what effects he is getting.
> >>
> >> That wont be due to the lack of LBA48 in the bios.
> >>
> >> Its very likely due to the pending sectors on that drive.
>
>
> Ok so too hot is the issue. Got you. Well well that sucks.
And isnt great for the life of the drive.
> So the sectors sort of lost their state
Nope, its not hot enough for that.
> and now the whole thing needs to be reformatted?
Strictly speaking its not a format even tho many of the diags call it that for simplicity.
> That is what I am going to do. I turns out I can get all the data that is
> on it elsewhere. No didn't back anything up but I know how to do it.
> Now why did you suggerst a deep format?
Just because that is what PowerMax calls it
> The last time I did that was on a SCSI and that was the end of that SCSI.
> Yes it wasn't healthy to begin with but the deep format was the nail in its coffin.
You wont get that effect with that drive.
> I have moved the disk to a cooler location and it turns
> out I am getting most of the data off that partition.
Yeah, that is usually the case, so it cant be that
the sector has got to hot to retain its magnetisation.
What actually happens is that the high temp stuffs up the head
flying height and thats what sees some sectors unreadable
and readable when the temperature is returned to normal.
Some sectors that were written at the high temps will need
to be written again at normal temps to be usable again.
> So since what is left is trivial I will reformat that partition.
> In fact I will do whatever you suggest to fix this.
I'd use the hard drive manufacturer's diagnostic. That will be able to rewrite
the bad sectors and to reallocate them if they cant be fixed that way.
> The heat problem I am working on but tell me plx how
> you think I should nurse the Maxtor back to health.
Run it much cooler, best below 40C, use PowerMax to fix the bad sectors.
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:52q82jF1q26glU1@mid.individual.net...
>> George Hester <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Pending sectors." What does that mean?
>>
>> Those are sectors that cant be read and will
>> be reallocated when that sector is next written.
>>
>> They arent reallocated on the read problem so you can use
>> whatever methods you like to try to get the data out of them.
>>
>>> My sectors are pending to be used
>>
>> Nope, pending to be reallocated.
>>
>>> what more is there? Also I really don't understand the
>>> geometry of a "Partition" as it relates to a disk (platter).
>>
>> Its just the starting and ending cylinder/head/sector value in the
>> partition table entry.
>>
>> Modern hard drives actually use the logical block numbers, not the
>> CHS value for access and the partition table entry format is
>> essentially a relic of the past.
>>
>>> I assume some a set oif sectors which are contiguous is what makes
>>> up a partition???
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> If that is the case my drive might be 1/2 broke?
>>
>> Nope, no evidence of any problem with the partition table entry.
>>
>>> What could have casused this?
>>
>> What was done when the partition table entry was initially created
>> with those CHS values that specify the start and end of the
>> partition.
>>
>> It was traditional to start and end partitions on full cylinder
>> boundarys but there isnt really any good reason to do that.
>>
>>> As far as I know nothing untoward happened the machine has been
>>> running for 1 month now and this issue just came out of thin air.
>>
>> Because you are running the drive much too hot
>> and that is what has produced those bad sectors.
>>
>>> VWWall I try to give as much information as I am asked and
>>> if not asked as much as I see the need to. Since I wam not
>>> having BIOS troubles I didn't think to include it.
>>
>> He's suggesting that the bios may be too old to support LBA48.
>>
>> That isnt likely to be the problem as long as
>> the OS does, and you say below that it does.
>>
>>> True the BIOS does not see the true size of
>>> the disk but in fact none of my machines do.
>>
>> That is an entirely different problem. Hard drive manufacturers
>> state the size of the drive in binary GBs, 1,000,000,000 bytes.
>> Partitions are usually shown in terms of binary GBs, 1,073,741,824
>> bytes.
>>
>>> And everything seems to be fine for years this way.
>>
>> Yeah, its an entirely cosmetic issue.
>>
>>> Yes Windows 2000 SP4 with the registry set correctly.
>>
>> Then you have LBA48 and so it wont be due to the drive wrapping
>> around.
>>
>> And if a drive wraps around due to the lack of LBA48, you will see
>> much bigger problems with the data on the drive than you are seeing.
>>
>>
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> VWWall <vwall@DEADearthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>> VWWall <vwall@DEADearthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> George Hester wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ok got it the report is very big. But what I will do is just
>>>>>>>> post the parts that have to do with the drive in question:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --------[ EVEREST Home Edition (c) 2003-2005 Lavalys,
>>>>>>> [big snip of report]
>>>>>>>> --------[ Debug - Video
>>>>>>>> BIOS
>>>>>>>> ]--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> --------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> C000:0000 U.@..7400............S....f.m.IBM VGA Compatible
>>>>>>>> BIOS. ..f..a...
>>>>>>>> C000:0040 ....STB PowerGraph 64 Video (TRIO64V+) Enhanced
>>>>>>>> VGA BIOS. Versio
>>>>>>>> C000:0080 n 1.5..Copyright 1987-1992 Phoenix Technologies
>>>>>>>> Ltd.............
>>>>
>>>>>>> This looks like a very old BIOS. Is it?
>>>>
>>>>>> That is the video bios. Not relevant to LBA48
>>>>
>>>>> Of course. The video BIOS is always at C000:0040, as anyone knows
>>>>> who has used debug to find it. :-) With a date that old, it's
>>>>> likely that the MB BIOS is also old.
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily.
>>>>
>>>>> Which is why I asked:
>>>>
>>>>>>> What date do you see on boot-up?
>>>>
>>>>>>> What size are the disks in question? What size are the
>>>>>>> partitions? Looks like the WD is 60GB and the Maxtor 320GB.
>>>>
>>>>>>> A BIOS that old must be LBA28.
>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, not when its the video bios.
>>>>
>>>>> See above, unless your mind reading ability is better.
>>>>
>>>> See above. It isnt relevant anyway.
>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm wondering if the problem came from overwriting one of the
>>>>>>> partitions. This can happen if you attempt to use a drive
>>>>>>> >137GB, (128GiB), on an old LBA28 BIOS, by making smaller
>>>>>>> partitions.
>>>>
>>>>>> What matters is whether he has LBA48 from the 2K service pack or
>>>>>> not.
>>>>
>>>>> That's SP-4, for Win2K is it not?
