Just a Thank you & EOThread message :-)
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 09:24:15PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Dunno about IDE layer. It has been done that way for long time and not
> sure whether adding such option will happen, but for libata, hpa
> handling is still not implemented ...
I'm now (since
Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
[--snip--]
This theory is backed by my observation of a nearly-broken disk,
that the quantity "3)" gradually goes down one step after some time.
The first such step was, when I noticed the problem about half a
year ago, and just recently it stepped down by another one.
Ok
It seems I was too eagerly deleting context from my mails.
This made people misunderstand my questions or answer
details that have been clarified in previous mails already.
I did learn quite a lot already about harddisks during this thread.
"Thank you" to Alan. In particular, about the quantities
Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 07:59:40PM +, Alan wrote:
size remains still constant, and the exceeding damaged sectors are
auto-"hidden" by the drive by means of HPA.
Still incorrect?
Still incorrect. HPA has nothing to do with damaged sectors. The damaged
sectors are repl
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 07:59:40PM +, Alan wrote:
> > size remains still constant, and the exceeding damaged sectors are
> > auto-"hidden" by the drive by means of HPA.
> > Still incorrect?
> Still incorrect. HPA has nothing to do with damaged sectors. The damaged
> sectors are replaced from a
> size remains still constant, and the exceeding damaged sectors are
> auto-"hidden" by the drive by means of HPA.
>
> Still incorrect?
Still incorrect. HPA has nothing to do with damaged sectors. The damaged
sectors are replaced from a pool of sectors that are reserved for this
purpose.
Alan
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 06:10:33PM +, Alan wrote:
> > What else (if not sector remapping) could make the "current"
> > size gradually smaller between reboots. And why is "native"
> > size still constant? And why does now even access to the but-last
> > native sector fail? The explanation with
> What else (if not sector remapping) could make the "current"
> size gradually smaller between reboots. And why is "native"
> size still constant? And why does now even access to the but-last
> native sector fail? The explanation with block-reads no longer
> works.
The presented size of an ATA d
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 04:33:28PM +, Alan wrote:
> > So after real remaining capacity has dropped
> > below original capacity, querying the "native" size still
> > returns the original size, which is no longer physically
> > backed.
> This is incorrect.
Please, also give some hints, what act
> What the drive reports as "native" capacity indeed does
> *not* take into (negative-)account those sectors, that have
> been remapped. So after real remaining capacity has dropped
> below original capacity, querying the "native" size still
> returns the original size, which is no longer physic
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 01:30:44PM +, Alan wrote:
> HPA has nothign to do with sector remapping.
What the drive reports as "native" capacity indeed does
*not* take into (negative-)account those sectors, that have
been remapped. So after real remaining capacity has dropped
below original capa
11 matches
Mail list logo
