Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 11:04, Todd Lyons wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tom Brinkman wrote on Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 10:29:15PM + : Bottom line is hardware is a moving target, always has been. Unfortunately, specially with other than with M$, it's a downhill slide towards Junkyard Wars. Maxtor seems to be the safest bet right What is amazing to me is that nobody has had anything to say (positive or negative) about: 1) IBM drives Never had one. 2) Seagate drives I've got 3 of them that are almost 7 years old...(Make nice Firewall HDD's) I'm using Seagate and Maxtor (Never would have believed I would say this, about Maxtor.) throughout our company systems... Less than 1% of them got RMA'd so I was really happy with that. Oh and my underwater HDD's were all seagates they survived 100% but this is a test I'd never recommend. I have my own personal experiences with them, but am curious what others have seen. Blue skies... Todd - -- MandrakeSoft USA http://www.mandrakesoft.com cat /boot/vmlinuz /dev/dsp #for great justice Cooker Version mandrake-release-9.1-0.1mdk Kernel 2.4.20-2mdk -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9/3VSlp7v05cW2woRAn2iAJ0QHljt2GlH77JuqXQCouJM61BwowCeOiyQ wqWblDUKE1e/JpDW/EKx9Mc= =HWLg -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 15:32, Charles A Edwards wrote: On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 13:39:07 -0800 Larry Sword [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm have problems finding this anywhere on the IBM web site or by search. Can you please provide the source document you have for this?? This all came about because the warranty that IBM used for about a month some time in 01 only warrantied their drives for X number of hrs, something that worked out to about 10 hrs per day. This wording was quickly removed and recanted. A statement was issued by them that even during that period all their drives were/are tested and perform within norm during 24/7 operation. The only IBM drive which had serious issues was the 75GXP I personally have 22 hds ranging from 12gb to 60gb and age from 5 years to less than 6 months split about 50/50 between IBM and pre-buyout Maxtors. Thus far I have suffered 2 Maxtor failures and no IBM failures. The only problem I have with IBM drives is that they are not available locally. On the subject of drives another which has not been mentioned is Fujitsu. Stay away. They, in Sept. admitted that at least 3% of their drives sold in Japan will have to be replaced but they made no admission in regards to drives sold elsewhere. In the US a class action law suit has been filed against Fujitsu of America and HP for sale of system with said drives. Now not being produced for the desktop market many pre-built systems were/are sold with these drives. If you have 1 of these systems my suggestion would be to replace it or at the very least make very frequent back-ups. The drives most prone to failure are the MPG3xx, MPG3204AT, MPG3307AH and the MPG3409AH. Additional info on the class action suit can be found at www.sheller.com/fujitsuclassaction.htm Fujitsu Sorry rather have a WD drive *grin* 14 hours to do a 75 meg image copy to the drive. Drives heat up so bad you can't touch the HDD except with an oven mit... NOISY.. Personally I think Fujitsu is Japanese for hockey puck. James Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
I have 2 Maxtor's and 1 Seagate All work "like a champ" ! No problem with any of them ! But... I also have a couple of computers with WD drives in them. no problems to speak of ! What seems to be their "bane"? At YA later ! Donna - Original Message - From: James Sparenberg To: Expert List Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 3:15 AM Subject: Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 11:04, Todd Lyons wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tom Brinkman wrote on Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 10:29:15PM + : Bottom line is hardware is a moving target, always has been. Unfortunately, specially with other than with M$, it's a downhill slide towards Junkyard Wars. Maxtor seems to be the safest bet right What is amazing to me is that nobody has had anything to say (positive or negative) about: 1) IBM drivesNever had one. 2) Seagate drivesI've got 3 of them that are almost 7 years old...(Make nice FirewallHDD's) I'm using Seagate and Maxtor (Never would have believed I wouldsay this, about Maxtor.) throughout our company systems... Less than 1%of them got RMA'd so I was really happy with that. Oh and my underwaterHDD's were all seagates they survived 100% but this is a test I'dnever recommend. I have my own personal experiences with them, but am curious what others have seen. Blue skies... Todd - -- MandrakeSoft USA http://www.mandrakesoft.com cat /boot/vmlinuz /dev/dsp #for great justice Cooker Version mandrake-release-9.1-0.1mdk Kernel 2.4.20-2mdk -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9/3VSlp7v05cW2woRAn2iAJ0QHljt2GlH77JuqXQCouJM61BwowCeOiyQ wqWblDUKE1e/JpDW/EKx9Mc= =HWLg -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
On Tuesday December 17 2002 01:04 pm, Todd Lyons wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tom Brinkman wrote on Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 10:29:15PM + : Bottom line is hardware is a moving target, always has been. Unfortunately, specially with other than with M$, it's a downhill slide towards Junkyard Wars. Maxtor seems to be the safest bet right What is amazing to me is that nobody has had anything to say (positive or negative) about: 1) IBM drives 2) Seagate drives I have my own personal experiences with them, but am curious what others have seen. Blue skies... Todd I had two 7200 rpm IBM Deskstars. I always run 24/7, but last April I was out of town for a week and shut down. When I got back, the 30 gig IBM, with all my Linux on it, wouldn't spin up. 8 months old, mechanical failure. In a pinch, I replaced it with a Maxtor bought locally, rather than wait on RMA. Then a few months ago the remaining 30g IBM started actin up. 14 months old. I replaced it with a Maxtor 80g before the IBM had a chance to totally fail. Never did bother to RMA either IBM. BTW, both IBM's were replacements for old and slow WD's. The above was the first time I've had any HDD problems in over 12 years. I've never had any Seagates. Gettin back to 'downhill slide', most HDD vendors recently dropped from 3 yr, to 1 year warranties. Not exactly a confidence builder. Both Maxtor's I've got now still have 3 yrs warranty. We'll just haft'a see how long the last. -- Tom Brinkman Corpus Christi, Texas Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
On Tuesday 17 December 2002 10:18 pm, Joseph Braddock wrote: No, I don't think so. It is a brand new motherboard. however... it DID come with a special ide controller card. Seems that WD drives are junk based on another thread. :( Do you know the make of the special IDE controller card? Also, besides the card is there an on-board IDE? If you are using the card, is the on-board IDE disabled? Finally, if you are using the card, what happens if you remove it and use the on-board ide (or vice versa if you are using the on-board)? When I got all my new hardware and started building the system, I do remember having problems with the western digital drives the first day or two. I had used the first ide cables I had laying around and they were the old type. I had to use the newer UDMA type that I got with the hardware. From what I understand each signal line has its own ground line, maybe the western digitals have crappy electronics that are bad abt crosstalk. This system was built for over clocking and has plenty of fans and air flow, the power supply has plenty of power. I know some of the geforce 4 cards have had problems when the power supplies were not sufficient. Jack Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
RE: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
yup, I'd agree with that.. So far the only drive brand I've not had issues with.. is IBM.. I have had one IBM drive fail, but it was a travelstar.. (laptop drive) and it had been hammered for 3 years. dropped twice and generally misused. and it still gave me time to copy all the important stuff off before it died.. Till I have an IBM or two fail, they are still my favorite... Incidently, when I worked for octek, we sold Fujitsu drives. (just after seagate bought conner) and even back them we had tons of failures, most of the faulty ones were DOA, they never made it off the premises.. They then swapped to quantum... Rgds Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lyvim Xaphir Sent: Wednesday, 18 December 2002 8:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity --- Ronald J. Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 17 December 2002 02:04 pm, Todd Lyons wrote: What is amazing to me is that nobody has had anything to say (positive or negative) about: 1) IBM drives 2) Seagate drives I have my own personal experiences with them, but am curious what others have seen. Blue skies...Todd Todd, IBM released a statement saying that their drives were not meant to be used 24 hours a day/7 days a week. (or some such to that effect). Since then, their reputation has been less than glowing. I've got a 60 gig Deskstar IDE that I've had no problems with (so far). Got a 20 gig IDE Seagate in my youngests' computer - no problems with it so far either. I believe that any manufacturer is going to have manufacturing problems at one time or another. It is statistically inevitable. IBM referred to the statement above afterward, stating that there was alot of misunderstanding about that statement; however we all know how the internet is these days and the negatives cascaded rapidly, as they are wont to do on any vulnerable topic, be it Mandrakeclub or Trent Lott. I have two IBM Deskstars here that have performed flawlessly since I got them almost two years ago. The last Seagate that I got came from the factory with the lid sealed on with chrome tape. After that I vowed never again to touch a seagate. Within some months after that happened, the Walnut Creek servers were taken down so that they could remove all of the top of the line Barracudas they had just installed. Everybody deserves a manufacturing defect break now and again. But if you're Western Digital and you cut the data crc checks from the hard drive design in order to gain a performance edge, that's clearly not a manufacturing defect issue. That's a design issue. If you are willing to cut primary features out of a design in order to save money, then what else is wrong? More to the point, what else have they not told you and what else will you find out about later from the linux hardware testers because the win hardware testers don't have a clue? These are problems that IBM does *not* have and it's why I'm sticking with them as long as I can. --LX __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
I know there are very likely valid technical reasons against WD drives in linux, everything that I have heard about WD drives bothers me deeply. On the other hand, if my Maxtor drive crashes tomorrow, that does not mean that Maxtor is a bad brand, absolutely not. We cannot infer anything about the reliability of the manufacturers from individual drives. Now, if we have large scale reliability data, then we can start talking ... [Actually, this list as a collective may be able to provide such a large scale dataset]. But this is why I encourage everybody to participate in the StorageReview drive reliability survey at http://www.storagereview.com/ Please stop by there and enter information your present and past drives. There is only one trick in this game: You can't view the results of the survey without first registering at StorageReview and then entering information on at least one hard drive. If you decide to register and enter data there, please don't bias the survey by only entering information about drives that have crashed on you or been DOA, enter instead information about all your drives. Right now, the readers of StorageReview have entered data about a total of 9059 drives. Narfi. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