>>>>
>>>> Yep.
>>>>
>>>>> I've seen strange things happen when either the BIOS *or* the OS
>>>>> is not set up for LBA48.
>>>>
>>>> Not the effect he is getting which is due to the pending sectors.
>>>>
>>>>> This is a good example of what happens when someone posts without
>>>>> giving all the facts.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, you have the facts on what effects he is getting.
>>>>
>>>> That wont be due to the lack of LBA48 in the bios.
>>>>
>>>> Its very likely due to the pending sectors on that drive.
He suggests writing all the drive but where the file is with zeros. Make a
file with 0's in it. Not sure if I can even do that; that would be a file
250 GB. But there is an app I have somewhere that can write zeros to the
drive itself is some kind of security thng. And now for my brainiac idea.
In this page he says we want to write over the abused sectors. Why don't I
just do this? Tahe a file a little bigger than the bad file in quetion. It
could even be of the same file type; avi in this case. Rename it to the
name of the bad file that is on the disk. Then copy that renamed file over
onto the partition where the bad file is. Windows will nag me about writing
over that file yes, done. What do you think?
--
George Hester
_________________________________
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:52uo6jF1qcs06U1@mid.individual.net...
> George Hester <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > Ok so too hot is the issue. Got you. Well well that sucks.
>
> And isnt great for the life of the drive.
>
> > So the sectors sort of lost their state
>
> Nope, its not hot enough for that.
>
> > and now the whole thing needs to be reformatted?
>
> Strictly speaking its not a format even tho many of the diags call it that
for simplicity.
>
> > That is what I am going to do. I turns out I can get all the data that
is
> > on it elsewhere. No didn't back anything up but I know how to do it.
>
> > Now why did you suggerst a deep format?
>
> Just because that is what PowerMax calls it
>
> > The last time I did that was on a SCSI and that was the end of that
SCSI.
> > Yes it wasn't healthy to begin with but the deep format was the nail in
its coffin.
>
> You wont get that effect with that drive.
>
> > I have moved the disk to a cooler location and it turns
> > out I am getting most of the data off that partition.
>
> Yeah, that is usually the case, so it cant be that
> the sector has got to hot to retain its magnetisation.
>
> What actually happens is that the high temp stuffs up the head
> flying height and thats what sees some sectors unreadable
> and readable when the temperature is returned to normal.
>
> Some sectors that were written at the high temps will need
> to be written again at normal temps to be usable again.
>
> > So since what is left is trivial I will reformat that partition.
> > In fact I will do whatever you suggest to fix this.
>
> I'd use the hard drive manufacturer's diagnostic. That will be able to
rewrite
> the bad sectors and to reallocate them if they cant be fixed that way.
>
> > The heat problem I am working on but tell me plx how
> > you think I should nurse the Maxtor back to health.
>
> Run it much cooler, best below 40C, use PowerMax to fix the bad sectors.
>
>
> > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:52q82jF1q26glU1@mid.individual.net...
> >> George Hester <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Pending sectors." What does that mean?
> >>
> >> Those are sectors that cant be read and will
> >> be reallocated when that sector is next written.
> >>
> >> They arent reallocated on the read problem so you can use
> >> whatever methods you like to try to get the data out of them.
> >>
> >>> My sectors are pending to be used
> >>
> >> Nope, pending to be reallocated.
> >>
> >>> what more is there? Also I really don't understand the
> >>> geometry of a "Partition" as it relates to a disk (platter).
> >>
> >> Its just the starting and ending cylinder/head/sector value in the
> >> partition table entry.
> >>
> >> Modern hard drives actually use the logical block numbers, not the
> >> CHS value for access and the partition table entry format is
> >> essentially a relic of the past.
> >>
> >>> I assume some a set oif sectors which are contiguous is what makes
> >>> up a partition???
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >>> If that is the case my drive might be 1/2 broke?
> >>
> >> Nope, no evidence of any problem with the partition table entry.
> >>
> >>> What could have casused this?
> >>
> >> What was done when the partition table entry was initially created
> >> with those CHS values that specify the start and end of the
> >> partition.
> >>
> >> It was traditional to start and end partitions on full cylinder
> >> boundarys but there isnt really any good reason to do that.
> >>
> >>> As far as I know nothing untoward happened the machine has been
> >>> running for 1 month now and this issue just came out of thin air.
> >>
> >> Because you are running the drive much too hot
> >> and that is what has produced those bad sectors.
> >>
> >>> VWWall I try to give as much information as I am asked and
> >>> if not asked as much as I see the need to. Since I wam not
> >>> having BIOS troubles I didn't think to include it.
> >>
> >> He's suggesting that the bios may be too old to support LBA48.
> >>
> >> That isnt likely to be the problem as long as
> >> the OS does, and you say below that it does.
> >>
> >>> True the BIOS does not see the true size of
> >>> the disk but in fact none of my machines do.
> >>
> >> That is an entirely different problem. Hard drive manufacturers
> >> state the size of the drive in binary GBs, 1,000,000,000 bytes.
> >> Partitions are usually shown in terms of binary GBs, 1,073,741,824
> >> bytes.
> >>
> >>> And everything seems to be fine for years this way.
> >>
> >> Yeah, its an entirely cosmetic issue.
> >>
> >>> Yes Windows 2000 SP4 with the registry set correctly.
> >>
> >> Then you have LBA48 and so it wont be due to the drive wrapping
> >> around.
> >>
> >> And if a drive wraps around due to the lack of LBA48, you will see
> >> much bigger problems with the data on the drive than you are seeing.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>> VWWall <vwall@DEADearthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
> >>>>>> VWWall <vwall@DEADearthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> George Hester wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ok got it the report is very big. But what I will do is just
> >>>>>>>> post the parts that have to do with the drive in question:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --------[ EVEREST Home Edition (c) 2003-2005 Lavalys,
> >>>>>>> [big snip of report]
> >>>>>>>> --------[ Debug - Video
> >>>>>>>> BIOS
>
>>>>>>>> ]------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> >>>>>>>> --------------------
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> C000:0000 U.@..7400............S....f.m.IBM VGA Compatible
> >>>>>>>> BIOS. ..f..a...
