Seagate 7200.8 133GB per disc?

[Andreas Wohlfeld]

Hi,

the 7200.8 series is supposed to have 133 GB per disc, so 67GB per side.
How does seagate then get 250GB or 300GB versions?
200GB is three sides, 400GB six sides. But I would suspect a 266GB and a
333GB version, not 250/300GB. Do they leave some space unformatted?

 

[Tod]

I believe they block out the extra space.
I would assume that when they make the 133GB patters, not all of the storage
on the patter may work.
So they can use two 133GB patters and have up to 16GB of bad storage and
still be able to have the 250GB of good reliable storage space.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Hi,

the 7200.8 series is supposed to have 133 GB per disc, so 67GB per side.

How does seagate then get 250GB or 300GB versions?

Read the drive manual and find out?

 

[David Chien]

In fact, on some HDs, you can even recover that extra, hidden space:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14597

READER WILEY SILER has sent us a method which he said was discovered by
Scott Komblue and documented by himself which they claim can recover
unused areas of the hard drive in the form of hidden partitions.

We haven't tried this here at the INQUIRER, and would caution readers
that messing with your hard drive is done at your own peril and very
likely breaches your warranty. Here is what Wiley and Scott did. µ

* UPDATE Does this work? We're not going to try it on our own machine
thank you very much. Instead, we're waiting for a call from a hard drive
company so we can get its take on these claims.

** UPDATE II A representative for large hard drive distributor Bell
Micro said: "This is NOT undocumented and we have done this in the past
to load an image of the original installation of the software. When the
client corrupted the o/s we had a boot floppy thatopened the unseen
partition and copied it to the active or seen partition. It is a not a
new feature or discovery. We use it ourselves without any qualms".

*** UPDATE III See the letters column today, here.

Required items
Ghost 2003 Build 2003.775 (Be sure not to allow patching of this
software) 2 X Hard Drives (OS must be installed on both.) For sake of
clarity we will call the drive we are trying to expand (T) in this
document (means Target for partition recover). The drive you use every
day, I assume you have one that you want to keep as mater with your
current OS and data, will be the last dive we install in this process
and will be called (X) as it is your original drive.

1. Install the HDD you wish to recover the hidden partitions (hard drive
T) on as the master drive in your system with a second drive as a slave
(you can use Hard Drive X if you want to). Any drive will do as a slave
since we will not be writing data to it. However, Ghost must see a
second drive in order to complete the following steps. Also, be sure
hard drive T has an OS installed on it You must ensure that the file
system type is the same on both drive (NTFS to NTFS or FAT32 to FAT32, etc)

2. Install Ghost 2003 build 2003.775 to hard drive T with standard
settings. Reboot if required.

3. Open Ghost and select Ghost Basic. Select Backup from the shown list
of options. Select C:\ (this is the drive we want to free partition on
on hard drive T) as our source for the backup. Select our second drive
as the target. (no data will be written so worry not). Use any name when
requested as it will not matter. Press OK, Continue, or Next until you
are asked to reboot.

Critical step
4. Once reboot begins, you must shutdown the PC prior to the loading of
DOS or any drivers. The best method is to power down the PC manually the
moment you see the BIOS load and your HDDs show as detected.

5. Now that you have shutdown prior to allowing Ghost to do its backup,
you must remove the HDD we are attempting to expand (hard drive T which
we had installed as master) and replace it with a drive that has an OS
installed on it. (This is where having hard drive X is useful. You can
use your old hard drive to complete the process.) Place hard drive T as
a secondary drive in the system. Hard drive X should now be the master
and you should be able to boot into the OS on it. The best method for
this assuming you need to keep data from and old drive is:

Once you boot into the OS, you will see that the second drive in the
system is the one we are attempting to expand (hard drive T). Go to
Computer Management -> Disk Management

You should see an 8 meg partition labeled VPSGHBOOT or similar on the
slave HDD (hard drive T) along with a large section of unallocated space
that did not show before. DO NOT DELETE VPSGHBOOT yet.

6. Select the unallocated space on our drive T and create a new primary
or extended partition. Select the file system type you prefer and format
with quick format (if available). Once formatting completes, you can
delete the VPSGHBOOT partition from the drive.

