Disk question

[John B. slocomb]

Some time ago I installed a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB drive. I
installed Windows 7 and Fedora 12 and everything was fine until I
deleted the Linux partitions, re-partitioned, and installed Fedora 13.
Almost immediately after installing F-13 a warning appeared that the
disk was failing because there were too many bad blocks, apparently a
count of blocks that it was necessary to re-assign. However, the disk
continued to operate normally with no disk read or write errors.

After several months of warnings I elected to replace the disk with a
Western Digital 500 GB disk and have had no further warnings.

After replacing the disk I tested it using a Hitachi disk test
utility, which performs a 1.5 hour disk test. The results - "No
Errors" The same utility can check the S.M.A.R.T. disk functions and
that shows normal operation - no error.

Now the question. Should I assume that the disk is usable based on the
Hitachi tests or should I scrap it based on the Fedora tests?

Cheers,

John B.
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

[Bob I]

Two out of three say there are no problems. Perhaps the Fedora is confused?

 

[SC Tom]

Some time ago I installed a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB drive. I
installed Windows 7 and Fedora 12 and everything was fine until I
deleted the Linux partitions, re-partitioned, and installed Fedora 13.
Almost immediately after installing F-13 a warning appeared that the
disk was failing because there were too many bad blocks, apparently a
count of blocks that it was necessary to re-assign. However, the disk
continued to operate normally with no disk read or write errors.

After several months of warnings I elected to replace the disk with a
Western Digital 500 GB disk and have had no further warnings.

After replacing the disk I tested it using a Hitachi disk test
utility, which performs a 1.5 hour disk test. The results - "No
Errors" The same utility can check the S.M.A.R.T. disk functions and
that shows normal operation - no error.

Now the question. Should I assume that the disk is usable based on the
Hitachi tests or should I scrap it based on the Fedora tests?

Cheers,

John B.
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

You could try the Seagate diagnostics and see what it says:
http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.j...toid=720bd20cacdec010VgnVCM100000dd04090aRCRD

 

[Percival P. Cassidy]

Some time ago I installed a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB drive. I
installed Windows 7 and Fedora 12 and everything was fine until I
deleted the Linux partitions, re-partitioned, and installed Fedora 13.
Almost immediately after installing F-13 a warning appeared that the
disk was failing because there were too many bad blocks, apparently a
count of blocks that it was necessary to re-assign. However, the disk
continued to operate normally with no disk read or write errors.

After several months of warnings I elected to replace the disk with a
Western Digital 500 GB disk and have had no further warnings.

After replacing the disk I tested it using a Hitachi disk test
utility, which performs a 1.5 hour disk test. The results - "No
Errors" The same utility can check the S.M.A.R.T. disk functions and
that shows normal operation - no error.

Now the question. Should I assume that the disk is usable based on the
Hitachi tests or should I scrap it based on the Fedora tests?

Some Seagate drives manufactured during the last year or two have bad
firmware. Go to the Seagate Web site and enter the model# and serial# to
find out whether yours needs an update.

Perce

 

[Canuck57]

Some time ago I installed a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB drive. I
installed Windows 7 and Fedora 12 and everything was fine until I
deleted the Linux partitions, re-partitioned, and installed Fedora 13.
Almost immediately after installing F-13 a warning appeared that the
disk was failing because there were too many bad blocks, apparently a
count of blocks that it was necessary to re-assign. However, the disk
continued to operate normally with no disk read or write errors.

Because the MS Windows boot loader is so brain dead, most install
programs put the boot loader in a seperate partition or in with Linux.
So when you whacked the Linux partition, you probably wipped out the
boot loader.

If you are running 3rd class OEM versions, you probably do not have the
ability to rewrite the MS Windows boot tracks. Some might have some
utilities that might help.

After several months of warnings I elected to replace the disk with a
Western Digital 500 GB disk and have had no further warnings.

Always good to replace disks early.

After replacing the disk I tested it using a Hitachi disk test
utility, which performs a 1.5 hour disk test. The results - "No
Errors" The same utility can check the S.M.A.R.T. disk functions and
that shows normal operation - no error.

Now the question. Should I assume that the disk is usable based on the
Hitachi tests or should I scrap it based on the Fedora tests?

Hard to tell. I have seen this situation go both ways. But tend
towards saying if BIOS is set right, and Linux says it is bad, replace
it. I have seen SMART tests pass after initial trouble, then pass, then
fail shortly there after.