--- Narfi Stefansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know there are very likely valid technical reasons against WD drives in linux, everything that I have heard about WD drives bothers me deeply. On the other hand, if my Maxtor drive crashes tomorrow, that does not mean that Maxtor is a bad brand, absolutely not. We cannot infer anything about the reliability of the manufacturers from individual drives. Now, if we have large scale reliability data, then we can start talking ... [Actually, this list as a collective may be able to provide such a large scale dataset]. Tell me you didn't have that in mind when you started typing this email. ;) This is a very good suggestion and I am all for it. Thanks! But this is why I encourage everybody to participate in the StorageReview drive reliability survey at http://www.storagereview.com/ Please stop by there and enter information your present and past drives. There is only one trick in this game: You can't view the results of the survey without first registering at StorageReview and then entering information on at least one hard drive. I'm surprised to see that name again. StorageReview has been a highly respected and valuable resource in the past, and I have used it quite a bit to make buying decisions. This is the first time I've seen someone else advertise it. If you decide to register and enter data there, please don't bias the survey by only entering information about drives that have crashed on you or been DOA, enter instead information about all your drives. Right now, the readers of StorageReview have entered data about a total of 9059 drives. Narfi. Good work, --LX __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Fwd: Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
-- Forwarded Message -- Subject: Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 02:29:30 -0600 From: Jack and Melissa McSwain [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Monday 16 December 2002 09:01 pm, Jonathan Dlouhy wrote: Seems clear as far as WD is concerned. Personally, I have used their drives for many years with no problems at all. I currently have two 40 GIG, a 6 GIG and a 10 GIG WD drive. Also, a Seagate 40 GIG drive, which also works well but has always been very noisy. All Maxtor drives I have tried in the past have failed the first day I used them, all with unrecoverable bad sectors. Cheers, I have a pair of wd300bb's on a highpoint controller in raid0 configuration and I have had absolutely no problems in linux (mandrake 8.1 and 9.0) or any of the winblows O/s's. Maybe its the class of drive ie protege or caviar and possibly a combination of ide chipset. I have a small 8.4gb WD or Maxtor on the SIS5513 chipset on board and I do have problems with it if dma is enabled. Its hard to tell with these things. I see people having problems with the NVidia drivers and every release I have used is rock solid. After messing around with WIn98 on this new hardware I have come to appreciate just how good Linux is. I have pretty much dumped Mickey Soft. I still have a 98 partition to boot incase I run across something I cant do in linux, but that hasnt happened yet. When I tried Max Payne under WineX, MS was history. Jack --- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
Hi, What is the WD email support address please? their site is terrible Regqards JG Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
On Monday 16 December 2002 07:29 pm, Lyvim Xaphir wrote: On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 20:45, Lorne wrote: One question I'm wondering about right now is the make/model of the system board. ? A brand new Intel D845PEBT2 with a 2.4ghz P4 CPU. Looks like a WD problem. Western Digital strikes out again. LX I think so. I remember years ago I used to avoid them. Looks like I need to do that again. :( Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tom Brinkman wrote on Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 10:29:15PM + : Bottom line is hardware is a moving target, always has been. Unfortunately, specially with other than with M$, it's a downhill slide towards Junkyard Wars. Maxtor seems to be the safest bet right What is amazing to me is that nobody has had anything to say (positive or negative) about: 1) IBM drives 2) Seagate drives I have my own personal experiences with them, but am curious what others have seen. Blue skies... Todd - -- MandrakeSoft USA http://www.mandrakesoft.com cat /boot/vmlinuz /dev/dsp #for great justice Cooker Version mandrake-release-9.1-0.1mdk Kernel 2.4.20-2mdk -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9/3VSlp7v05cW2woRAn2iAJ0QHljt2GlH77JuqXQCouJM61BwowCeOiyQ wqWblDUKE1e/JpDW/EKx9Mc= =HWLg -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lyvim Xaphir wrote on Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 09:29:51PM -0500 : On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 20:45, Lorne wrote: One question I'm wondering about right now is the make/model of the system board. ? A brand new Intel D845PEBT2 with a 2.4ghz P4 CPU. Looks like a WD problem. Western Digital strikes out again. Maybe. I know that the i845G has problems with the released kernel, but do not know if the mobo that you have is the same one. Blue skies... Todd - -- ...and I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger, those who attempt to poison and destroy my binaries, and you will know my name is root, when I lay my vengeance upon thee. Cooker Version mandrake-release-9.1-0.1mdk Kernel 2.4.20-2mdk -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9/3Xllp7v05cW2woRAuhGAJ9yyF088I5MGLKFJVc3945VcJzyOgCfWGfE JmdEaPYHI92ej6iGsdH/wRs= =95lK -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
RE: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
I have yet to have a failed IBM drive.. I have 2 IBM 40gigs and 1 IBM 60gig drive and all of them run 24/7 with no issues.. All are around 1-1.5 years old. so maybe I got lucky and got them before they started going bad.. I've heard bad stories... As for Seagate.. I have one 7 month old 40gig that thus far has caused no problems.. I have only good things to say until such time that a drive fails ... :-) touch wood that I only ever say good things.. rgds Franki -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Todd Lyons Sent: Wednesday, 18 December 2002 3:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tom Brinkman wrote on Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 10:29:15PM + : Bottom line is hardware is a moving target, always has been. Unfortunately, specially with other than with M$, it's a downhill slide towards Junkyard Wars. Maxtor seems to be the safest bet right What is amazing to me is that nobody has had anything to say (positive or negative) about: 1) IBM drives 2) Seagate drives I have my own personal experiences with them, but am curious what others have seen. Blue skies... Todd - -- MandrakeSoft USA http://www.mandrakesoft.com cat /boot/vmlinuz /dev/dsp #for great justice Cooker Version mandrake-release-9.1-0.1mdk Kernel 2.4.20-2mdk -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9/3VSlp7v05cW2woRAn2iAJ0QHljt2GlH77JuqXQCouJM61BwowCeOiyQ wqWblDUKE1e/JpDW/EKx9Mc= =HWLg -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
Todd Lyons wrote: What is amazing to me is that nobody has had anything to say (positive or negative) about: 1) IBM drives 2) Seagate drives I have my own personal experiences with them, but am curious what others have seen. First Seagate I ever bought for personal use was in 1990. That 80 MB SCSI disk had a 12 month warranty and died in month 13. It wasn't until five months ago that I bought another Seagate, and I've never bought WD. The next personal use disk I bought was a 100 MB Quantum SCSI. That drive eventually refused to spin up, but long after it was retired as too small for normal duty. Next came a 213 MB SCSI Maxtor. That drive, like several Maxtors I've tested since, totally fails some benchmarking tests. It still works, but was and is slow. From then until Quantum disappeared into Maxtor I bought nothing but Quantum, many of them used Fireballs off of eBay. Next drive I bought was IBM 60 GXP. That had trouble right away but wasn't confirmed terminal until age 3 months. Its replacement is OK, so far, 11 months later, quiet enough and plenty fast. All Quantums, except the 100, that I installed in my own machines, still work. I put Fireball ATAs into a machine for my sister. That machine experienced four drive failures in less than 24 months. The first two Quantums were replaced under warranty, the first with a Quantum, the other with a Maxtor. The second original Quantum made it past its 12 month warranty and got replaced with a Maxtor. When the fourth drive failed, it was replaced with a 120 GXP IBM, so she now has that and her fifth Quantum/Maxtor. We chose the 120 GXP because I had actually bought it for myself but hadn't installed it yet. I put it in hers and bought another for myself. At the same time, I also bought two Seagate ST36001A's. Before buying the two IBMs and Seagates, I read a web review, probably at Tom's Hardware. The review was right, the Seagate is slower and quieter. The Seagate is too quiet. Without touching it or putting an ear to it, I can't hear it at all. I'm glad I don't need any drives right now. If I did, I'd probably try to buy IBM, but if I couldn't, Seagate. WD never was, and Quantum/Maxtor at 0/4 is history. Might try Fuji or Samsung in an emergency. I hope things improve. Right now every PATA drive carries a miserable 12 month warranty. To get three years you need SATA or firewire, but these devices are the same as PATA, just with the newer interfaces. The only decent risk left is SCSI and its 5 year warranty. Backup, backup, backup. -- If you are wise, your wisdom will reward you. . . . Proverbs 9:12 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/ Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
On Tuesday 17 December 2002 02:04 pm, Todd Lyons wrote: What is amazing to me is that nobody has had anything to say (positive or negative) about: 1) IBM drives 2) Seagate drives I have my own personal experiences with them, but am curious what others have seen. Blue skies... Todd Todd, IBM released a statement saying that their drives were not meant to be used 24 hours a day/7 days a week. (or somesuch to that effect). Since then, their reputation has been less than glowing. I've got a 60 gig Deskstar IDE that I've had no problems with (so far). Got a 20 gig IDE Seagate in my youngests' computer - no problems with it so far either. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
Ronald J. Hall wrote: On Tuesday 17 December 2002 02:04 pm, Todd Lyons wrote: What is amazing to me is that nobody has had anything to say (positive or negative) about: 1) IBM drives 2) Seagate drives I have my own personal experiences with them, but am curious what others have seen. Blue skies... Todd Todd, IBM released a statement saying that their drives were not meant to be used 24 hours a day/7 days a week. (or somesuch to that effect). I'm have problems finding this anywhere on the IBM web site or by search. Can you please provide the source document you have for this?? Larry Since then, their reputation has been less than glowing. I've got a 60 gig Deskstar IDE that I've had no problems with (so far). Got a 20 gig IDE Seagate in my youngests' computer - no problems with it so far either. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 13:39:07 -0800 Larry Sword [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm have problems finding this anywhere on the IBM web site or by search. Can you please provide the source document you have for this?? This all came about because the warranty that IBM used for about a month some time in 01 only warrantied their drives for X number of hrs, something that worked out to about 10 hrs per day. This wording was quickly removed and recanted. A statement was issued by them that even during that period all their drives were/are tested and perform within norm during 24/7 operation. The only IBM drive which had serious issues was the 75GXP I personally have 22 hds ranging from 12gb to 60gb and age from 5 years to less than 6 months split about 50/50 between IBM and pre-buyout Maxtors. Thus far I have suffered 2 Maxtor failures and no IBM failures. The only problem I have with IBM drives is that they are not available locally. On the subject of drives another which has not been mentioned is Fujitsu. Stay away. They, in Sept. admitted that at least 3% of their drives sold in Japan will have to be replaced but they made no admission in regards to drives sold elsewhere. In the US a class action law suit has been filed against Fujitsu of America and HP for sale of system with said drives. Now not being produced for the desktop market many pre-built systems were/are sold with these drives. If you have 1 of these systems my suggestion would be to replace it or at the very least make very frequent back-ups. The drives most prone to failure are the MPG3xx, MPG3204AT, MPG3307AH and the MPG3409AH. Additional info on the class action suit can be found at www.sheller.com/fujitsuclassaction.htm Charles Twenty years of romance make a woman look like a ruin; but twenty years of marriage make her something like a public building. -- Oscar Wilde -- Charles A Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
The WD saga contintues, I have an 80GB drive that runs at far from
optimium speeds.
