|
|
To Mike Hall:
One cannot go through life taking everyone else's word about everything.
You are convinced, it seems, that based solely on the IT guy's statement that
the drive failed that it is, in fact, a bad drive. I am not convinced of
such, especially as I have known too many IT people who didn't know crap, but
could get away with idiotic statments and bungling because management and
employees either didn't have the time or knowledge (or both) to dispute what
these IT people claim as gospel. And to make my point, I included in my
response how this gentleman berated the drive as being slow when the problem
wasn't the drive at all. Here was his statement:
"So I started using the drive 250GB Drive now, and although it works, it
kill's the performance of my mashing (I guess machine is what is meant here,
not mashing -- gman). The processor goes up around 100%, and
it took 150 min to move the 20GB of data for another disk to this disk!!
So something is wrong..."
Forgetting eveything else this guy has posted, if he had presented the above
as his problem with the drive would you have told him based on that statement
that it was a bad drive? Yes?
I think I've made my point. Case closed.
gman
"Mike Hall (MS-MVP)" wrote:
> Gman
>
> It doesn't matter what the reason for failure was.. the pure fact that it
> was removed from a failed array is enough.. Raid array drives are pushed
> hard, and if one fails, there is a reasonable chance that the other drive(s)
> may too.. drives would have to be the same type to be used in an array, and
> most likely from the same batch..
>
> Testing the drive today would have little bearing on what may happen
> tomorrow.. simple disk tests do not show up errors too efficiently.. a low
> level format shows up errors that simple tests often miss, and even if it
> gets through a LLF today, there is no guarantee that the drive will be ok
> tomorrow, especially as it is a drive that has come out of a failed array..
> it is dumb enough to 100% trust a drive freshly removed from the
> manufacturers sealed packaging, let alone one that was part of a failed
> array.. if the drive was good, ask yourself why the IT guy gave it away.. it
> could have been used as a 'hot' spare. or in another stand alone system..
>
> So, has any of this helped the OP?.. hardly.. should he trust the drive?..
> no.. should he use the drive?.. that is at his discretion..
>
> --
> Mike Hall
> MVP - Windows Shell/User
>
>
> "gman" <gman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:C16B3507-7AA1-4F46-B044-1DC93959E466@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > To Mike Hall:
> >
> > The gentleman did not provide any facts related to the "failure." His
> > statement was that the drive "failed in a RAID system." Why take someone
> > else's word (the IT guy) and not provide an answer that might help
> > determine
> > if the drive is, in fact, bad? Witness how the "bad performance" of the
> > drive had nothing to do whatsoever with the drive's reliability. It was
> > operator error, so to speak. Even the question of how long it should
> > take
> > to format the 250 gig drive has differing opinions from the people reading
> > this post -- depending on the circumstances, WHICH WERE LEFT UNEXPLAINED
> > IN
> > THE ANSWER. Thus, there was ambiguity.
> >
> > If you wish to stand behind and defend your answer as given, though you
> > can
> > probably do so based on the way that one (of TWO) question was phrased, so
> > be
> > it; but, were I in your position as a MS-MVP and with your experience, I
> > would have delved deeper, plain and simple.
> >
> > So, that is my answer and I'm sticking to it !!!
> >
> > gman
> >
> > "Mike Hall (MS-MVP)" wrote:
> >
> >> Gman
> >>
> >> Regardless of the 71mb seemingly lost, if somebody asked me if I would
> >> trust
> >> a drive that had failed in a RAID array, I would give the same answer
> >> each
> >> time, and that answer would be a resounding 'NO'.. it is not a smartass
> >> answer.. it is a 'sense' answer..
> >>
> >> What would you like me to say to his final question, again his words..
> >> "Should I trust this drive or not?" .. a drive that failed in a RAID
> >> array..
> >>
> >> I was a computer hardware engineer for many years, and experience would
> >> tell
> >> me not to trust the drive.. that is and remains my final answer..
> >>
> >> Re. my family, that is a subject in which you know less than zero, and I
> >> would thank you to keep your mindless snipes to yourself, and not to air
> >> them in a public place..
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Mike Hall
> >> MVP - Windows Shell/User
> >>
> >>
> >> "gman" <gman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> news:A585E394-43C0-4620-A842-6B907F99691D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > I wouldn't be concerned as 71 MB on a 250 gig HD is nothing really, not
> >> > even
> >> > 1/10 a gig. Is the 71mb used shown after you have loaded your
> >> > operating
> >> > system? If so, then I would assume that is the amount of space
> >> > required/used
> >> > by XP to install itself.
> >> >
> >> > I am disgusted to see the response you received from this Mike Hall guy
> >> > who
> >> > is supposed to be helpful as he is a MS-MVP. He should not be allowed
> >> > on
> >> > here if that is the best he can do in the way of reply. No one needs a
> >> > smart
> >> > a** or that type of answer when they have a concern. Just hope he
> >> > doesn't
> >> > have kids!!! Poor things.
> >> >
> >> > gman
> >> >
> >> > "Bill" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> What you are seeing is normal.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "Thomas Jespersen" <tje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> >> news:%23wBIimGJGHA.344@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> > Hi
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I just formatted a 250GB disk. I got the disk form our network
> >> >> > administrator, because it failed in a RAID system, but he was not
> >> >> > sure
> >> >> > weather the disk was damaged or not.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Here is the result of the format comand:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > C:\>format I:
> >> >> > The type of the file system is NTFS.
> >> >> > Enter current volume label for drive I: Data
> >> >> >
> >> >> > WARNING, ALL DATA ON NON-REMOVABLE DISK
> >> >> > DRIVE I: WILL BE LOST!
> >> >> > Proceed with Format (Y/N)? y
> >> >> > Verifying 239366M
> >> >> > Volume label (ENTER for none)? Data
> >> >> > Creating file system structures.
> >> >> > Format complete.
> >> >> > 245111704 KB total disk space.
> >> >> > 245035780 KB are available.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > First. It took arround 1½ -2 hours to format the drive from the XP
> >> >> > shell.
> >> >> > Is this normal?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Second: When I look at the properties of the driver from My
> >> >> > Computer,
> >> >> > It
> >> >> > says Used Space: 74,4MB. Is this normal? After doing a Quick Format
> >> >> > it
> >> >> > now
> >> >> > says 71,1MB used!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I think that this is suspicious. But the result of the format
> >> >> > doesn't
> >> >> > say
> >> >> > anything about bad sectors.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Should I trust this dirve or not?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thomas
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
|
|