> >>>>>>>> C000:0040 ....STB PowerGraph 64 Video (TRIO64V+) Enhanced
> >>>>>>>> VGA BIOS. Versio
> >>>>>>>> C000:0080 n 1.5..Copyright 1987-1992 Phoenix Technologies
> >>>>>>>> Ltd.............
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> This looks like a very old BIOS. Is it?
> >>>>
> >>>>>> That is the video bios. Not relevant to LBA48
> >>>>
> >>>>> Of course. The video BIOS is always at C000:0040, as anyone knows
> >>>>> who has used debug to find it. :-) With a date that old, it's
> >>>>> likely that the MB BIOS is also old.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not necessarily.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Which is why I asked:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> What date do you see on boot-up?
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> What size are the disks in question? What size are the
> >>>>>>> partitions? Looks like the WD is 60GB and the Maxtor 320GB.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> A BIOS that old must be LBA28.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Nope, not when its the video bios.
> >>>>
> >>>>> See above, unless your mind reading ability is better.
> >>>>
> >>>> See above. It isnt relevant anyway.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm wondering if the problem came from overwriting one of the
> >>>>>>> partitions. This can happen if you attempt to use a drive
> >>>>>>> >137GB, (128GiB), on an old LBA28 BIOS, by making smaller
> >>>>>>> partitions.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> What matters is whether he has LBA48 from the 2K service pack or
> >>>>>> not.
> >>>>
> >>>>> That's SP-4, for Win2K is it not?
> >>>>
> >>>> Yep.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I've seen strange things happen when either the BIOS *or* the OS
> >>>>> is not set up for LBA48.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not the effect he is getting which is due to the pending sectors.
> >>>>
> >>>>> This is a good example of what happens when someone posts without
> >>>>> giving all the facts.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nope, you have the facts on what effects he is getting.
> >>>>
> >>>> That wont be due to the lack of LBA48 in the bios.
> >>>>
> >>>> Its very likely due to the pending sectors on that drive.
>
>
> He suggests writing all the drive but where the file is with zeros.
Sure, its not necessarily that trivial to work out where the
pending sectors are tho so you can write to them with zeros.
Thats the main advantage with using the hard drive
manufacturer's diagnostic, it can always work out where
the pending sectors are and it normally just writes to those
sectors to force them to be reallocated if the write fails.
And usually they do more than JUST try writing to that sector once too.
> Make a file with 0's in it. Not sure if I can
> even do that; that would be a file 250 GB.
There's no need to do that, you cant just delete the original
file and write another file full of zeros to the drive, that wont
ensure that all the sectors that were occupied by the original
file will be written with the new file full of zeros.
> But there is an app I have somewhere that can write
> zeros to the drive itself is some kind of security thng.
Yep, there are quite a few of those.
> And now for my brainiac idea.
> In this page he says we want to write over the abused sectors.
> Why don't I just do this? Tahe a file a little bigger than the bad
> file in quetion. It could even be of the same file type; avi in this
> case. Rename it to the name of the bad file that is on the disk.
> Then copy that renamed file over onto the partition where the bad
> file is. Windows will nag me about writing over that file yes, done.
> What do you think?
That wont write the new file where the old file used to be sectors wise.
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> George Hester <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> Ok so too hot is the issue. Got you. Well well that sucks.
>>
>> And isnt great for the life of the drive.
>>
>>> So the sectors sort of lost their state
>>
>> Nope, its not hot enough for that.
>>
>>> and now the whole thing needs to be reformatted?
>>
>> Strictly speaking its not a format even tho many of the diags call
>> it that for simplicity.
>>
>>> That is what I am going to do. I turns out I can get all the data
>>> that is on it elsewhere. No didn't back anything up but I know how
>>> to do it.
>>
>>> Now why did you suggerst a deep format?
>>
>> Just because that is what PowerMax calls it
>>
>>> The last time I did that was on a SCSI and that was the end of that
>>> SCSI. Yes it wasn't healthy to begin with but the deep format was
>>> the nail in its coffin.
>>
>> You wont get that effect with that drive.
>>
>>> I have moved the disk to a cooler location and it turns
>>> out I am getting most of the data off that partition.
>>
>> Yeah, that is usually the case, so it cant be that
>> the sector has got to hot to retain its magnetisation.
>>
>> What actually happens is that the high temp stuffs up the head
>> flying height and thats what sees some sectors unreadable
>> and readable when the temperature is returned to normal.
>>
>> Some sectors that were written at the high temps will need
>> to be written again at normal temps to be usable again.
>>
>>> So since what is left is trivial I will reformat that partition.
>>> In fact I will do whatever you suggest to fix this.
>>
>> I'd use the hard drive manufacturer's diagnostic. That will be able
>> to rewrite the bad sectors and to reallocate them if they cant be
>> fixed that way.
>>
>>> The heat problem I am working on but tell me plx how
>>> you think I should nurse the Maxtor back to health.
>>
>> Run it much cooler, best below 40C, use PowerMax to fix the bad
>> sectors.
>>
>>
>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:52q82jF1q26glU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> George Hester <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Pending sectors." What does that mean?
>>>>
>>>> Those are sectors that cant be read and will
>>>> be reallocated when that sector is next written.
>>>>
>>>> They arent reallocated on the read problem so you can use
>>>> whatever methods you like to try to get the data out of them.
>>>>
>>>>> My sectors are pending to be used
>>>>
>>>> Nope, pending to be reallocated.
>>>>
>>>>> what more is there? Also I really don't understand the
>>>>> geometry of a "Partition" as it relates to a disk (platter).
>>>>
>>>> Its just the starting and ending cylinder/head/sector value in the
>>>> partition table entry.
>>>>
>>>> Modern hard drives actually use the logical block numbers, not the
>>>> CHS value for access and the partition table entry format is
>>>> essentially a relic of the past.
>>>>
>>>>> I assume some a set oif sectors which are contiguous is what makes
>>>>> up a partition???
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>>> If that is the case my drive might be 1/2 broke?
>>>>
>>>> Nope, no evidence of any problem with the partition table entry.
>>>>
>>>>> What could have casused this?
>>>>
>>>> What was done when the partition table entry was initially created
>>>> with those CHS values that specify the start and end of the
>>>> partition.
>>>>
>>>> It was traditional to start and end partitions on full cylinder
>>>> boundarys but there isnt really any good reason to do that.