WD are adament that their drives are great, shame my WD certainly is not.
JG
Original Message
Subject: WD hard drive does not follow correct CRC checking procedure,
thus is incompatible with GNU/Linux [Incident: 021217-46]
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 11:56:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Western Digital Support [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Western Digital Support [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear J.,
Below is a response to your recent question. If the response provided
does not answer your question, you can either reply to this message or
go to the link below.
We will assume your issue has been resolved if we do not hear from you
within 96 hours.
To reply to this message, first click your email �Reply� button. You
must INSERT YOUR TEXT BETWEEN the lines indicated below.
[=== Please enter your reply below this line ===]
[=== Please enter your reply above this line ===]
http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/php/enduser/acct_login.php?[EMAIL PROTECTED]p_next_page=myq_upd.phpp_refno=021217-46p_created=1040134005
You may also update your question by using the link below. The link
will take you to MyStuff.MyStuff is a service where you can check and
update the status of the
questions you submitted to
us.http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/php/enduser/acct_login.php?[EMAIL PROTECTED]=myq_upd.phpp_refno=021217-46p_created=1040134005
Jason
Western Digital Customer Service and Support
Summary - Brief Description (100 chars max)
---
WD hard drive does not follow correct CRC checking procedure, thus is
incompatible with GNU/Linux
Discussion Thread
---
Response (Jason) - 12/17/2002 11:56 AM
Our ATA is fully in compliance with set standards. Many users including
corporations use our drives in their systems and servers. Please
understand that we cannot provide you with technical support for the
install of Linux in any way.
Customer (J. Grant) - 12/17/2002 11:52 AM
Civilme: I have CC'd you as Jason is sure that WD drives work fine with
GNU/Linux and do not in fact have CRC problems. Could you offer some
insight on the problem I am having with my WD800BB-00CAA1 80GB HD
Thank you for the reply.
However I do not think your reply is correct. Please see the message
below from one of the linux lists. Also below is the output from hdparm,
it clearly states that the WD drive does not follow the standars as it
doe not even report it correctly!
Please contact another member if your technical team and pose the
question about the CRC
Regards
JG
---
# hdparm -i /dev/hde
/dev/hde:
Model=WDC WD800BB-00CAA1, FwRev=17.07W17, SerialNo=WD-WMA8E3405796
Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw15uSec SpinMotCtl Fixed DTR5Mbs
FmtGapReq }
RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=57600, SectSize=600, ECCbytes=40
BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=2048kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=16
CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=16514064, LBA=yes, LBAsects=156301488
IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:120,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2
UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 udma2
AdvancedPM=no WriteCache=enabled
Drive conforms to: device does not report version: 1 2 3 4 5
linux-elitists] Your mother uses Western Digital
Don Marti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:44:58 -0800 rfc822
mailmethis
Not that anyone on this list would buy such crap, but who knows
what people will drag to an installfest.
This is from a recent linux-kernel discussion. Quoting Andre Hedrick,
Linux ATA developer:
WDC drives blow off the CRC check of UDMA.This is BAD and STUPID.
Several of the OEM chipset makers have allowed this crap to exist.
ATA-2 (style) can not handle ATA-3/4 transfer rates without the CRC
checks, you end up continuing the DMA writing regardless if you lost data
that would have been saved if the UDMA CRC was intact.
This is a pure hardware issue...
http://kernelnotes.org/lnxlists/linux-kernel/lk_0001_05/msg00211.html
Response (Jason) - 12/17/2002 10:45 AM
Many users use our drives with Linux and are able to install with no
issues. If you are having issues with installation then please contact
your operating system manufacture for assistance with any bugs you may
have. Linux is still a freeware and there are many variations that
require special set up in your BIOS and the OS to install properly with
other devices in your system. The drive will work if you install Linux
properly.
We do not offer refunds on drives. Your best option if you want a
refund is to contact your place of purchase regarding their return
policy.
Our drives fully comply with UDMA standards.
Customer (J. Grant) - 12/17/2002 10:37 AM
Hello Jason,
It
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
On Tuesday 17 Dec 2002 03:01, Jonathan Dlouhy wrote: All Maxtor drives I have tried in the past have failed the first day I used them, all with unrecoverable bad sectors. For what it's worth I have 3 Maxtor 5TO60H6 60GB drives all working flawlessly so far. Two for over two years now and one for a year. Paul. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
Minor update on Charles' post: IBM sold much of their hard drive production to Fujitsu. Really nice IBM SCSI drives are available on Ebay cheap. 3% is not too bad. I've never had a hard failure on an IBM drive either (one bad sector). The problems with the glass drives rose exponentially with the number of platters (should have been linear since it was a head alignment problem but ...). The IBM warranty was based on average use (business day), I don't know of anyone who was ever refused replacement on the number of hours. The number of hours is stored on the drive (as is the number of spinups ...). SMART is a nice thing - too bad the raw numbers are inconsistent between drives and manufacturers. Heat and power interruptions are the enemies of hard disk drives. Try to avoid stacking them like plates in the cupboard. Get a UPS. I never willingly power anything down. I haven't bought WD drives for over a year but I do have a few still spinning. Jim Tarvid On Tuesday 17 December 2002 06:32 pm, you wrote: On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 13:39:07 -0800 Larry Sword [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm have problems finding this anywhere on the IBM web site or by search. Can you please provide the source document you have for this?? This all came about because the warranty that IBM used for about a month some time in 01 only warrantied their drives for X number of hrs, something that worked out to about 10 hrs per day. This wording was quickly removed and recanted. A statement was issued by them that even during that period all their drives were/are tested and perform within norm during 24/7 operation. The only IBM drive which had serious issues was the 75GXP I personally have 22 hds ranging from 12gb to 60gb and age from 5 years to less than 6 months split about 50/50 between IBM and pre-buyout Maxtors. Thus far I have suffered 2 Maxtor failures and no IBM failures. The only problem I have with IBM drives is that they are not available locally. On the subject of drives another which has not been mentioned is Fujitsu. Stay away. They, in Sept. admitted that at least 3% of their drives sold in Japan will have to be replaced but they made no admission in regards to drives sold elsewhere. In the US a class action law suit has been filed against Fujitsu of America and HP for sale of system with said drives. Now not being produced for the desktop market many pre-built systems were/are sold with these drives. If you have 1 of these systems my suggestion would be to replace it or at the very least make very frequent back-ups. The drives most prone to failure are the MPG3xx, MPG3204AT, MPG3307AH and the MPG3409AH. Additional info on the class action suit can be found at www.sheller.com/fujitsuclassaction.htm Charles Twenty years of romance make a woman look like a ruin; but twenty years of marriage make her something like a public building. -- Oscar Wilde -- Charles A Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
--- Ronald J. Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 17 December 2002 02:04 pm, Todd Lyons wrote: What is amazing to me is that nobody has had anything to say (positive or negative) about: 1) IBM drives 2) Seagate drives I have my own personal experiences with them, but am curious what others have seen. Blue skies...Todd Todd, IBM released a statement saying that their drives were not meant to be used 24 hours a day/7 days a week. (or some such to that effect). Since then, their reputation has been less than glowing. I've got a 60 gig Deskstar IDE that I've had no problems with (so far). Got a 20 gig IDE Seagate in my youngests' computer - no problems with it so far either. I believe that any manufacturer is going to have manufacturing problems at one time or another. It is statistically inevitable. IBM referred to the statement above afterward, stating that there was alot of misunderstanding about that statement; however we all know how the internet is these days and the negatives cascaded rapidly, as they are wont to do on any vulnerable topic, be it Mandrakeclub or Trent Lott. I have two IBM Deskstars here that have performed flawlessly since I got them almost two years ago. The last Seagate that I got came from the factory with the lid sealed on with chrome tape. After that I vowed never again to touch a seagate. Within some months after that happened, the Walnut Creek servers were taken down so that they could remove all of the top of the line Barracudas they had just installed. Everybody deserves a manufacturing defect break now and again. But if you're Western Digital and you cut the data crc checks from the hard drive design in order to gain a performance edge, that's clearly not a manufacturing defect issue. That's a design issue. If you are willing to cut primary features out of a design in order to save money, then what else is wrong? More to the point, what else have they not told you and what else will you find out about later from the linux hardware testers because the win hardware testers don't have a clue? These are problems that IBM does *not* have and it's why I'm sticking with them as long as I can. --LX __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