7. Here is what you should now see on your T drive.

a. Original partition from when the drive still had hidden partitions
b. New partition of space we just recovered.
c. 8 meg unallocated partitions.

8. Do you want to place drive T back in a PC and run it as the primary
HDD? Go to Disk Management and set the original partition on T (not the
new one we just formatted) to and Active Partition. It should be
bootable again if no data corruption has occurred.

Caution
Do not try to delete both partitions on the drive so you can create one
large partition. This will not work. You have to leave the two
partitions separate in order to use them. Windows disk management will
have erroneous data in that it will say drive size = manus stated drive
size and then available size will equal ALL the available space with
recovered partitions included.

This process can cause a loss of data on the drive that is having its
partitions recovered so it is best to make sure the HDD you use is not
your current working HDD that has important data. If you do this on your
everyday drive and not a new drive with just junk on it, you do so at
your own risk. It has worked completely fine with no loss before and it
has also lost the data on the drive before. Since the idea is to yield a
huge storage drive, it should not matter.

Interesting results to date:
Western Digital 200GB SATA
Yield after recovery: 510GB of space

IBM Deskstar 80GB EIDE
Yield after recovery: 150GB of space

Maxtor 40GB EIDE
Yield after recovery: 80GB

Seagate 20GB EIDE
Yield after recovery: 30GB

Unknown laptop 80GB HDD
Yield: 120GB

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

In fact, on some HDs, you can even recover that extra, hidden space:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14597

READER WILEY SILER .....

Stupid Troll.

 

[Mike Redrobe]

In fact, on some HDs, you can even recover that extra, hidden space:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14597

READER WILEY SILER has sent us a method which he said was discovered by
Scott Komblue and documented by himself which they claim can recover
unused areas of the hard drive in the form of hidden partitions.

Nope .. just a new way of making two overlapping partitions, which will
corrupt each other as soon as you actually FILL them with data.

Is it April 1st already?

 

[Andreas Wohlfeld]

Read the drive manual and find out?

Read it yourself and find out that seagate's specification doesn't say how.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Read it yourself and find out that seagate's specification doesn't say how.

That is a pity. They used to still detail that with the 7200.7, which btw
revealed that the 200GB version is a 7200.7 Plus, with larger capacity
platters (100GB) than the rest of the 7200.7 (80GB).

Sounds like they may be joining the ranks with the Maxtors and Western Digitals
of today, where they can sell you anything as long as the capacity is correct.

"200GB is three sides, 400GB six sides. "

Strangely enough all earlier ATA Barras (-4, -5, 7200.7) only had 2
platters max. The 7200.8 would be the first exception with 3 platters.
Are you sure about the 133GB platters?

Oh well, answered that myself:
The platter areal density of the 7200.7 200GB is 68,500 Mbits/sq.inch
The platter areal density of the 7200.8 (apparently) is 91,560 Mbits/sq.inch
91.5/68.5 * 100GB makes 133GB.

" But I would suspect a 266GB and a 333GB version, not 250/300GB. "

Apparently they go for the round numbers or full multiples of some
previous capacities. The advantage of rounding some capacities in
between is that they may become the next multiple, e.g. the 250 GB
makes it easier to go to a 500GB version in stead of a 600GB one.

"Do they leave some space unformatted?"

Probably, as different densities would alter some specs, but then *what specs*?
They only spec the max STR and the seek numbers appear rounded so who is
to complain. Maybe the spare sector pool is up-ped with the difference.

 

[Mark M]

the 7200.8 series is supposed to have 133 GB per disc, so 67GB
per side. How does seagate then get 250GB or 300GB versions?
200GB is three sides, 400GB six sides. But I would suspect a
266GB and a 333GB version, not 250/300GB. Do they leave some
space unformatted?

Maybe Seagate changes platter capacity even within a series?

I know Maxtor did that to its PlusMax 9. Maxtor had intended to use
high capacity platters but there seem to have been some sort of
problem and it was launched with a slightly lower capacity platter.
Over time the higher capacity platters came onstreak ok and were
used.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Maybe Seagate changes platter capacity even within a series?

Gee Mark, what an original thought.