>>>>
>>>>> As far as I know nothing untoward happened the machine has been
>>>>> running for 1 month now and this issue just came out of thin air.
>>>>
>>>> Because you are running the drive much too hot
>>>> and that is what has produced those bad sectors.
>>>>
>>>>> VWWall I try to give as much information as I am asked and
>>>>> if not asked as much as I see the need to. Since I wam not
>>>>> having BIOS troubles I didn't think to include it.
>>>>
>>>> He's suggesting that the bios may be too old to support LBA48.
>>>>
>>>> That isnt likely to be the problem as long as
>>>> the OS does, and you say below that it does.
>>>>
>>>>> True the BIOS does not see the true size of
>>>>> the disk but in fact none of my machines do.
>>>>
>>>> That is an entirely different problem. Hard drive manufacturers
>>>> state the size of the drive in binary GBs, 1,000,000,000 bytes.
>>>> Partitions are usually shown in terms of binary GBs, 1,073,741,824
>>>> bytes.
>>>>
>>>>> And everything seems to be fine for years this way.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, its an entirely cosmetic issue.
>>>>
>>>>> Yes Windows 2000 SP4 with the registry set correctly.
>>>>
>>>> Then you have LBA48 and so it wont be due to the drive wrapping
>>>> around.
>>>>
>>>> And if a drive wraps around due to the lack of LBA48, you will see
>>>> much bigger problems with the data on the drive than you are
>>>> seeing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> VWWall <vwall@DEADearthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>> VWWall <vwall@DEADearthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> George Hester wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ok got it the report is very big. But what I will do is just
>>>>>>>>>> post the parts that have to do with the drive in question:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --------[ EVEREST Home Edition (c) 2003-2005 Lavalys,
>>>>>>>>> [big snip of report]
>>>>>>>>>> --------[ Debug - Video
>>>>>>>>>> BIOS
>>>>>>>>>> ]------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> --------------------
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> C000:0000 U.@..7400............S....f.m.IBM VGA
>>>>>>>>>> Compatible BIOS. ..f..a...
>>>>>>>>>> C000:0040 ....STB PowerGraph 64 Video (TRIO64V+)
>>>>>>>>>> Enhanced VGA BIOS. Versio
>>>>>>>>>> C000:0080 n 1.5..Copyright 1987-1992 Phoenix
>>>>>>>>>> Technologies Ltd.............
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This looks like a very old BIOS. Is it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is the video bios. Not relevant to LBA48
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course. The video BIOS is always at C000:0040, as anyone
>>>>>>> knows who has used debug to find it. :-) With a date that old,
>>>>>>> it's likely that the MB BIOS is also old.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not necessarily.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is why I asked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What date do you see on boot-up?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What size are the disks in question? What size are the
>>>>>>>>> partitions? Looks like the WD is 60GB and the Maxtor 320GB.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A BIOS that old must be LBA28.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, not when its the video bios.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See above, unless your mind reading ability is better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See above. It isnt relevant anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if the problem came from overwriting one of the
>>>>>>>>> partitions. This can happen if you attempt to use a drive
>>>>>>>>>> 137GB, (128GiB), on an old LBA28 BIOS, by making smaller
>>>>>>>>>> partitions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What matters is whether he has LBA48 from the 2K service pack
>>>>>>>> or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's SP-4, for Win2K is it not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've seen strange things happen when either the BIOS *or* the OS
>>>>>>> is not set up for LBA48.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not the effect he is getting which is due to the pending sectors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a good example of what happens when someone posts
>>>>>>> without giving all the facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, you have the facts on what effects he is getting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That wont be due to the lack of LBA48 in the bios.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Its very likely due to the pending sectors on that drive.
Maxtor has been aquired by Seagate and the Maxtor diagnostics is gone. Do
you have the location for PowerMax and does that cost money?
--
George Hester
_________________________________
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:52vd81F1q8npsU1@mid.individual.net...
> George Hester <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ok I will look at those two things. I think I have a Maxtor CD-ROM
laying
> > around. Check this page outt search on "pending sector" w/o the quotes:
>
> > http://ask.metafilter.com/mefi/22005
>
> > He suggests writing all the drive but where the file is with zeros.
>
> Sure, its not necessarily that trivial to work out where the
> pending sectors are tho so you can write to them with zeros.
>
> Thats the main advantage with using the hard drive
> manufacturer's diagnostic, it can always work out where
> the pending sectors are and it normally just writes to those
> sectors to force them to be reallocated if the write fails.
>
> And usually they do more than JUST try writing to that sector once too.
>
> > Make a file with 0's in it. Not sure if I can
> > even do that; that would be a file 250 GB.
>
> There's no need to do that, you cant just delete the original
> file and write another file full of zeros to the drive, that wont
> ensure that all the sectors that were occupied by the original
> file will be written with the new file full of zeros.
>
> > But there is an app I have somewhere that can write
> > zeros to the drive itself is some kind of security thng.
>
> Yep, there are quite a few of those.
>
> > And now for my brainiac idea.
>
> > In this page he says we want to write over the abused sectors.
> > Why don't I just do this? Tahe a file a little bigger than the bad
> > file in quetion. It could even be of the same file type; avi in this
> > case. Rename it to the name of the bad file that is on the disk.
> > Then copy that renamed file over onto the partition where the bad
> > file is. Windows will nag me about writing over that file yes, done.
> > What do you think?
>
> That wont write the new file where the old file used to be sectors wise.
>
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> >> George Hester <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> >>> Ok so too hot is the issue. Got you. Well well that sucks.
> >>
> >> And isnt great for the life of the drive.
> >>
> >>> So the sectors sort of lost their state
> >>
> >> Nope, its not hot enough for that.
> >>
> >>> and now the whole thing needs to be reformatted?
> >>
> >> Strictly speaking its not a format even tho many of the diags call
> >> it that for simplicity.
> >>
> >>> That is what I am going to do. I turns out I can get all the data
> >>> that is on it elsewhere. No didn't back anything up but I know how
> >>> to do it.
> >>
> >>> Now why did you suggerst a deep format?
> >>
> >> Just because that is what PowerMax calls it
> >>
> >>> The last time I did that was on a SCSI and that was the end of that
> >>> SCSI. Yes it wasn't healthy to begin with but the deep format was
> >>> the nail in its coffin.