On Tuesday 17 December 2002 05:35 pm, Jim Tarvid wrote: Minor update on Charles' post: IBM sold much of their hard drive production to Fujitsu. Really nice IBM SCSI drives are available on Ebay cheap. 3% is not too bad. I've never had a hard failure on an IBM drive either (one bad sector). The problems with the glass drives rose exponentially with the number of platters (should have been linear since it was a head alignment problem but ...). The IBM warranty was based on average use (business day), I don't know of anyone who was ever refused replacement on the number of hours. The number of hours is stored on the drive (as is the number of spinups ...). SMART is a nice thing - too bad the raw numbers are inconsistent between drives and manufacturers. Heat and power interruptions are the enemies of hard disk drives. Try to avoid stacking them like plates in the cupboard. Get a UPS. The new computer cases are MUCH better about this. Most of the good ones have fan mounts directly in front of the drives. Put a fan or two there if you can I never willingly power anything down. I haven't bought WD drives for over a year but I do have a few still spinning. Jim Tarvid On Tuesday 17 December 2002 06:32 pm, you wrote: On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 13:39:07 -0800 Larry Sword [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm have problems finding this anywhere on the IBM web site or by search. Can you please provide the source document you have for this?? This all came about because the warranty that IBM used for about a month some time in 01 only warrantied their drives for X number of hrs, something that worked out to about 10 hrs per day. This wording was quickly removed and recanted. A statement was issued by them that even during that period all their drives were/are tested and perform within norm during 24/7 operation. The only IBM drive which had serious issues was the 75GXP I personally have 22 hds ranging from 12gb to 60gb and age from 5 years to less than 6 months split about 50/50 between IBM and pre-buyout Maxtors. Thus far I have suffered 2 Maxtor failures and no IBM failures. The only problem I have with IBM drives is that they are not available locally. On the subject of drives another which has not been mentioned is Fujitsu. Stay away. They, in Sept. admitted that at least 3% of their drives sold in Japan will have to be replaced but they made no admission in regards to drives sold elsewhere. In the US a class action law suit has been filed against Fujitsu of America and HP for sale of system with said drives. Now not being produced for the desktop market many pre-built systems were/are sold with these drives. If you have 1 of these systems my suggestion would be to replace it or at the very least make very frequent back-ups. The drives most prone to failure are the MPG3xx, MPG3204AT, MPG3307AH and the MPG3409AH. Additional info on the class action suit can be found at www.sheller.com/fujitsuclassaction.htm Charles Twenty years of romance make a woman look like a ruin; but twenty years of marriage make her something like a public building. -- Oscar Wilde -- Charles A Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
On Tuesday 17 December 2002 12:04 pm, Todd Lyons wrote: Tom Brinkman wrote on Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 10:29:15PM + : Bottom line is hardware is a moving target, always has been. Unfortunately, specially with other than with M$, it's a downhill slide towards Junkyard Wars. Maxtor seems to be the safest bet right What is amazing to me is that nobody has had anything to say (positive or negative) about: 1) IBM drives 2) Seagate drives IBM I've heard very bad things about them as of late, but since I got 2 120gb drives for 120.00 each about 6 months ago, I decided to take my chances on the deathstars. I've got two fans blowing across them and they run at room temp. No problems at all and I run them 24 hours a day. I'll know more if they last more than 2 years eh? :) Seagate used to make crap! then they bought out Conner and they improved. I don't know if they make good stuff or not comared to the competition though. I have my own personal experiences with them, but am curious what others have seen. Blue skies... Todd Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
On Tuesday 17 December 2002 05:18 pm, J. Grant wrote:
The WD saga contintues, I have an 80GB drive that runs at far from
optimium speeds.
WD are adament that their drives are great, shame my WD certainly is not.
You know for some reason WD doesn't set their drives to high speed by
default! For instance I loaded up their software disk to test the
180gb because of all the errors I was getting. It passed. I then went digging
around the other utilities and low and behold my old 100gb drive I've had for
a year or so was running at 66. So was the new 180gb drive. I bumped them
both up. This seems to have sped up the perceived performance. I did NOT run
benchmarking tests on it though.
JG
Original Message
Subject: WD hard drive does not follow correct CRC checking procedure,
thus is incompatible with GNU/Linux [Incident: 021217-46]
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 11:56:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Western Digital Support [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Western Digital Support [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear J.,
Below is a response to your recent question. If the response provided
does not answer your question, you can either reply to this message or
go to the link below.
We will assume your issue has been resolved if we do not hear from you
within 96 hours.
To reply to this message, first click your email �Reply� button. You
must INSERT YOUR TEXT BETWEEN the lines indicated below.
[=== Please enter your reply below this line ===]
[=== Please enter your reply above this line ===]
http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/php/enduser/acct_login.php?p_userid
[EMAIL PROTECTED]p_next_page=myq_upd.phpp_refno=021217-46p_created=104013
4005
You may also update your question by using the link below. The link
will take you to MyStuff.MyStuff is a service where you can check and
update the status of the
questions you submitted to
us.http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/php/enduser/acct_login.php?p_use
[EMAIL PROTECTED]=myq_upd.phpp_refno=021217-46p_created=1040
134005
Jason
Western Digital Customer Service and Support
Summary - Brief Description (100 chars max)
---
WD hard drive does not follow correct CRC checking procedure, thus is
incompatible with GNU/Linux
Discussion Thread
---
Response (Jason) - 12/17/2002 11:56 AM
Our ATA is fully in compliance with set standards. Many users including
corporations use our drives in their systems and servers. Please
understand that we cannot provide you with technical support for the
install of Linux in any way.
Customer (J. Grant) - 12/17/2002 11:52 AM
Civilme: I have CC'd you as Jason is sure that WD drives work fine with
GNU/Linux and do not in fact have CRC problems. Could you offer some
insight on the problem I am having with my WD800BB-00CAA1 80GB HD
Thank you for the reply.
However I do not think your reply is correct. Please see the message
below from one of the linux lists. Also below is the output from hdparm,
it clearly states that the WD drive does not follow the standars as it
doe not even report it correctly!
Please contact another member if your technical team and pose the
question about the CRC
Regards
JG
---
# hdparm -i /dev/hde
/dev/hde:
Model=WDC WD800BB-00CAA1, FwRev=17.07W17, SerialNo=WD-WMA8E3405796
Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw15uSec SpinMotCtl Fixed DTR5Mbs
FmtGapReq }
RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=57600, SectSize=600, ECCbytes=40
BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=2048kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=16
CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=16514064, LBA=yes, LBAsects=156301488
IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:120,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2
UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 udma2
AdvancedPM=no WriteCache=enabled
Drive conforms to: device does not report version: 1 2 3 4 5
linux-elitists] Your mother uses Western Digital
Don Marti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:44:58 -0800 rfc822
mailmethis
Not that anyone on this list would buy such crap, but who knows
what people will drag to an installfest.
This is from a recent linux-kernel discussion. Quoting Andre Hedrick,
Linux ATA developer:
WDC drives blow off the CRC check of UDMA.This is BAD and
STUPID. Several of the OEM chipset makers have allowed this crap to
exist. ATA-2 (style) can not handle ATA-3/4 transfer rates without the
CRC checks, you end up continuing the DMA writing regardless if you lost
data that would have been saved if the UDMA CRC was intact.
This is a pure hardware issue...