I know Maxtor did that to its PlusMax 9. Maxtor had intended to
use high capacity platters but there seem to have been some sort of
problem and it was launched with a slightly lower capacity platter.

So then, did they sell the drives for a higher capacity than they in
actual fact were?

 

[Mark M]

Gee Mark, what an original thought.

Thank you Folkert for your observation.

Maybe I too can offer an original thought you seem to have overlooked
when you ask me the question below: Gee Folkert, why not try Google
and find this for yourself:

---------- QUOTE ---------
"When they originally announced the DiamondMax Plus 9 (along with the
Plus 8, DiamondMax 16, and Fireball 3) back in September, Maxtor
trumpeted the fact that it would be the first firm to deploy 80-
gigabyte platters across its entire ATA drive line. Surely enough,
DM+9s trickled into the channel about a month later. Interestingly,
however, there were indications that these drives in fact did not
incorporate 80/GB platters as Maxtor initially indicated.

In perhaps the surest sign yet that formerly inexorable increases in
areal density are slowing, Maxtor quietly backed away from the 80 GB
spec. The platters, and perhaps more importantly the supporting
parts necessary to extract data so closely packed together, have been
experiencing unusually low yields. As a result, Maxtor pushed the
Plus 9 to market incorporating 60- and 68- in addition to the 80-
gigabyte per platter disks. Though various members of the family
feature differing platter densities and hence differing transfer
rates and access times, Maxtor claims that all three densities will
yield similar performance.

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200302/200302276Y200x0_1.html
--------- UNQUOTE --------

As you well know, a hard drive manufacturer may have platter capacity
on a given model which it chooses not to use.

If you have any more questions then do not hesitate to try Google
first.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Thank you Folkert for your observation.

Observation that you stole it from my post 4 weeks
earlier and that it wasn't at all original, Mark?

Maybe I too can offer an original thought you seem to have overlooked
when you ask me the question below:

Gee Folkert, why not try Google and find this for yourself:

How original.

---------- QUOTE ---------
"When they originally announced the DiamondMax Plus 9 (along with
the Plus 8, DiamondMax 16, and Fireball 3) back in September, Maxtor
trumpeted the fact that it would be the first firm to deploy 80-
gigabyte platters across its entire ATA drive line. Surely enough,
DM+9s trickled into the channel about a month later. Interestingly,
however, there were indications that these drives in fact did not
incorporate 80/GB platters as Maxtor initially indicated.

In perhaps the surest sign yet that formerly inexorable increases in
areal density are slowing, Maxtor quietly backed away from the 80 GB
spec. The platters, and perhaps more importantly the supporting
parts necessary to extract data so closely packed together, have been
experiencing unusually low yields. As a result, Maxtor pushed the
Plus 9 to market incorporating 60- and 68- in addition to the 80-
gigabyte per platter disks. Though various members of the family
feature differing platter densities and hence differing transfer
rates and access times, Maxtor claims that all three densities will
yield similar performance.

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200302/200302276Y200x0_1.html
--------- UNQUOTE --------

Well Mark, that too isn't exactly an original thought.

The above is not about just "slightly lower capacity" platters, it is about
using the previous (ie old technology) generation platters instead of the
new ones.

Btw, if you read between the lines it is questionable whether what they
wrote is even true or just speculation.

As you well know, a hard drive manufacturer may have platter capacity
on a given model which it chooses not to use.

That's the complete opposite of what that piece above is about, having
overcapacity on the platter for the smaller drive models that you want
to offer where the above quote is about failing to master the technology
to produce thec higher density platters that are needed to offer the
improved transfer rates of a newer model.

I didn't speak about platter capacity, I spoke of harddrive capacity.
You can't just use slightly smaller capacity platters without making
smaller drives. You have to use more platter sides, that then have to
be of a specific capacity to arrive at the specific drive capacity.

If you have any more questions then do not hesitate to try Google first.

Answer the question.

 

[Mark M]

Observation that you stole it from my post 4 weeks
earlier and that it wasn't at all original, Mark?

As you know I haven't been reading this group for a long time. I
have no idea whatsoever what you in particular wrote as I tend to
avoid your turgid know-it-all posts.