> >>
> >> You wont get that effect with that drive.
> >>
> >>> I have moved the disk to a cooler location and it turns
> >>> out I am getting most of the data off that partition.
> >>
> >> Yeah, that is usually the case, so it cant be that
> >> the sector has got to hot to retain its magnetisation.
> >>
> >> What actually happens is that the high temp stuffs up the head
> >> flying height and thats what sees some sectors unreadable
> >> and readable when the temperature is returned to normal.
> >>
> >> Some sectors that were written at the high temps will need
> >> to be written again at normal temps to be usable again.
> >>
> >>> So since what is left is trivial I will reformat that partition.
> >>> In fact I will do whatever you suggest to fix this.
> >>
> >> I'd use the hard drive manufacturer's diagnostic. That will be able
> >> to rewrite the bad sectors and to reallocate them if they cant be
> >> fixed that way.
> >>
> >>> The heat problem I am working on but tell me plx how
> >>> you think I should nurse the Maxtor back to health.
> >>
> >> Run it much cooler, best below 40C, use PowerMax to fix the bad
> >> sectors.
> >>
> >>
> >>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:52q82jF1q26glU1@mid.individual.net...
> >>>> George Hester <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> "Pending sectors." What does that mean?
> >>>>
> >>>> Those are sectors that cant be read and will
> >>>> be reallocated when that sector is next written.
> >>>>
> >>>> They arent reallocated on the read problem so you can use
> >>>> whatever methods you like to try to get the data out of them.
> >>>>
> >>>>> My sectors are pending to be used
> >>>>
> >>>> Nope, pending to be reallocated.
> >>>>
> >>>>> what more is there? Also I really don't understand the
> >>>>> geometry of a "Partition" as it relates to a disk (platter).
> >>>>
> >>>> Its just the starting and ending cylinder/head/sector value in the
> >>>> partition table entry.
> >>>>
> >>>> Modern hard drives actually use the logical block numbers, not the
> >>>> CHS value for access and the partition table entry format is
> >>>> essentially a relic of the past.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I assume some a set oif sectors which are contiguous is what makes
> >>>>> up a partition???
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes.
> >>>>
> >>>>> If that is the case my drive might be 1/2 broke?
> >>>>
> >>>> Nope, no evidence of any problem with the partition table entry.
> >>>>
> >>>>> What could have casused this?
> >>>>
> >>>> What was done when the partition table entry was initially created
> >>>> with those CHS values that specify the start and end of the
> >>>> partition.
> >>>>
> >>>> It was traditional to start and end partitions on full cylinder
> >>>> boundarys but there isnt really any good reason to do that.
> >>>>
> >>>>> As far as I know nothing untoward happened the machine has been
> >>>>> running for 1 month now and this issue just came out of thin air.
> >>>>
> >>>> Because you are running the drive much too hot
> >>>> and that is what has produced those bad sectors.
> >>>>
> >>>>> VWWall I try to give as much information as I am asked and
> >>>>> if not asked as much as I see the need to. Since I wam not
> >>>>> having BIOS troubles I didn't think to include it.
> >>>>
> >>>> He's suggesting that the bios may be too old to support LBA48.
> >>>>
> >>>> That isnt likely to be the problem as long as
> >>>> the OS does, and you say below that it does.
> >>>>
> >>>>> True the BIOS does not see the true size of
> >>>>> the disk but in fact none of my machines do.
> >>>>
> >>>> That is an entirely different problem. Hard drive manufacturers
> >>>> state the size of the drive in binary GBs, 1,000,000,000 bytes.
> >>>> Partitions are usually shown in terms of binary GBs, 1,073,741,824
> >>>> bytes.
> >>>>
> >>>>> And everything seems to be fine for years this way.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yeah, its an entirely cosmetic issue.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Yes Windows 2000 SP4 with the registry set correctly.
> >>>>
> >>>> Then you have LBA48 and so it wont be due to the drive wrapping
> >>>> around.
> >>>>
> >>>> And if a drive wraps around due to the lack of LBA48, you will see
> >>>> much bigger problems with the data on the drive than you are
> >>>> seeing.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>>>> VWWall <vwall@DEADearthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
> >>>>>>>> VWWall <vwall@DEADearthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> George Hester wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Ok got it the report is very big. But what I will do is just
> >>>>>>>>>> post the parts that have to do with the drive in question:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --------[ EVEREST Home Edition (c) 2003-2005 Lavalys,
> >>>>>>>>> [big snip of report]
> >>>>>>>>>> --------[ Debug - Video
> >>>>>>>>>> BIOS
>
>>>>>>>>>> ]----------------------------------------------------------------
--
> >>>>>>>>>> --------------------
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> C000:0000 U.@..7400............S....f.m.IBM VGA
> >>>>>>>>>> Compatible BIOS. ..f..a...
> >>>>>>>>>> C000:0040 ....STB PowerGraph 64 Video (TRIO64V+)
> >>>>>>>>>> Enhanced VGA BIOS. Versio
> >>>>>>>>>> C000:0080 n 1.5..Copyright 1987-1992 Phoenix
> >>>>>>>>>> Technologies Ltd.............
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This looks like a very old BIOS. Is it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That is the video bios. Not relevant to LBA48
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Of course. The video BIOS is always at C000:0040, as anyone
> >>>>>>> knows who has used debug to find it. :-) With a date that old,
> >>>>>>> it's likely that the MB BIOS is also old.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not necessarily.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Which is why I asked:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> What date do you see on boot-up?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> What size are the disks in question? What size are the
> >>>>>>>>> partitions? Looks like the WD is 60GB and the Maxtor 320GB.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> A BIOS that old must be LBA28.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Nope, not when its the video bios.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> See above, unless your mind reading ability is better.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> See above. It isnt relevant anyway.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if the problem came from overwriting one of the
> >>>>>>>>> partitions. This can happen if you attempt to use a drive
> >>>>>>>>>> 137GB, (128GiB), on an old LBA28 BIOS, by making smaller
> >>>>>>>>>> partitions.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What matters is whether he has LBA48 from the 2K service pack
> >>>>>>>> or not.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That's SP-4, for Win2K is it not?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yep.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I've seen strange things happen when either the BIOS *or* the OS
> >>>>>>> is not set up for LBA48.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not the effect he is getting which is due to the pending sectors.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This is a good example of what happens when someone posts
> >>>>>>> without giving all the facts.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nope, you have the facts on what effects he is getting.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That wont be due to the lack of LBA48 in the bios.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Its very likely due to the pending sectors on that drive.