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
On Tuesday 17 December 2002 12:07 pm, Todd Lyons wrote: Lyvim Xaphir wrote on Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 09:29:51PM -0500 : On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 20:45, Lorne wrote: One question I'm wondering about right now is the make/model of the system board. ? A brand new Intel D845PEBT2 with a 2.4ghz P4 CPU. Looks like a WD problem. Western Digital strikes out again. Maybe. I know that the i845G has problems with the released kernel, but do not know if the mobo that you have is the same one. It appears that this board uses the Intel 82845PE (MCH) chipset. So dunno what if anything that would do to it. ?? I do have some older WD drives that work fine as well.. I'm beginning to think it has more to do with the data path width of 48 bits instead of 28bits. I wonder if the kernel knows how to read that. ??? Blue skies... Todd Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
Klar Brian D Contr MSG/SICN wrote: My WD 40G drives always work without a hitch. Brian D. Klar - CVE Multimax Network Engineer WPAFB Civilme should be here on this one. If you do a search through the archives for Civilme + Western Digital you'll find a more complete explanation but if I remember right it has something to do with the way WD has chosen to not follow DMA standards. Linux does rather strict checking and WD doesn't so WD drives can be problematic. James This is true, but shh...not so loud. My Dell workstation is endowed with a 40GB WD and it's never given me a problem and it's running XP, Mandrake and Redhat. I don't think it knows yet that it's a WD so I don't want to give it away. Mark Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 19:43, Lorne wrote: On Monday 16 December 2002 03:34 pm, Joe Braddock wrote: Is it possible that the size is too large for your bios? Most of the large WD drives come with floppy to install ez-bios or something like that on the drive to overwrite the system's drive table. Problem is, if you're booting from CD-ROM, the system never get's the chance to read the new drive table from the hard drive. If you think that may be the problem, the solution I've used is to first boot from the hard drive and once the new drive table loads, reboot (without powering off) and put the CD in. The system usually doesn't clear out the new drive table. Joeb No, I don't think so. It is a brand new motherboard. however... it DID come with a special ide controller card. Seems that WD drives are junk based on another thread. :( Do you know the make of the special IDE controller card? Also, besides the card is there an on-board IDE? If you are using the card, is the on-board IDE disabled? Finally, if you are using the card, what happens if you remove it and use the on-board ide (or vice versa if you are using the on-board)? Joeb Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
On Tuesday 17 December 2002 09:18 pm, Joseph Braddock wrote: On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 19:43, Lorne wrote: On Monday 16 December 2002 03:34 pm, Joe Braddock wrote: Is it possible that the size is too large for your bios? Most of the large WD drives come with floppy to install ez-bios or something like that on the drive to overwrite the system's drive table. Problem is, if you're booting from CD-ROM, the system never get's the chance to read the new drive table from the hard drive. If you think that may be the problem, the solution I've used is to first boot from the hard drive and once the new drive table loads, reboot (without powering off) and put the CD in. The system usually doesn't clear out the new drive table. Joeb No, I don't think so. It is a brand new motherboard. however... it DID come with a special ide controller card. Seems that WD drives are junk based on another thread. :( Do you know the make of the special IDE controller card? Also, besides the card is there an on-board IDE? If you are using the card, is the on-board IDE disabled? Finally, if you are using the card, what happens if you remove it and use the on-board ide (or vice versa if you are using the on-board)? It is a promise card. PCI. There is two on board controllers. A regular 2 channel, and a raid ide controller. So now I'm out of control with IDE! :) I do NOT have the on board controller disabled, but I could pretty easily eh? The raid controller doesn't even recognize it. I didn't even try the other raid controller. My guess is that I need to update the bios on this mb. After all it is getting pretty old. I've had it 4 months. ;) Joeb Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
[expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
Well it seems that this is more serious than I first thought. I just tried an install to this new WD 180GB drive. Seems there is some limitations to the size of the drive, or the drive is junk. ?? Maybe truly a kernel bug. ? End_request: I/O error, Dev 03:47 (hdb), sector numerous sectors Journal-601, buffer write failed Kernel BUG at prints.c:334! invalid operand: cpu 0 Then a dump. I've taken a photo of it if the actual text is helpful. I've done some reading that WD drives don't work well with Linux? Anybody have any light to shed? Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
Civilme should be here on this one. If you do a search through the archives for Civilme + Western Digital you'll find a more complete explanation but if I remember right it has something to do with the way WD has chosen to not follow DMA standards. Linux does rather strict checking and WD doesn't so WD drives can be problematic. James On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 06:28, Lorne wrote: Well it seems that this is more serious than I first thought. I just tried an install to this new WD 180GB drive. Seems there is some limitations to the size of the drive, or the drive is junk. ?? Maybe truly a kernel bug. ? End_request: I/O error, Dev 03:47 (hdb), sector numerous sectors Journal-601, buffer write failed Kernel BUG at prints.c:334! invalid operand: cpu 0 Then a dump. I've taken a photo of it if the actual text is helpful. I've done some reading that WD drives don't work well with Linux? Anybody have any light to shed? Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
RE: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
My WD 40G drives always work without a hitch. Brian D. Klar - CVE Multimax Network Engineer WPAFB -Original Message- From: James Sparenberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 1:10 PM To: Expert List Subject: Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity Civilme should be here on this one. If you do a search through the archives for Civilme + Western Digital you'll find a more complete explanation but if I remember right it has something to do with the way WD has chosen to not follow DMA standards. Linux does rather strict checking and WD doesn't so WD drives can be problematic. James On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 06:28, Lorne wrote: Well it seems that this is more serious than I first thought. I just tried an install to this new WD 180GB drive. Seems there is some limitations to the size of the drive, or the drive is junk. ?? Maybe truly a kernel bug. ? End_request: I/O error, Dev 03:47 (hdb), sector numerous sectors Journal-601, buffer write failed Kernel BUG at prints.c:334! invalid operand: cpu 0 Then a dump. I've taken a photo of it if the actual text is helpful. I've done some reading that WD drives don't work well with Linux? Anybody have any light to shed? Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
Hi,
Here's a common joke, How do you bring a computer to its knees? Put a WD
drive in it! as they don't follow the standards or support their drives
under free software OS's.
This is why you dont want WD, email them and tell them this as well.
I've got an 80GB drive running about twice as fast as a floppy disk..
(well nearly ;)))
JG
# hdparm -i /dev/hde
/dev/hde:
Model=WDC WD800BB-00CAA1, FwRev=17.07W17, SerialNo=WD-WMA8E3405796
Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw15uSec SpinMotCtl Fixed DTR5Mbs FmtGapReq }
RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=57600, SectSize=600, ECCbytes=40
BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=2048kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=16
CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=16514064, LBA=yes, LBAsects=156301488
IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:120,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2
UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 udma2
AdvancedPM=no WriteCache=enabled
Drive conforms to: device does not report version: 1 2 3 4 5
James Sparenberg wrote:
Civilme should be here on this one. If you do a search through the
archives for Civilme + Western Digital you'll find a more complete
explanation but if I remember right it has something to do with the way
WD has chosen to not follow DMA standards. Linux does rather strict
checking and WD doesn't so WD drives can be problematic.
James
On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 06:28, Lorne wrote:
Well it seems that this is more serious than I first thought. I just tried an
install to this new WD 180GB drive. Seems there is some limitations to the
size of the drive, or the drive is junk. ?? Maybe truly a kernel bug. ?
End_request: I/O error, Dev 03:47 (hdb), sector numerous sectors
Journal-601, buffer write failed
Kernel BUG at prints.c:334!
invalid operand:
cpu 0
Then a dump. I've taken a photo of it if the actual text is helpful. I've done
some reading that WD drives don't work well with Linux? Anybody have any
light to shed?
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
issue may be fixed with your speed.. try hdparm, and look at the faq on:
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2000/06/29/hdparm.html
On Monday 16 December 2002 12:30 pm, J. Grant wrote:
Hi,
Here's a common joke, How do you bring a computer to its knees? Put a WD
drive in it! as they don't follow the standards or support their drives
under free software OS's.
This is why you dont want WD, email them and tell them this as well.
I've got an 80GB drive running about twice as fast as a floppy disk..
(well nearly ;)))
JG
# hdparm -i /dev/hde
/dev/hde:
Model=WDC WD800BB-00CAA1, FwRev=17.07W17, SerialNo=WD-WMA8E3405796
Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw15uSec SpinMotCtl Fixed DTR5Mbs FmtGapReq
} RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=57600, SectSize=600, ECCbytes=40
BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=2048kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=16
CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=16514064, LBA=yes, LBAsects=156301488
IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:120,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2
UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 udma2
AdvancedPM=no WriteCache=enabled
Drive conforms to: device does not report version: 1 2 3 4 5
James Sparenberg wrote:
Civilme should be here on this one. If you do a search through the
archives for Civilme + Western Digital you'll find a more complete
explanation but if I remember right it has something to do with the way
WD has chosen to not follow DMA standards. Linux does rather strict
checking and WD doesn't so WD drives can be problematic.
James
On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 06:28, Lorne wrote:
Well it seems that this is more serious than I first thought. I just
tried an install to this new WD 180GB drive. Seems there is some
limitations to the size of the drive, or the drive is junk. ?? Maybe
truly a kernel bug. ?
End_request: I/O error, Dev 03:47 (hdb), sector numerous sectors
Journal-601, buffer write failed
Kernel BUG at prints.c:334!
invalid operand:
cpu 0
Then a dump. I've taken a photo of it if the actual text is helpful. I've
done some reading that WD drives don't work well with Linux? Anybody
have any light to shed?
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
--
Vasiliy Boulytchev
Colorado Information Technologies Inc.
(719) 473-2800 x15
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
This is the stat on my WD drive (10gig)
/dev/hda:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 1.83 seconds = 69.95 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 3.61 seconds = 17.73 MB/sec
On Monday 16 December 2002 12:30 pm, J. Grant wrote:
Hi,
Here's a common joke, How do you bring a computer to its knees? Put a WD
drive in it! as they don't follow the standards or support their drives
under free software OS's.