I am aware that I read the review I quoted to you and I discussed it
with Maxtor UK on the phone before I bought myself some end of line
Plus 9s last year.

So maybe now you will tell me that you believe yourself in fact to be
Maxtor UK's representative in your spare time (in addition to your
self-assumed responsibilities as God's representative on earth)?

How original.

Then how dumb of you (as a self-appointed superman of the hard drive
world) to overlook Google and instead try and waste everyone's time
because you are too lazy.

Well Mark, that too isn't exactly an original thought.

The above is not about just "slightly lower capacity" platters,
it is about using the previous (ie old technology) generation
platters instead of the new ones.

Are you somehow stating above that the old generation/technology
platters used by Maxtor in early Plus 9s are somehow of higher
capacity than the new generation platters Maxtor were intending to
use? Give me a break.

Btw, if you read between the lines it is questionable whether
what they wrote is even true or just speculation.

It's almost but not quite needless to say that the subtext of your
statement is that your swift and rapier-like all-powerful mind can
read between lines and reach conclusions most of us mortal had
thought were strictly reserved for those belonging in the psychic
community.

That's the complete opposite of what that piece above is about,
having overcapacity on the platter for the smaller drive models
that you want to offer where the above quote is about failing to
master the technology to produce thec higher density platters
that are needed to offer the improved transfer rates of a newer
model.

I didn't speak about platter capacity, I spoke of harddrive
capacity. You can't just use slightly smaller capacity platters
without making smaller drives. You have to use more platter
sides, that then have to be of a specific capacity to arrive at
the specific drive capacity.

Brilliant Folkert. You are getting there. So nice to see. The
early Maxtor Plus 9s ran hotter than the later Plus 9s of same
capacity because they had a different number of platters. Even a
worm can see that through a metre of earth.

Answer the question.

If you are referring to this earlier ejaculation of yours:

"So then, did they sell the drives for a higher
capacity than they in actual fact were?"

then perhaps the English translation of your messy ejaculation is
that you want to know if Maxtor sold drives as if they were of a
higher capacity then they actually were.

If you want to know the answer to this then it may be best to ask
someone who claims to know the answer. I have correctly written
this:

"Maxtor had intended to use high capacity platters
but there seem to have been some sort of problem and
it was launched with a slightly lower capacity platter.
Over time the higher capacity platters came onstrea/m
ok and were used."

So why do you go on to reply and troll me with silly questions?

 

[Odie Ferrous]

Mark,

Don't waste your breath on Rienstra.

He's a little script kiddie, with no friends, and no life outside SCSI
and storage newsgroups.

He is under the impression that people like him because of his
knowledge, but he is in reality a little pipsqueak.

Again, don't bother.

I now see the funny side of Rienstra - and look forward to his posts.
Can't start the day without them. Of course, a sprinkling of Gisin is
the "salt and pepper" of my breakfast.


Odie

 

[Eric Gisin]

The bitter little troll whines again.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

As you know I haven't been reading this group for a long time.

Obvious lie whitnessed by the simple fact that you answered to that
even older original post.

I have no idea whatsoever what you in particular wrote as I tend to
avoid your turgid know-it-all posts.

Another obvious lie whitnessed again by the fact that you are responding
to my post. You lie very easily, isn't it Mark.

I am aware that I read the review I quoted to you and I discussed it
with Maxtor UK on the phone before I bought myself some end of line
Plus 9s last year.

So maybe now you will tell me that you believe yourself in fact to be
Maxtor UK's representative in your spare time (in addition to your
self-assumed responsibilities as God's representative on earth)?

No Mark, you are confused: you were quoting that piece of shit, not me.
Why would I want to quote a piece of an article consistng mainly of
conjecture.

Then how dumb of you (as a self-appointed superman of the hard drive
world) to overlook Google

Which isn't exactly original, as you claimed to be.

and instead try and waste everyone's time because you are too lazy.

Again you are confused, it is *you* that is wasting everybody's time
by bringing up controversy (the SR review) that, on top of that, you
obviously didn't remember correctly.

Are you somehow stating above that the old generation/technology
platters used by Maxtor in early Plus 9s are somehow of higher
capacity than the new generation platters Maxtor were intending
to use?