>
>
"George Hester" <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45caa07d$0$28166$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Maxtor has been aquired by Seagate and the Maxtor diagnostics is gone. Do
> you have the location for PowerMax and does that cost money?
>
You can d\load Powermax here George. http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/...Powermax.shtml
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> George Hester <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> Ok I will look at those two things. I think I have a Maxtor CD-ROM
>>> laying around. Check this page outt search on "pending sector" w/o
>>> the quotes:
>>
>>> http://ask.metafilter.com/mefi/22005
>>
>>> He suggests writing all the drive but where the file is with zeros.
>>
>> Sure, its not necessarily that trivial to work out where the
>> pending sectors are tho so you can write to them with zeros.
>>
>> Thats the main advantage with using the hard drive
>> manufacturer's diagnostic, it can always work out where
>> the pending sectors are and it normally just writes to those
>> sectors to force them to be reallocated if the write fails.
>>
>> And usually they do more than JUST try writing to that sector once
>> too.
>>
>>> Make a file with 0's in it. Not sure if I can
>>> even do that; that would be a file 250 GB.
>>
>> There's no need to do that, you cant just delete the original
>> file and write another file full of zeros to the drive, that wont
>> ensure that all the sectors that were occupied by the original
>> file will be written with the new file full of zeros.
>>
>>> But there is an app I have somewhere that can write
>>> zeros to the drive itself is some kind of security thng.
>>
>> Yep, there are quite a few of those.
>>
>>> And now for my brainiac idea.
>>
>>> In this page he says we want to write over the abused sectors.
>>> Why don't I just do this? Tahe a file a little bigger than the bad
>>> file in quetion. It could even be of the same file type; avi in
>>> this case. Rename it to the name of the bad file that is on the
>>> disk.
>>> Then copy that renamed file over onto the partition where the bad
>>> file is. Windows will nag me about writing over that file yes,
>>> done. What do you think?
>>
>> That wont write the new file where the old file used to be sectors
>> wise.
>>
>>
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> George Hester <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote
>>
>>>>> Ok so too hot is the issue. Got you. Well well that sucks.
>>>>
>>>> And isnt great for the life of the drive.
>>>>
>>>>> So the sectors sort of lost their state
>>>>
>>>> Nope, its not hot enough for that.
>>>>
>>>>> and now the whole thing needs to be reformatted?
>>>>
>>>> Strictly speaking its not a format even tho many of the diags call
>>>> it that for simplicity.
>>>>
>>>>> That is what I am going to do. I turns out I can get all the data
>>>>> that is on it elsewhere. No didn't back anything up but I know
>>>>> how to do it.
>>>>
>>>>> Now why did you suggerst a deep format?
>>>>
>>>> Just because that is what PowerMax calls it
>>>>
>>>>> The last time I did that was on a SCSI and that was the end of
>>>>> that SCSI. Yes it wasn't healthy to begin with but the deep
>>>>> format was the nail in its coffin.
>>>>
>>>> You wont get that effect with that drive.
>>>>
>>>>> I have moved the disk to a cooler location and it turns
>>>>> out I am getting most of the data off that partition.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, that is usually the case, so it cant be that
>>>> the sector has got to hot to retain its magnetisation.
>>>>
>>>> What actually happens is that the high temp stuffs up the head
>>>> flying height and thats what sees some sectors unreadable
>>>> and readable when the temperature is returned to normal.
>>>>
>>>> Some sectors that were written at the high temps will need
>>>> to be written again at normal temps to be usable again.
>>>>
>>>>> So since what is left is trivial I will reformat that partition.
>>>>> In fact I will do whatever you suggest to fix this.
>>>>
>>>> I'd use the hard drive manufacturer's diagnostic. That will be able
>>>> to rewrite the bad sectors and to reallocate them if they cant be
>>>> fixed that way.
>>>>
>>>>> The heat problem I am working on but tell me plx how
>>>>> you think I should nurse the Maxtor back to health.
>>>>
>>>> Run it much cooler, best below 40C, use PowerMax to fix the bad
>>>> sectors.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:52q82jF1q26glU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>> George Hester <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Pending sectors." What does that mean?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those are sectors that cant be read and will
>>>>>> be reallocated when that sector is next written.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They arent reallocated on the read problem so you can use
>>>>>> whatever methods you like to try to get the data out of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My sectors are pending to be used
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, pending to be reallocated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> what more is there? Also I really don't understand the
>>>>>>> geometry of a "Partition" as it relates to a disk (platter).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Its just the starting and ending cylinder/head/sector value in
>>>>>> the partition table entry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Modern hard drives actually use the logical block numbers, not
>>>>>> the CHS value for access and the partition table entry format is
>>>>>> essentially a relic of the past.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I assume some a set oif sectors which are contiguous is what
>>>>>>> makes up a partition???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If that is the case my drive might be 1/2 broke?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, no evidence of any problem with the partition table entry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What could have casused this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What was done when the partition table entry was initially
>>>>>> created with those CHS values that specify the start and end of
>>>>>> the partition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was traditional to start and end partitions on full cylinder
>>>>>> boundarys but there isnt really any good reason to do that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As far as I know nothing untoward happened the machine has been
>>>>>>> running for 1 month now and this issue just came out of thin
>>>>>>> air.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because you are running the drive much too hot
>>>>>> and that is what has produced those bad sectors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> VWWall I try to give as much information as I am asked and
>>>>>>> if not asked as much as I see the need to. Since I wam not
>>>>>>> having BIOS troubles I didn't think to include it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He's suggesting that the bios may be too old to support LBA48.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That isnt likely to be the problem as long as
>>>>>> the OS does, and you say below that it does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True the BIOS does not see the true size of
>>>>>>> the disk but in fact none of my machines do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is an entirely different problem. Hard drive manufacturers
>>>>>> state the size of the drive in binary GBs, 1,000,000,000 bytes.