 

[Trimble Bracegirdle]

I think its a matter of different O/S's not understanding each others
action.
You don't say which O/S was giving those error messages.???
Sounds like Windows.
You tested the Disc very thoroughly with no problems found.. I say it OK.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") mouse

 

[Parko]

Some time ago I installed a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB drive. I
installed Windows 7 and Fedora 12 and everything was fine until I
deleted the Linux partitions, re-partitioned, and installed Fedora 13.
Almost immediately after installing F-13 a warning appeared that the
disk was failing because there were too many bad blocks, apparently a
count of blocks that it was necessary to re-assign. However, the disk
continued to operate normally with no disk read or write errors.

After several months of warnings I elected to replace the disk with a
Western Digital 500 GB disk and have had no further warnings.

After replacing the disk I tested it using a Hitachi disk test utility,
which performs a 1.5 hour disk test. The results - "No Errors" The same
utility can check the S.M.A.R.T. disk functions and that shows normal
operation - no error.

Now the question. Should I assume that the disk is usable based on the
Hitachi tests or should I scrap it based on the Fedora tests?

Cheers,

John B.
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

To check the disc install gsmartctl and smartmontools (Linux) and run
them. See what the output says. In my experience Linux distributions
complain about dodgy hardware long before Windows will...

 

[Schweik]

Because the MS Windows boot loader is so brain dead, most install
programs put the boot loader in a seperate partition or in with Linux.
So when you whacked the Linux partition, you probably wipped out the
boot loader.

Where the boot loader went has nothing to do with it. The system
booted and ran, why do you want to talk about the boot loader? It has
nothing to do with a error warning that too many bad blocks had to be
reassigned.

If you are running 3rd class OEM versions, you probably do not have the
ability to rewrite the MS Windows boot tracks. Some might have some
utilities that might help.

As it had nothing to do with the problems I wonder why you keep going
on about the boot tracks?

Always good to replace disks early.

Hard to tell. I have seen this situation go both ways. But tend
towards saying if BIOS is set right, and Linux says it is bad, replace
it. I have seen SMART tests pass after initial trouble, then pass, then
fail shortly there after.

How so BIOS? The machine had worked normally for a couple of years and
still works normally with no changes to the BIOS.

It wasn't a SMART test it was a Hitachi disk test program
that takes about 11/2 hours to run the test.

Cheers,

Schweik
(goodsoldierschweikatgmail)

 

[Schweik]

I think its a matter of different O/S's not understanding each others
action.
You don't say which O/S was giving those error messages.???
Sounds like Windows.
You tested the Disc very thoroughly with no problems found.. I say it OK.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") mouse

Windows says nothing. It was the Fedora 13 system that complained
after I wiped the Linux partitions and re-installed Fedora 13. the
Fedora 12 installation had not made a murmur.

Besides, Windows runs in a Windows partition and Linux runs in the
Linux partitions and neither normally has access to the others area.

Cheers,

Schweik
(goodsoldierschweikatgmail)

 

[Canuck57]

Where the boot loader went has nothing to do with it. The system
booted and ran, why do you want to talk about the boot loader? It has
nothing to do with a error warning that too many bad blocks had to be
reassigned.

Sure does, if it points to a removed partition that no longer exists.

How so BIOS? The machine had worked normally for a couple of years and
still works normally with no changes to the BIOS.

It wasn't a SMART test it was a Hitachi disk test program
that takes about 11/2 hours to run the test.

Batteries go dead and weird settings lost is one common issue. Plus
when things go wrong, people putz...

But when in doubt, I replace the things. A 1 TB drive is cheap.

 

[Canuck57]

Windows says nothing. It was the Fedora 13 system that complained
after I wiped the Linux partitions and re-installed Fedora 13. the
Fedora 12 installation had not made a murmur.

Besides, Windows runs in a Windows partition and Linux runs in the
Linux partitions and neither normally has access to the others area.

Cheers,

Schweik
(goodsoldierschweikatgmail)

So which boot loader were you using? MS Windows or Grub?

http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/10/html/Installation_Guide/ch-bootloader.html

 

[Trimble Bracegirdle]

The Spin Rite 6 seems to date from 2004 ..Will it work on Vista / Win 7
64 Bit ???
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") mouse

 

[Pen]

The Spin Rite 6 seems to date from 2004 ..Will it work on Vista / Win 7
64 Bit ???
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") mouse

Spinrite works from a DOS clone. You boot to it. The
operating system is immaterial.

 

[Parko]

Besides, Windows runs in a Windows partition and Linux runs in the Linux
partitions and neither normally has access to the others area.

