What are the contents of Track 0 on a hard disk?

[Joep]

track.

That is the old 1 GB limited SCSI bios.

With IDE, if the drive is bigger than 528MB, per T10
specification you should expect 63 sectors per track.

Okay, so it happens with SCSI only, still see those 32 sect/track around
occasionally, so I guess it's still safe to say than you should never assume
63 sect/track if you're going to use the track 0.

Also, since track 0 is used by quite some tools, first check *if* you can
write there before you dump stuff there.

DiskPatch for example stores the date for the last partition table backup in
track 0 but not after having verified the target sector is available (when
it is empty or filled with a simple byte pattern it is assumed it is
available).

 

[HddGuru]

Thats just because the total is 64, the MBR takes one.

The reason is becuase you have secotor "0" up to 63 that makes 64 in
total I guess ;O)

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

The reason is becuase you have secotor "0" up to 63 that makes 64 in
total

Yup, you are a regular hddguru alright.

I guess ;O)

By all means, Danyel, keep guessing.

 

[Rod Speed]

The reason is becuase you have secotor "0" up to 63

Pity you dont. Sectors are numbered from 1. Some 'guru'

that makes 64 in total I guess ;O)

Guess again.

 

[chrisv]

Pity you dont. Sectors are numbered from 1. Some 'guru'


Guess again.

Well, you didn't know either, Rodney. Just a few days ago you posted
the following:

 

[Rod Speed]

Well, you didn't know either, Rodney.
Just a few days ago you posted the following:

Hasnt got a damned thing to do with the point I was
commenting on, that the NUMBERING starts at 1, wanker.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Well, you didn't know either, Rodney.

Well Chris, he just took his own advice: he 'guessed again'.

 

[chrisv]

Hasnt got a damned thing to do with the point I was
commenting on, that the NUMBERING starts at 1, wanker.

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of your predicament
better then that pathetic effort, Rodney.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some completely unemployable ****wit
thats never ever made a useful contribution
on anything at all desperately cowering behind
chrisv <[email protected]> desperately
attempted to bullshit its way out of its predicament
in message and fooled absolutely no one at all. As always.

 

[Rolf Blom]

On 2003-10-29 17:50, Spammay Blockay wrote:
-snip-

Thanks! I did a Deja search after I asked, and saw you had
discussed this earlier, but this clarifies things nicely.

Also... I thought that each track usually has 63 sectors,
so track 0 would be sectors 0-62, right? Intuitively I'd
think 64 (power of 2, etc.), but all the documentation I read
says 63.

- Tim

63 is a prime number, which is nice if you use sector interleaving.

If you had 64 sectors and e.g. interleave 2 (common on older
harddisks) you would never see half the drive, the skips would be on the
same sectors on every rotation.

But nowadays drives usually have 1:1 interleave, so there could be other
reasons to still keep it at 63.

/Rolf

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

On 2003-10-29 17:50, Spammay Blockay wrote:
-snip-

63 is a prime number, which is nice if you use sector interleaving.
Huh?


If you had 64 sectors and e.g. interleave 2 (common on older harddisks)
you would never see half the drive, the skips would be on the same sectors
on every rotation.

Ever heard of skew?

But nowadays drives usually have 1:1 interleave, so there could be other
reasons to still keep it at 63.

No current drive has 63 sectors per track.
You may have found ~60 sectors per track
about 10 years ago on drives smaller than 1GB.

 

[masterprometheus]

On 2003-10-29 17:50, Spammay Blockay wrote:
-snip-

63 is a prime number, which is nice if you use sector interleaving.

63 = 3x3x7

Regards
MP

 

[Rolf Blom]

63 = 3x3x7

Regards
MP

LOL, I cancelled that message just because I realized I was wrong, but
it seemed to have slipped by. I was tired I guess.


Anyway it related to an older types of sectoring.

/Rolf

 

[masterprometheus]

LOL, I cancelled that message just because I realized I was wrong, but
it seemed to have slipped by. I was tired I guess.
Get more coffee
Anyway it related to an older types of sectoring.
NP

/Rolf

MP