>>>>>> Partitions are usually shown in terms of binary GBs,
>>>>>> 1,073,741,824 bytes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And everything seems to be fine for years this way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, its an entirely cosmetic issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes Windows 2000 SP4 with the registry set correctly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you have LBA48 and so it wont be due to the drive wrapping
>>>>>> around.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And if a drive wraps around due to the lack of LBA48, you will
>>>>>> see much bigger problems with the data on the drive than you are
>>>>>> seeing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> VWWall <vwall@DEADearthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> VWWall <vwall@DEADearthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> George Hester wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok got it the report is very big. But what I will do is
>>>>>>>>>>>> just post the parts that have to do with the drive in
>>>>>>>>>>>> question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --------[ EVEREST Home Edition (c) 2003-2005 Lavalys,
>>>>>>>>>>> [big snip of report]
>>>>>>>>>>>> --------[ Debug - Video
>>>>>>>>>>>> BIOS
>>>>>>>>>>>> ]----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> C000:0000 U.@..7400............S....f.m.IBM VGA
>>>>>>>>>>>> Compatible BIOS. ..f..a...
>>>>>>>>>>>> C000:0040 ....STB PowerGraph 64 Video (TRIO64V+)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Enhanced VGA BIOS. Versio
>>>>>>>>>>>> C000:0080 n 1.5..Copyright 1987-1992 Phoenix
>>>>>>>>>>>> Technologies Ltd.............
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This looks like a very old BIOS. Is it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is the video bios. Not relevant to LBA48
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course. The video BIOS is always at C000:0040, as anyone
>>>>>>>>> knows who has used debug to find it. :-) With a date that
>>>>>>>>> old, it's likely that the MB BIOS is also old.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not necessarily.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which is why I asked:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What date do you see on boot-up?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What size are the disks in question? What size are the
>>>>>>>>>>> partitions? Looks like the WD is 60GB and the Maxtor 320GB.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A BIOS that old must be LBA28.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, not when its the video bios.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> See above, unless your mind reading ability is better.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> See above. It isnt relevant anyway.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if the problem came from overwriting one of
>>>>>>>>>>> the partitions. This can happen if you attempt to use a
>>>>>>>>>>> drive
>>>>>>>>>>>> 137GB, (128GiB), on an old LBA28 BIOS, by making smaller
>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What matters is whether he has LBA48 from the 2K service pack
>>>>>>>>>> or not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's SP-4, for Win2K is it not?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've seen strange things happen when either the BIOS *or* the
>>>>>>>>> OS is not set up for LBA48.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not the effect he is getting which is due to the pending
>>>>>>>> sectors.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is a good example of what happens when someone posts
>>>>>>>>> without giving all the facts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, you have the facts on what effects he is getting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That wont be due to the lack of LBA48 in the bios.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Its very likely due to the pending sectors on that drive.
Thanks sqaddie. I didn't realize this app was a Maxtor product when I
originally asked about it. I have gotten it and am doing the Advanced test
now. I already know the results but I decided to move everything off the
disk first before I do the "fix." Everything but that one file. I just
can't get that off. This test takes awhile I hope all goes well with it.
Anyway thanks to all that have shown me the way on this.
--
George Hester
_______________________________
"squaddie" <xxxx@xxxx.com> wrote in message
news:LvCyh.965$Fg4.714@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>
> "George Hester" <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:45caa07d$0$28166$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> > Maxtor has been aquired by Seagate and the Maxtor diagnostics is gone.
Do
> > you have the location for PowerMax and does that cost money?
> >
> You can d\load Powermax here George.
> http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/...Powermax.shtml
>
> bw..
>
>
All fixed. The file survived and I can get it off the drive. Thank you Rod
for all your help.
--
George Hester
_________________________________
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:534chvF1qp4mmU1@mid.individual.net...
> George Hester <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > Maxtor has been aquired by Seagate
>
> Yes.
>
> > and the Maxtor diagnostics is gone.
>
> Nope.
>
> > Do you have the location for PowerMax
>
> http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.js...ax_4.23&vgnext
oid=a37d8b9c4a8ff010VgnVCM100000dd04090aRCRD
>
> > and does that cost money?
>
> Nope.
>
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> >> George Hester <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> >>> Ok I will look at those two things. I think I have a Maxtor CD-ROM
> >>> laying around. Check this page outt search on "pending sector" w/o
> >>> the quotes:
> >>
> >>> http://ask.metafilter.com/mefi/22005
> >>
> >>> He suggests writing all the drive but where the file is with zeros.
> >>
> >> Sure, its not necessarily that trivial to work out where the
> >> pending sectors are tho so you can write to them with zeros.
> >>
> >> Thats the main advantage with using the hard drive
> >> manufacturer's diagnostic, it can always work out where
> >> the pending sectors are and it normally just writes to those
> >> sectors to force them to be reallocated if the write fails.
> >>
> >> And usually they do more than JUST try writing to that sector once
> >> too.
> >>
> >>> Make a file with 0's in it. Not sure if I can
> >>> even do that; that would be a file 250 GB.
> >>
> >> There's no need to do that, you cant just delete the original
> >> file and write another file full of zeros to the drive, that wont
> >> ensure that all the sectors that were occupied by the original
> >> file will be written with the new file full of zeros.
> >>
> >>> But there is an app I have somewhere that can write
> >>> zeros to the drive itself is some kind of security thng.
> >>
> >> Yep, there are quite a few of those.
> >>
> >>> And now for my brainiac idea.
> >>
> >>> In this page he says we want to write over the abused sectors.
> >>> Why don't I just do this? Tahe a file a little bigger than the bad
> >>> file in quetion. It could even be of the same file type; avi in
> >>> this case. Rename it to the name of the bad file that is on the
> >>> disk.
> >>> Then copy that renamed file over onto the partition where the bad
> >>> file is. Windows will nag me about writing over that file yes,
> >>> done. What do you think?
> >>
> >> That wont write the new file where the old file used to be sectors
> >> wise.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>> George Hester <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote
> >>
> >>>>> Ok so too hot is the issue. Got you. Well well that sucks.
> >>>>
> >>>> And isnt great for the life of the drive.
> >>>>
> >>>>> So the sectors sort of lost their state
> >>>>
> >>>> Nope, its not hot enough for that.
> >>>>
> >>>>> and now the whole thing needs to be reformatted?