This is why you dont want WD, email them and tell them this as well.
I've got an 80GB drive running about twice as fast as a floppy disk..
(well nearly ;)))
JG
# hdparm -i /dev/hde
/dev/hde:
Model=WDC WD800BB-00CAA1, FwRev=17.07W17, SerialNo=WD-WMA8E3405796
Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw15uSec SpinMotCtl Fixed DTR5Mbs FmtGapReq
} RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=57600, SectSize=600, ECCbytes=40
BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=2048kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=16
CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=16514064, LBA=yes, LBAsects=156301488
IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:120,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2
UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 udma2
AdvancedPM=no WriteCache=enabled
Drive conforms to: device does not report version: 1 2 3 4 5
James Sparenberg wrote:
Civilme should be here on this one. If you do a search through the
archives for Civilme + Western Digital you'll find a more complete
explanation but if I remember right it has something to do with the way
WD has chosen to not follow DMA standards. Linux does rather strict
checking and WD doesn't so WD drives can be problematic.
James
On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 06:28, Lorne wrote:
Well it seems that this is more serious than I first thought. I just
tried an install to this new WD 180GB drive. Seems there is some
limitations to the size of the drive, or the drive is junk. ?? Maybe
truly a kernel bug. ?
End_request: I/O error, Dev 03:47 (hdb), sector numerous sectors
Journal-601, buffer write failed
Kernel BUG at prints.c:334!
invalid operand:
cpu 0
Then a dump. I've taken a photo of it if the actual text is helpful. I've
done some reading that WD drives don't work well with Linux? Anybody
have any light to shed?
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
--
Vasiliy Boulytchev
Colorado Information Technologies Inc.
(719) 473-2800 x15
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
On Monday December 16 2002 06:09 pm, James Sparenberg wrote: Civilme should be here on this one. If you do a search through the archives for Civilme + Western Digital you'll find a more complete explanation but if I remember right it has something to do with the way WD has chosen to not follow DMA standards. Linux does rather strict checking and WD doesn't so WD drives can be problematic. James Civileme reported that WD's no longer supported CRC checking other that in Windoze. I believe he pronounced them as Win-harddrives. As an old timey overclocker, we clockers learned to quit usin Western Digital HDD's circa summer 1998. Before that they had a reputation for 'takes a lickin, keeps on tickin' among oc'rs. The issue remains the same, WD's went from being some of the best on an off-spec PCI bus (33.3mhz) ... to the worst. Civileme, as I relate to his past reports, said it was due to CRC short cuts. To save a few $$'s, WD transfered this from firmware to software. He also reported that WD's response to him was that their drives were not supported under Linux, only Winsux and Solaris by NDA and licensing agreements. -- Tom Brinkman Corpus Christi, Texas Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
Tom Brinkman wrote: On Monday December 16 2002 06:09 pm, James Sparenberg wrote: Civilme should be here on this one. If you do a search through the archives for Civilme + Western Digital you'll find a more complete explanation but if I remember right it has something to do with the way WD has chosen to not follow DMA standards. Linux does rather strict checking and WD doesn't so WD drives can be problematic. James Civileme reported that WD's no longer supported CRC checking other that in Windoze. I believe he pronounced them as Win-harddrives. As an old timey overclocker, we clockers learned to quit usin Western Digital HDD's circa summer 1998. Before that they had a reputation for 'takes a lickin, keeps on tickin' among oc'rs. The issue remains the same, WD's went from being some of the best on an off-spec PCI bus (33.3mhz) ... to the worst. Civileme, as I relate to his past reports, said it was due to CRC short cuts. To save a few $$'s, WD transfered this from firmware to software. He also reported that WD's response to him was that their drives were not supported under Linux, only Winsux and Solaris by NDA and licensing agreements. Linkage: http://www.mail-archive.com/cooker@linux-mandrake.com/msg60691.html Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
Is it possible that the size is too large for your bios? Most of the large WD drives come with floppy to install ez-bios or something like that on the drive to overwrite the system's drive table. Problem is, if you're booting from CD-ROM, the system never get's the chance to read the new drive table from the hard drive. If you think that may be the problem, the solution I've used is to first boot from the hard drive and once the new drive table loads, reboot (without powering off) and put the CD in. The system usually doesn't clear out the new drive table. Joeb ---Original Message--- From: Lorne [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12/16/02 08:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity Well it seems that this is more serious than I first thought. I just tried an install to this new WD 180GB drive. Seems there is some limitations to the size of the drive, or the drive is junk. ?? Maybe truly a kernel bug. ? End_request: I/O error, Dev 03:47 (hdb), sector numerous sectors Journal-601, buffer write failed Kernel BUG at prints.c:334! invalid operand: cpu 0 Then a dump. I've taken a photo of it if the actual text is helpful. I've done some reading that WD drives don't work well with Linux? Anybody have any light to shed? Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 17:34, Joe Braddock wrote: Is it possible that the size is too large for your bios? Most of the large WD drives come with floppy to install ez-bios or something like that on the drive to overwrite the system's drive table. Which is a rather horrid solution, unless you're being threatened with a gun to your head. The best way is a hardware system board bios update downloadable from the net that is newer than what you have. Most boards these days that are not ancient history can be flashed with a newer bios from the manufacturer that solves just these types of problems. Even ones older than that can be updated; I still have a ROM programmer card here which plugs into an ISA slot and has a cable/socket for a range of different brand/types of ROM chips. I can load a new bios from a file or I can clone another bios chip to file and then load onto a new ROM chip. The best thing is to update the mobo bios if there is an update available on the net and the mobo is flashable. Problem is, if you're booting from CD-ROM, the system never get's the chance to read the new drive table from the hard drive. If you think that may be the problem, the solution I've used is to first boot from the hard drive and once the new drive table loads, reboot (without powering off) and put the CD in. The system usually doesn't clear out the new drive table. Joeb Journal-601, buffer write failed Kernel BUG at prints.c:334! invalid operand: cpu 0 Then a dump. I've taken a photo of it if the actual text is helpful. I've done some reading that WD drives don't work well with Linux? Anybody have any light to shed? One question I'm wondering about right now is the make/model of the system board. ? LX -- °°° Kernel 2.4.18-6mdk Mandrake Linux 8.2 Enlightenment 0.16.5-11mdkEvolution 1.0.2-5mdk Registered Linux User #268899 http://counter.li.org/ °°° Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
On Monday 16 December 2002 11:09 am, James Sparenberg wrote: Civilme should be here on this one. If you do a search through the archives for Civilme + Western Digital you'll find a more complete explanation but if I remember right it has something to do with the way WD has chosen to not follow DMA standards. Linux does rather strict checking and WD doesn't so WD drives can be problematic. James Thank you very much. I'll go looking.I have about 9,000 messages saved. :) On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 06:28, Lorne wrote: Well it seems that this is more serious than I first thought. I just tried an install to this new WD 180GB drive. Seems there is some limitations to the size of the drive, or the drive is junk. ?? Maybe truly a kernel bug. ? End_request: I/O error, Dev 03:47 (hdb), sector numerous sectors Journal-601, buffer write failed Kernel BUG at prints.c:334! invalid operand: cpu 0 Then a dump. I've taken a photo of it if the actual text is helpful. I've done some reading that WD drives don't work well with Linux? Anybody have any light to shed? Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
On Monday 16 December 2002 10:47 am, Tom Brinkman wrote: On Monday December 16 2002 06:09 pm, James Sparenberg wrote: Civilme should be here on this one. If you do a search through the archives for Civilme + Western Digital you'll find a more complete explanation but if I remember right it has something to do with the way WD has chosen to not follow DMA standards. Linux does rather strict checking and WD doesn't so WD drives can be problematic. James Civileme reported that WD's no longer supported CRC checking other that in Windoze. I believe he pronounced them as Win-harddrives. As an old timey overclocker, we clockers learned to quit usin Western Digital HDD's circa summer 1998. Before that they had a reputation for 'takes a lickin, keeps on tickin' among oc'rs. The issue remains the same, WD's went from being some of the best on an off-spec PCI bus (33.3mhz) ... to the worst. Civileme, as I relate to his past reports, said it was due to CRC short cuts. To save a few $$'s, WD transfered this from firmware to software. He also reported that WD's response to him was that their drives were not supported under Linux, only Winsux and Solaris by NDA and licensing agreements. What a crock! I guess you get what you pay for eh? I thought 180GB's for $179.00 was too good to be true. Well I guess I'll through it on my XP box and take a real drive and put in my linux box. Guess I've learned a lesson. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
