Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!towson@amsaa From: towson%amsaa@sri-unix.UUCP Newsgroups: net.micro Subject: Re: ds vs. ss disks Message-ID: <14313@sri-arpa.UUCP> Date: Mon, 5-Dec-83 09:11:50 EST Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.14313 Posted: Mon Dec 5 09:11:50 1983 Date-Received: Fri, 9-Dec-83 08:31:35 EST Lines: 18 From: David Towson (CSD) Joe - In your recent note to the group you discussed your position regarding a perceived risk in using single-side-rated disks in double-sided applications. You mentioned that the small difference in cost between single and double-side- rated disks isn't worth the lost productive time (my paraphrase) incurred when a disk goes sour. I've never had a disk become unreadable after having been successfully written and verified. I have seen them fail post-write-verify, and I've seen bad operating systems go berserk and eat directories. The latter case, of course, has nothing to do with disk quality. In those cases where I have seen disks go bad, they didn't just all-of-a-sudden die; they got flaky - started failing post-write-verify, and required automatic rewriting. So my question to you is this: Given that you have successfully written on a disk, and that the success of the write has been proven by a verify-read, do you still think there is a risk, and if so, what is the mechanism for the failure you fear? Dave