> >>>>
> >>>> Strictly speaking its not a format even tho many of the diags call
> >>>> it that for simplicity.
> >>>>
> >>>>> That is what I am going to do. I turns out I can get all the data
> >>>>> that is on it elsewhere. No didn't back anything up but I know
> >>>>> how to do it.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Now why did you suggerst a deep format?
> >>>>
> >>>> Just because that is what PowerMax calls it
> >>>>
> >>>>> The last time I did that was on a SCSI and that was the end of
> >>>>> that SCSI. Yes it wasn't healthy to begin with but the deep
> >>>>> format was the nail in its coffin.
> >>>>
> >>>> You wont get that effect with that drive.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I have moved the disk to a cooler location and it turns
> >>>>> out I am getting most of the data off that partition.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yeah, that is usually the case, so it cant be that
> >>>> the sector has got to hot to retain its magnetisation.
> >>>>
> >>>> What actually happens is that the high temp stuffs up the head
> >>>> flying height and thats what sees some sectors unreadable
> >>>> and readable when the temperature is returned to normal.
> >>>>
> >>>> Some sectors that were written at the high temps will need
> >>>> to be written again at normal temps to be usable again.
> >>>>
> >>>>> So since what is left is trivial I will reformat that partition.
> >>>>> In fact I will do whatever you suggest to fix this.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd use the hard drive manufacturer's diagnostic. That will be able
> >>>> to rewrite the bad sectors and to reallocate them if they cant be
> >>>> fixed that way.
> >>>>
> >>>>> The heat problem I am working on but tell me plx how
> >>>>> you think I should nurse the Maxtor back to health.
> >>>>
> >>>> Run it much cooler, best below 40C, use PowerMax to fix the bad
> >>>> sectors.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:52q82jF1q26glU1@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>>> George Hester <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Pending sectors." What does that mean?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Those are sectors that cant be read and will
> >>>>>> be reallocated when that sector is next written.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> They arent reallocated on the read problem so you can use
> >>>>>> whatever methods you like to try to get the data out of them.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> My sectors are pending to be used
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nope, pending to be reallocated.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> what more is there? Also I really don't understand the
> >>>>>>> geometry of a "Partition" as it relates to a disk (platter).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Its just the starting and ending cylinder/head/sector value in
> >>>>>> the partition table entry.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Modern hard drives actually use the logical block numbers, not
> >>>>>> the CHS value for access and the partition table entry format is
> >>>>>> essentially a relic of the past.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I assume some a set oif sectors which are contiguous is what
> >>>>>>> makes up a partition???
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If that is the case my drive might be 1/2 broke?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nope, no evidence of any problem with the partition table entry.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What could have casused this?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What was done when the partition table entry was initially
> >>>>>> created with those CHS values that specify the start and end of
> >>>>>> the partition.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It was traditional to start and end partitions on full cylinder
> >>>>>> boundarys but there isnt really any good reason to do that.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As far as I know nothing untoward happened the machine has been
> >>>>>>> running for 1 month now and this issue just came out of thin
> >>>>>>> air.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Because you are running the drive much too hot
> >>>>>> and that is what has produced those bad sectors.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> VWWall I try to give as much information as I am asked and
> >>>>>>> if not asked as much as I see the need to. Since I wam not
> >>>>>>> having BIOS troubles I didn't think to include it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> He's suggesting that the bios may be too old to support LBA48.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That isnt likely to be the problem as long as
> >>>>>> the OS does, and you say below that it does.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> True the BIOS does not see the true size of
> >>>>>>> the disk but in fact none of my machines do.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That is an entirely different problem. Hard drive manufacturers
> >>>>>> state the size of the drive in binary GBs, 1,000,000,000 bytes.
> >>>>>> Partitions are usually shown in terms of binary GBs,
> >>>>>> 1,073,741,824 bytes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And everything seems to be fine for years this way.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yeah, its an entirely cosmetic issue.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes Windows 2000 SP4 with the registry set correctly.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Then you have LBA48 and so it wont be due to the drive wrapping
> >>>>>> around.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And if a drive wraps around due to the lack of LBA48, you will
> >>>>>> see much bigger problems with the data on the drive than you are
> >>>>>> seeing.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>>>>>> VWWall <vwall@DEADearthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> VWWall <vwall@DEADearthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> George Hester wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ok got it the report is very big. But what I will do is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> just post the parts that have to do with the drive in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> question:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --------[ EVEREST Home Edition (c) 2003-2005 Lavalys,
> >>>>>>>>>>> [big snip of report]
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --------[ Debug - Video
> >>>>>>>>>>>> BIOS
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ]--------------------------------------------------------------
--
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> C000:0000 U.@..7400............S....f.m.IBM VGA
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Compatible BIOS. ..f..a...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> C000:0040 ....STB PowerGraph 64 Video (TRIO64V+)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Enhanced VGA BIOS. Versio
> >>>>>>>>>>>> C000:0080 n 1.5..Copyright 1987-1992 Phoenix
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Technologies Ltd.............
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> This looks like a very old BIOS. Is it?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> That is the video bios. Not relevant to LBA48
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Of course. The video BIOS is always at C000:0040, as anyone
> >>>>>>>>> knows who has used debug to find it. :-) With a date that
> >>>>>>>>> old, it's likely that the MB BIOS is also old.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Not necessarily.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Which is why I asked:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> What date do you see on boot-up?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> What size are the disks in question? What size are the
> >>>>>>>>>>> partitions? Looks like the WD is 60GB and the Maxtor 320GB.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> A BIOS that old must be LBA28.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Nope, not when its the video bios.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> See above, unless your mind reading ability is better.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> See above. It isnt relevant anyway.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if the problem came from overwriting one of
> >>>>>>>>>>> the partitions. This can happen if you attempt to use a
> >>>>>>>>>>> drive
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 137GB, (128GiB), on an old LBA28 BIOS, by making smaller
> >>>>>>>>>>>> partitions.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> What matters is whether he has LBA48 from the 2K service pack
> >>>>>>>>>> or not.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> That's SP-4, for Win2K is it not?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yep.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I've seen strange things happen when either the BIOS *or* the
> >>>>>>>>> OS is not set up for LBA48.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Not the effect he is getting which is due to the
Re: A partition table repairer 