Gee Mark what makes you think that. Did you suffer a brain stroke?
And no Mark, it was obviously *you* who was implying it when you said:

"As you well know, a hard drive manufacturer may have platter
capacity on a given model which it chooses not to use"

Why the hell would they waste perfectly good 80GB platters for lower
capacity (shortstroked) drives when they could have used them for drives
that they fit with older technology platters (plus one) to meet demand.

Give me a break.

You may sure need one indeed if you can't comprehend what it says above
(it wasn't exactly rocket science) or not remember what you said on a
previous occasion.

It's almost but not quite needless to say that the subtext of your
statement is that your swift and rapier-like all-powerful mind can
read between lines and reach conclusions most of us mortal had
thought were strictly reserved for those belonging in the psychic
community.

Well Mark, that is all what you can do as they don't make hard
conclusions. Apparently that doesn't keep *you* from making them.

Brilliant Folkert. You are getting there.

Ah, you finally understood. Well, better late than never, eh?

So nice to see. The early Maxtor Plus 9s ran hotter than the
later Plus 9s of same capacity because they had a different
number of platters.

Thanks for admitting that you were totally wrong about the
"slightly smaller capacity" platters.

Even a worm can see that through a metre of earth.

Too bad you obviously didn't see it, judging from your previous
post. Nice bit of posturing Mark. You may even fool some one.

If you are referring to this earlier ejaculation of yours:

"So then, did they sell the drives for a higher
capacity than they in actual fact were?"

then perhaps the English translation of your messy ejaculation is
that you want to know if Maxtor sold drives as if they were of a
higher capacity then they actually were.

Brilliant. Maybe there is still hope for you.

If you want to know the answer to this then it may be best to ask
someone who claims to know the answer. I have correctly written
this:

"Maxtor had intended to use high capacity platters
but there seem to have been some sort of problem and
it was launched with a slightly lower capacity platter.
Over time the higher capacity platters came onstrea/m
ok and were used."

So why do you go on to reply and troll me with silly questions?

I don't know Mark, I know that that is your usual ballpark.

Maybe it is your uncanny ability to post stupid questions
(you used to use this group to google for you, instead of
using it yourself) and the sudden change to answering one
instead, a 4 week old post that had already been answered.

In that light your information probably was even third
hand rather than second hand (talking about originality).

Next to that, it didn't address the OP's question at all, which was
about why the smaller ones in the series were smaller than expected.

 

[Mark M]

Mark,
Don't waste your breath on Rienstra.

He's a little script kiddie, with no friends, and no life
outside SCSI and storage newsgroups.

He is under the impression that people like him because of his
knowledge, but he is in reality a little pipsqueak.

Again, don't bother.

I now see the funny side of Rienstra - and look forward to his
posts. Can't start the day without them.

Odie, I guess I know what you mean. Folkert works in a technical
field (standard and stuff I seem to recall) that he probably expects
us to all be bowled over by his expertise.

He forgets that an obnoxious genius (and I am not calling him a
genius) is still obnoxious.

Of course, a
sprinkling of Gisin is the "salt and pepper" of my breakfast.

I find Eric is not the same at all.

Eric may sometimes be abrupt but I have usually found him to be very
helpful.

By contrast Folkert tries to get people thinking ever harder and in
areas in which they have no expertise rather than to help them out.
It's as if Folkert thinks he has a mission to educate by some
brutalising Socratic debate.

Oh well. I hope has some friends in real life.

 

[Mark M]

Please excuse my top posting but does anyone here have a translation
of this long and arduous post seemingly addressed to me?

I suspect it boils down to the usual Folkertism of:

"I am great and you little shits should be all awed
by me deigning to honor you by my virtual prescence".

The poster seems never to have heard of trimming to context. I guess
he must feel that I genuinely want to read and re-read his former
magic pearls of wisdom. Or that I can't operate a newsreader or
access Google groups when I want to know what was said previously.

I have to confess that I really do not have the time or stamina to
read a bitter man like Folkert vent his vast and bitter spleen in
public while at the same time saying nothing at all of any value.

So I will skip lightly past this turgid post and get on with
something more worthwhile.