On Friday 09 November 2007 16:17, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > * Randall R Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [11-09-07 19:12]: > > ... > > > > An interesting aside: The actual capacity of this drive appears to > > be nearly 7 GB (out of just under 140 GB) _larger_ than specified. > > only possible problem, part of those *may* have been deliberately > scrambled/disabled by the mfgr because they did not meet some > standard and were expected to fail untimely (too soooon).
If so, would they not already have been mapped out of the normal LBA addressing scheme? What it might mean is that they are the unused portion of the reserve capacity designed into the device to be potentially (but in this case not actually) used to handle remapped, erroneous sectors by the factory's burn-in, testing and validation process. > -- > Patrick Shanahan Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