On Monday 16 December 2002 03:34 pm, Joe Braddock wrote: Is it possible that the size is too large for your bios? Most of the large WD drives come with floppy to install ez-bios or something like that on the drive to overwrite the system's drive table. Problem is, if you're booting from CD-ROM, the system never get's the chance to read the new drive table from the hard drive. If you think that may be the problem, the solution I've used is to first boot from the hard drive and once the new drive table loads, reboot (without powering off) and put the CD in. The system usually doesn't clear out the new drive table. Joeb No, I don't think so. It is a brand new motherboard. however... it DID come with a special ide controller card. Seems that WD drives are junk based on another thread. :( ---Original Message--- From: Lorne [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12/16/02 08:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity Well it seems that this is more serious than I first thought. I just tried an install to this new WD 180GB drive. Seems there is some limitations to the size of the drive, or the drive is junk. ?? Maybe truly a kernel bug. ? End_request: I/O error, Dev 03:47 (hdb), sector numerous sectors Journal-601, buffer write failed Kernel BUG at prints.c:334! invalid operand: cpu 0 Then a dump. I've taken a photo of it if the actual text is helpful. I've done some reading that WD drives don't work well with Linux? Anybody have any light to shed? Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
On Monday 16 December 2002 06:23 pm, Lyvim Xaphir wrote: On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 17:34, Joe Braddock wrote: Is it possible that the size is too large for your bios? Most of the large WD drives come with floppy to install ez-bios or something like that on the drive to overwrite the system's drive table. Which is a rather horrid solution, unless you're being threatened with a gun to your head. The best way is a hardware system board bios update downloadable from the net that is newer than what you have. Most boards these days that are not ancient history can be flashed with a newer bios from the manufacturer that solves just these types of problems. Even ones older than that can be updated; I still have a ROM programmer card here which plugs into an ISA slot and has a cable/socket for a range of different brand/types of ROM chips. I can load a new bios from a file or I can clone another bios chip to file and then load onto a new ROM chip. The best thing is to update the mobo bios if there is an update available on the net and the mobo is flashable. Problem is, if you're booting from CD-ROM, the system never get's the chance to read the new drive table from the hard drive. If you think that may be the problem, the solution I've used is to first boot from the hard drive and once the new drive table loads, reboot (without powering off) and put the CD in. The system usually doesn't clear out the new drive table. Joeb Journal-601, buffer write failed Kernel BUG at prints.c:334! invalid operand: cpu 0 Then a dump. I've taken a photo of it if the actual text is helpful. I've done some reading that WD drives don't work well with Linux? Anybody have any light to shed? One question I'm wondering about right now is the make/model of the system board. ? A brand new Intel D845PEBT2 with a 2.4ghz P4 CPU. LX Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 20:45, Lorne wrote: One question I'm wondering about right now is the make/model of the system board. ? A brand new Intel D845PEBT2 with a 2.4ghz P4 CPU. Looks like a WD problem. Western Digital strikes out again. LX -- °°° Kernel 2.4.18-6mdk Mandrake Linux 8.2 Enlightenment 0.16.5-11mdkEvolution 1.0.2-5mdk Registered Linux User #268899 http://counter.li.org/ °°° Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
On Monday 16 December 2002 12:47 pm, Tom Brinkman wrote: On Monday December 16 2002 06:09 pm, James Sparenberg wrote: Civilme should be here on this one. If you do a search through the archives for Civilme + Western Digital you'll find a more complete explanation but if I remember right it has something to do with the way WD has chosen to not follow DMA standards. Linux does rather strict checking and WD doesn't so WD drives can be problematic. James Civileme reported that WD's no longer supported CRC checking other that in Windoze. I believe he pronounced them as Win-harddrives. As an old timey overclocker, we clockers learned to quit usin Western Digital HDD's circa summer 1998. Before that they had a reputation for 'takes a lickin, keeps on tickin' among oc'rs. The issue remains the same, WD's went from being some of the best on an off-spec PCI bus (33.3mhz) ... to the worst. Civileme, as I relate to his past reports, said it was due to CRC short cuts. To save a few $$'s, WD transfered this from firmware to software. He also reported that WD's response to him was that their drives were not supported under Linux, only Winsux and Solaris by NDA and licensing agreements. This topic has been covered extensively in the past. I sent a query to Western Digital regarding this issue of non-support. Here is their response: Response (Barb G) - 07/23/2002 07:58 AM Greetings Jonathan, Thank you for your email. We have no issues with Western Digital drives being installed with Linux or Unix. If you have more detailed information on specific issues, I would be happy to address them. Or, if you can provide the web site where these issues are being discussed we can address them to the customer. If your friends are having issues with a drive they should be contacting our technical support desk, or test the drive with our utilities. We do not warranty a drive based on the operating system used. Western Digital will honor the warranty on any drive in the event of a drive failure, as long as the drive is in warranty. If the drive carrys no warranty, or the warranty has expired, we cannot replace the drive. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. Seems clear as far as WD is concerned. Personally, I have used their drives for many years with no problems at all. I currently have two 40 GIG, a 6 GIG and a 10 GIG WD drive. Also, a Seagate 40 GIG drive, which also works well but has always been very noisy. All Maxtor drives I have tried in the past have failed the first day I used them, all with unrecoverable bad sectors. Cheers, -- Jonathan Dlouhy Monday, December 16, 2002 I was recently on a tour of Latin America, and the only regret I have was that I didn't study Latin harder in school so I could converse with those people -Former U.S. Vice-President Dan Quayle Registered Linux user #264482 Powered by Mandrake Linux 9 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
On Tuesday December 17 2002 01:36 am, Lorne wrote: On Monday 16 December 2002 10:47 am, Tom Brinkman wrote: Civileme, as I relate to his past reports, said it was due to CRC short cuts. To save a few $$'s, WD transfered this from firmware to software. He also reported that WD's response to him was that their drives were not supported under Linux, only Winsux and Solaris by NDA and licensing agreements. What a crock! I guess you get what you pay for eh? I thought 180GB's for $179.00 was too good to be true. Well I guess I'll through it on my XP box and take a real drive and put in my linux box. Guess I've learned a lesson. It'll only last moments ;) The whole hardware deal (PC's) is gettin to be a joke. One the big iron guys have always joked about. Desktop hardware was an increasingly progressive target a few years ago. Was startin to look real good. Lately, despite M$'s problems, and the DoJ (even EU) perception that Billy's major crime was knee'n NutScrape in the ba__ well... he's prevailin anyhow. He's killed a lot of hardware, other than if you want to use it with his software. In my perception it's been M$'s influence on hardware that's their _real_crime_. More'n more of it is becomin software dependant win-modems, win-harddrives, win-sound, win-printers, win-video, etc., even lately, win-motherboards. Linux users gravitating towards an acceptance of any hardware that needs proprietary closed source drivers to work, or work fully ... are sheep being led to slaughter. Even when it's called lin-hardware, or at least made somewhat usable (eg, lin-nvidia). They're just vendor captive users, and add to the ultimate problem. BTW, I gave $120 for a 80g Maxtor recently. Several years ago an admission of buyin a Maxtor on an oc'rs group would have brought deserved ridicule an laughs ... lately I can't find anything better. It's gettin harder. Billy has lost a few battles lately, taken a draw in others, but he's winning the war when he controls hardware. Mostly not his own efforts, but due to user acceptance, apathy, and ignorance. Ignorance of the fact that if it needs proprietary closed software, when it shouldn't, to fully function, ... it's fake-hardware. Acceptance and apathy follow hand'n hand. -- Tom Brinkman Corpus Christi, Texas Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
On Monday 16 December 2002 8:36 pm, Lorne wrote: On Monday 16 December 2002 10:47 am, Tom Brinkman wrote: On Monday December 16 2002 06:09 pm, James Sparenberg wrote: Civilme should be here on this one. If you do a search through the archives for Civilme + Western Digital you'll find a more complete explanation but if I remember right it has something to do with the way WD has chosen to not follow DMA standards. Linux does rather strict checking and WD doesn't so WD drives can be problematic. James Civileme reported that WD's no longer supported CRC checking other that in Windoze. I believe he pronounced them as Win-harddrives. As an old timey overclocker, we clockers learned to quit usin Western Digital HDD's circa summer 1998. Before that they had a reputation for 'takes a lickin, keeps on tickin' among oc'rs. The issue remains the same, WD's went from being some of the best on an off-spec PCI bus (33.3mhz) ... to the worst. Civileme, as I relate to his past reports, said it was due to CRC short cuts. To save a few $$'s, WD transfered this from firmware to software. He also reported that WD's response to him was that their drives were not supported under Linux, only Winsux and Solaris by NDA and licensing agreements. What a crock! I guess you get what you pay for eh? I thought 180GB's for $179.00 was too good to be true. Well I guess I'll through it on my XP box and take a real drive and put in my linux box. Guess I've learned a lesson. What do you consider a real drive? -- Jonathan Dlouhy Monday, December 16, 2002 It's as bad as you think and they are out to get you Registered Linux user #264482 Powered by Mandrake Linux 9 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
