Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site homxb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!homxb!gemini
From: gemini@homxb.UUCP (Rick Richardson)
Newsgroups: net.micro.pc,net.micro.att
Subject: Re: physical format on pc6300 hard disk
Message-ID: <1332@homxb.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 18-Mar-86 13:54:54 EST
Article-I.D.: homxb.1332
Posted: Tue Mar 18 13:54:54 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Mar-86 05:23:13 EST
References: <411@mhuxi.UUCP> <405@inuxh.UUCP> <1323@homxb.UUCP>, <1811@rocksvax.UUCP>
Organization: PC Research, Inc.
Lines: 19
Xref: watmath net.micro.pc:7453 net.micro.att:998

Don Wegeng writes:
> In article <1323@homxb.UUCP> gemini@homxb.UUCP (Rick Richardson) writes:
> >When a bad sector is
> >found, the entire track should be reformatted with "BAD SECTOR ID"
> >indicators, so that it will not be used by PC-DOS or any other
> >operating system.  
> Why the entire track? What evdience do you have that other sectors in
> that particular track are bad or going to go bad? Just curious...

Two reasons, really.  The first is for performance.
The second reason is more superstitious than anything else.  I
figure that defects come from three possible sources: uneven
media, scratches during manufacture, or unwanted head landings.
Since I can't be sure what the cause was, I assume it was the
worst case - the head landing.  If it landed on one sector of a track,
it likely did some damage to other sectors.  I don't trust them.

Rick Richardson, PC Research, Inc. (201) 922-1134
..!ihnp4!houxm!castor!{rer,pcrat!rer} <--Replies to here, not to homxb!!!