Tools for hard drive diagnostics, repair, and data recovery
September 17th, 2010, 19:48
September 17th, 2010, 23:05
Assuming an average data transfer rate of 100MB/s, it should take ...
(2 x 10^12) / (100 x 10^6) / 3600
= 5.6 hours
The manufacturer may also specify the time required for a full security erase. This will be reported in the 512-byte Identify Device data block.
For example, Seagate's ST32000542AS model specifies a value of 0xC4 for word 89:
http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/HDD/ST ... W0CJN5.TXTThis is equivalent to 196 minutes in decimal, ie 3 hours 16 minutes.
September 18th, 2010, 2:41
2TB drives can perform 110-130MB/s in the beginning, and only 60-70MB/s in the end!
September 18th, 2010, 3:16
N.C. wrote:2TB drives can perform 110-130MB/s in the beginning, and only 60-70MB/s in the end!
That depends on the RPM and the data density. In any case I assumed an average value of 100 MB/s which is reasonable in light of the following examples.
This ST32000641AS appears to be a 7200 RPM, 600GB / platter drive:
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/mot ... neRcoS.jpgIts average transfer rate is 110 MB/s, and maximum is 142 MB/s.
When I say 600GB per platter, I mean that the bits per track is equivalent to a 600GB per platter drive rather than the actual capacity of 500 GB per platter.
ST32000542AS 5900 RPM, 600GB per platter drive, 119 MB/s max, 94 MB/s avg:
http://blogimg.goo.ne.jp/user_image/3f/ ... 665f22.jpghttp://users.telenet.be/Mastakilla/HDs/ ... write2.JPGhttp://hardware.mydrivers.com/img/20090806/01270267.jpgHD203WI, 5400 RPM, 115MB/s max:
http://i48.tinypic.com/b7x47a.jpg
September 18th, 2010, 6:41
fzabkar wrote:Assuming an average data transfer rate of 100MB/s, it should take ...
(2 x 10^12) / (100 x 10^6) / 3600
= 5.6 hours
The manufacturer may also specify the time required for a full security erase. This will be reported in the 512-byte Identify Device data block.
For example, Seagate's ST32000542AS model specifies a value of 0xC4 for word 89:
http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/HDD/ST ... W0CJN5.TXTThis is equivalent to 196 minutes in decimal, ie 3 hours 16 minutes.
Thankyou!!
Does it make sense to perform a low-level-format in order to "reset" SMART "Reallocated Sectors Count Attrribute" back to "as new hdd" value? I've heard different opinions on this...
September 18th, 2010, 22:10
jotavalla wrote:Does it make sense to perform a low-level-format in order to "reset" SMART "Reallocated Sectors Count Attrribute" back to "as new hdd" value?
Your "low level format" utility merely zero-fills the user accessible sectors. The SMART Reallocated Sectors Count will not be reset. In fact, if there are marginal sectors showing under the Current Pending Sectors attribute, then these will be retested transparently by the drive. If they pass, they will be returned to service, otherwise they will be replaced with spares, in which case the Reallocated Sectors Count will actually increase.
September 19th, 2010, 6:01
fzabkar wrote:jotavalla wrote:Does it make sense to perform a low-level-format in order to "reset" SMART "Reallocated Sectors Count Attrribute" back to "as new hdd" value?
Your "low level format" utility merely zero-fills the user accessible sectors. The SMART Reallocated Sectors Count will not be reset. In fact, if there are marginal sectors showing under the Current Pending Sectors attribute, then these will be retested transparently by the drive. If they pass, they will be returned to service, otherwise they will be replaced with spares, in which case the Reallocated Sectors Count will actually increase.
Agree, it is correct.
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.