On Tuesday December 17 2002 03:01 am, Jonathan Dlouhy wrote: On Monday 16 December 2002 12:47 pm, Tom Brinkman wrote: Civileme reported that WD's no longer supported CRC checking other that in Windoze. I believe he pronounced them as Win-harddrives. As an old timey overclocker, we clockers learned to quit usin Western Digital HDD's circa summer 1998. Before that they had a reputation for 'takes a lickin, keeps on tickin' among oc'rs. The issue remains the same, WD's went from being some of the best on an off-spec PCI bus (33.3mhz) ... to the worst. Civileme, as I relate to his past reports, said it was due to CRC short cuts. To save a few $$'s, WD transfered this from firmware to software. He also reported that WD's response to him was that their drives were not supported under Linux, only Winsux and Solaris by NDA and licensing agreements. This topic has been covered extensively in the past. I sent a query to Western Digital regarding this issue of non-support. Here is their response: Response (Barb G) - 07/23/2002 07:58 AM Greetings Jonathan, Thank you for your email. We have no issues with Western Digital drives being installed with Linux or Unix. If you have more detailed information on specific issues, I would be happy to address them. Or, if you can provide the web site where these issues are being discussed we can address them to the customer. If your friends are having issues with a drive they should be contacting our technical support desk, or test the drive with our utilities. We do not warranty a drive based on the operating system used. Western Digital will honor the warranty on any drive in the event of a drive failure, as long as the drive is in warranty. If the drive carrys no warranty, or the warranty has expired, we cannot replace the drive. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. Seems clear as far as WD is concerned. Personally, I have used their drives for many years with no problems at all. I currently have two 40 GIG, a 6 GIG and a 10 GIG WD drive. Also, a Seagate 40 GIG drive, which also works well but has always been very noisy. All Maxtor drives I have tried in the past have failed the first day I used them, all with unrecoverable bad sectors. Cheers, All that says is they'll replace it while still under warranty ... which they're legally obligated to do anyhow (1 year?). A better source of realistic appraisal is the lkml, or Google, or real users. http://www.google.com/search?hl=enie=ISO-8859-1q=western+digital+CRC+checkbtnG=Google+Search http:[EMAIL PROTECTED] You may or may not remember the events of august 1998. WD had a RMA rate that rivals the one Fujitsu is now experiencing. The difference could be that at least Fujitsu is now offering, according to news reports, to RMA drives that have expired warranties, even 3 years, even other vendor OEM system's they have no warranty exposure to. It appears from your quoted email response that WD isn't willing in this regard. If WD had to replace all their linux use drives ... what would that be 2 maybe 3% ? Fujitsu is potentially lookin at 30 to 50%. Gettin back to 1998. The perception then was that WD's were failin on CRC. It was first noticed by overclockers (usin other than the standard 33.3mhz PCI bus). At the time, IBM, Quantum, and specially WD drives were favored by oc'rs as they best tolerated an out of spec (call it oc'd if you must, but that's innaccurate) PCI bus speed. I had pre '98 WD drives myself, all on off spec PCI. The popular test then was to zip up about 600mb's, and then unzip. The files with summer and later '98 WD drives, all of a sudden, were often corrupt. The zip CRC check failed. Post 8/98 WD's immediately went to the bottom of the barrel along with Maxtor's and Seagate's as drives to be avoided by oc'rs. There seemed to be a stark change in WD drives. Later it became an issue on OS's other than W9.x. Seems the CRC checks were removed from the WD drives firmware, to be taken care of within software by the OS, assumed to be windoze (search the lkml). It wasn't till the linux kernel people exposed this that WD admitted it ... sort'a kind'a. Bottom line is hardware is a moving target, always has been. Unfortunately, specially with other than with M$, it's a downhill slide towards Junkyard Wars. Maxtor seems to be the safest bet right now, by February it could be Tonka Toys makes the better one ... as long as you have a WinXP+SP2 install CD for it ; -- Tom Brinkman Corpus Christi, Texas Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
On Monday 16 December 2002 5:29 pm, Tom Brinkman wrote: On Tuesday December 17 2002 03:01 am, Jonathan Dlouhy wrote: On Monday 16 December 2002 12:47 pm, Tom Brinkman wrote: Civileme reported that WD's no longer supported CRC checking other that in Windoze. I believe he pronounced them as Win-harddrives. As an old timey overclocker, we clockers learned to quit usin Western Digital HDD's circa summer 1998. Before that they had a reputation for 'takes a lickin, keeps on tickin' among oc'rs. The issue remains the same, WD's went from being some of the best on an off-spec PCI bus (33.3mhz) ... to the worst. Civileme, as I relate to his past reports, said it was due to CRC short cuts. To save a few $$'s, WD transfered this from firmware to software. He also reported that WD's response to him was that their drives were not supported under Linux, only Winsux and Solaris by NDA and licensing agreements. This topic has been covered extensively in the past. I sent a query to Western Digital regarding this issue of non-support. Here is their response: Response (Barb G) - 07/23/2002 07:58 AM Greetings Jonathan, Thank you for your email. We have no issues with Western Digital drives being installed with Linux or Unix. If you have more detailed information on specific issues, I would be happy to address them. Or, if you can provide the web site where these issues are being discussed we can address them to the customer. If your friends are having issues with a drive they should be contacting our technical support desk, or test the drive with our utilities. We do not warranty a drive based on the operating system used. Western Digital will honor the warranty on any drive in the event of a drive failure, as long as the drive is in warranty. If the drive carrys no warranty, or the warranty has expired, we cannot replace the drive. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. Seems clear as far as WD is concerned. Personally, I have used their drives for many years with no problems at all. I currently have two 40 GIG, a 6 GIG and a 10 GIG WD drive. Also, a Seagate 40 GIG drive, which also works well but has always been very noisy. All Maxtor drives I have tried in the past have failed the first day I used them, all with unrecoverable bad sectors. Cheers, All that says is they'll replace it while still under warranty ... which they're legally obligated to do anyhow (1 year?). A better source of realistic appraisal is the lkml, or Google, or real users. http://www.google.com/search?hl=enie=ISO-8859-1q=western+digital+CRC+chec kbtnG=Google+Search http:[EMAIL PROTECTED] You may or may not remember the events of august 1998. WD had a RMA rate that rivals the one Fujitsu is now experiencing. The difference could be that at least Fujitsu is now offering, according to news reports, to RMA drives that have expired warranties, even 3 years, even other vendor OEM system's they have no warranty exposure to. It appears from your quoted email response that WD isn't willing in this regard. If WD had to replace all their linux use drives ... what would that be 2 maybe 3% ? Fujitsu is potentially lookin at 30 to 50%. Gettin back to 1998. The perception then was that WD's were failin on CRC. It was first noticed by overclockers (usin other than the standard 33.3mhz PCI bus). At the time, IBM, Quantum, and specially WD drives were favored by oc'rs as they best tolerated an out of spec (call it oc'd if you must, but that's innaccurate) PCI bus speed. I had pre '98 WD drives myself, all on off spec PCI. The popular test then was to zip up about 600mb's, and then unzip. The files with summer and later '98 WD drives, all of a sudden, were often corrupt. The zip CRC check failed. Post 8/98 WD's immediately went to the bottom of the barrel along with Maxtor's and Seagate's as drives to be avoided by oc'rs. There seemed to be a stark change in WD drives. Later it became an issue on OS's other than W9.x. Seems the CRC checks were removed from the WD drives firmware, to be taken care of within software by the OS, assumed to be windoze (search the lkml). It wasn't till the linux kernel people exposed this that WD admitted it ... sort'a kind'a. Bottom line is hardware is a moving target, always has been. Unfortunately, specially with other than with M$, it's a downhill slide towards Junkyard Wars. Maxtor seems to be the safest bet right now, by February it could be Tonka Toys makes the better one ... as long as you have a WinXP+SP2 install CD for it ; Tom,What I was trying to get across was that despite some people making blatant claims that WD does not suport their drives when using OSs other than Windows is not true. Some folks claimed that using Linux or Unix would void the warranty on the drive. I just wanted to hear an answer from WD. It may be true
Re: [expert] Western digital drives don't work?/maximum capacity
On Monday 16 December 2002 02:03 pm, Tom Brinkman wrote: On Tuesday December 17 2002 01:36 am, Lorne wrote: On Monday 16 December 2002 10:47 am, Tom Brinkman wrote: Civileme, as I relate to his past reports, said it was due to CRC short cuts. To save a few $$'s, WD transfered this from firmware to software. He also reported that WD's response to him was that their drives were not supported under Linux, only Winsux and Solaris by NDA and licensing agreements. What a crock! I guess you get what you pay for eh? I thought 180GB's for $179.00 was too good to be true. Well I guess I'll through it on my XP box and take a real drive and put in my linux box. Guess I've learned a lesson. It'll only last moments ;) The whole hardware deal (PC's) is gettin to be a joke. One the big iron guys have always joked about. Desktop hardware was an increasingly progressive target a few years ago. Was startin to look real good. Lately, despite M$'s problems, and the DoJ (even EU) perception that Billy's major crime was knee'n NutScrape in the ba__ well... he's prevailin anyhow. He's killed a lot of hardware, other than if you want to use it with his software. In my perception it's been M$'s influence on hardware that's their _real_crime_. More'n more of it is becomin software dependant win-modems, win-harddrives, win-sound, win-printers, win-video, etc., even lately, win-motherboards. Linux users gravitating towards an acceptance of any hardware that needs proprietary closed source drivers to work, or work fully ... are sheep being led to slaughter. Even when it's called lin-hardware, or at least made somewhat usable (eg, lin-nvidia). They're just vendor captive users, and add to the ultimate problem. BTW, I gave $120 for a 80g Maxtor recently. Several years ago an admission of buyin a Maxtor on an oc'rs group would have brought deserved ridicule an laughs ... lately I can't find anything better. It's gettin harder. Billy has lost a few battles lately, taken a draw in others, but he's winning the war when he controls hardware. Mostly not his own efforts, but due to user acceptance, apathy, and ignorance. Ignorance of the fact that if it needs proprietary closed software, when it shouldn't, to fully function, ... it's fake-hardware. Acceptance and apathy follow hand'n hand. Well.. a guy used to be able to get SCSI hd's for about 10 to 20% more than IDE. Anymore THAT has gone bezerk! I REALLY would like to stick with SCSI, but just to get a 16gb drive is costing as much as the 180gb drives! What is going on with that? they are cheaper to build than IDE for crying out loud. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