I do beg to differ. Windows 7 home premium from Linux Mint:

Parko@gruntmaster-5000 /media/C81C81E11C81CAC0 $ ls -a
.. hiberfil.sys pagefile.sys
... install.exe PerfLogs
autoexec.bat install.ini prefs.js
Boot install.res.1028.dll ProgramData
Boot.BAK install.res.1031.dll Program Files
Boot.ini.saved install.res.1033.dll Program Files (x86)
bootmgr install.res.1036.dll Python31
BOOTSECT.BAK install.res.1040.dll Recovery
Config.Msi install.res.1041.dll $Recycle.Bin
config.sys install.res.1042.dll RECYCLER
Documents and Settings install.res.2052.dll System Volume Information
eula.1028.txt install.res.3082.dll Temp
eula.1031.txt Intel Users
eula.1033.txt IO.SYS VC_RED.cab
eula.1036.txt mbam-error.txt vcredist.bmp
eula.1040.txt MSDOS.SYS VC_RED.MSI
eula.1041.txt MSOCache VritualRoot
eula.1042.txt My Documents Windows
eula.2052.txt NTDETECT.COM Windows.old
eula.3082.txt ntldr Windows.old.000
globdata.ini NVIDIA
Parko@gruntmaster-5000 /media/C81C81E11C81CAC0 $

If you want Linux FS access from windows you should use the older ext2fs
and install this
http://www.fs-driver.org/

 

[J. D.]

So which boot loader were you using? MS Windows or Grub?

http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/10/html/Installation_Guide/ch-bootloader.html

Well, as I believe I wrote, There are two systems on the disk. Windows
7 and Linux.... Now, since there would be very little logic in having
two systems on the same disk if they were not both bootable what do
you think I'm using to boot with? The Windows boot system that will
only boot to Windows? Or maybe something else?

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

 

[Parko]

When Ubuntu has a kernel or
Grub update, I power down and disconnect the Windows drive before
updating so that it doesn't write anything to the Windows drive.

Why? Grub and before that Lilo won't write anything anywhere without
specific instructions, and without backing up your current configuration.
I just can't see the point in this. Just make a bare metal backup first.

 

[J. D.]

I use the BIOS. With my ASUS MB, all I have to do is hit F8 and then
choose which hard drive I would like to boot to. I have two hard drives
with Windows on one and Ubuntu on the other. When Ubuntu has a kernel or
Grub update, I power down and disconnect the Windows drive before
updating so that it doesn't write anything to the Windows drive.

Yes you can do it that way. You can physically disconnect disk cables
too, but it is just as easy to install grub to the MBR of whatever
disk is first and then add any additional devices to the grub menu.

At the moment I have the BIOS "boot" sequence set to CD then USB then
HD and keep a small USB H.D. with a Linux system and a lot of wifi
testing stuff on it. If you plug it in, it boots.
The reason for the USB H.D. is that I used to have the testing stuff
on a USB memory stick and would boot from that but it ran
excruciatingly slowly so got a cheap USB H.D. Now it is at least
usable.



Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

 

[J. D. Slocomb]

That hasn't been my experience with Grub or a new Kernel.


The point is to make sure that neither grub gets written to the Windows
drive nor a kernel update require Windows to be there to boot into
Ubuntu. It's moot, though, because this box will soon only have Ubuntu.

A Linux "update" updates files that are already on the computer and
quite possible adds new files to the system However, there is nothing
that would cause a write to a windows partition or drive. Even the
grub update which is written as the result of a kernel update is only
written to the grub.cfg file which Linux certainly will not be looking
for in a windows disk or partition.

And if you have a grub system installed whether the windows partition
is or is not there is really of no importance as far as grub is
concerned.


Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

 

[Parko]

That hasn't been my experience with Grub or a new Kernel.

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/GraphicalInstall

The Advanced radio buttons are a bit of a hint.

The point is to make sure that neither grub gets written to the Windows
drive

Why? Every dual booting machine I've used has worked just fine with grub
or lilo.

nor a kernel update require Windows to be there to boot into
Ubuntu.

This is real news to me. Perhaps I missed something in the past few years
or so. Could you please provide me with a link to support this claim
because I've been testing various distributions for the past few weeks on
a dual boot machine and I haven't seen this behaviour yet. It sounds
serious.

 

[Parko]

Not true. If you have a Grub update, it *will* write to the Windows
drive and if you have a kernel update, Ubuntu *won't* boot without the
Windows drive in the picture. I know because I have done it

The first sector of the drive you tell it to install itself to actually.
you're confused. Format the windows partition and grub will boot you
Linux distro if you tell it to. I know because I did it.