Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 06:06:27 -0600 From: David Kelly <dkelly@hiwaay.net> To: scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SCSI low level format, good or bad Message-ID: <199803021206.GAA26129@nospam.hiwaay.net> In-Reply-To: Message from Karl Denninger <karl@mcs.net> of "Mon, 02 Mar 1998 04:27:53 CST." <19980302042753.31713@mcs.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Karl Denninger writes: > > I've seen a non-trivial number of disks come off the factory line with > non-optimal formats. I don't know if its a temperature tolerance thing or > what, but this has been my experience. What do you consider a non-optimal format? Does Adaptec's low level format mess with the SCSI mode pages? If so, reformatting might "optimize" the disk. I've observed the default for WCE and other options varies according to where the disk came from, not by manufacturer. I stick by the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" reasoning. There is no telling exactly how they format the drive at the factory. No telling what additional hardware monitors are attached to the drive. You'll notice most all drives have additional connectors and test points for *something*. In fact there is no telling exactly what happens when you "low level" format the drive yourself. With any luck it will take the factory defect list (not block list, but lowest level bit error position from index, remember MFM and RLL disks?) as gospel and try to arrange blocks around that. -- David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@nospam.hiwaay.net ===================================================================== The human mind ordinarily operates at only ten percent of its capacity -- the rest is overhead for the operating system. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-scsi" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199803021206.GAA26129>