Utility to burn in new hard drive?

[Arno Wagner]

I am not disputing that. Modern drives often allow automatic
execution of a short SMART self-test every few hours, to be
set by software. But they cannot ''submit'' diagnostics to
the computer. They can only store them and the computer has
to actively ask in order to get any information.

[/QUOTE]

Yes, but the computer user and OS does not have to do ANYTHING for
the "repair" to take place.

Drives map out bad sectors. OSes do not need to intervene at all.

True.

Arno

 

[Joe S]

A "burn-in test" is performed on complete products, not
individual
components thereof.

Component testing and qualification takes place at the component
makers locale.


THAT is NOT a "burn-in" test.

Is "burning-in" a form of test? I thought it was a form of usage
concentrated into a short period of time.

 

[Rod Speed]

Is "burning-in" a form of test?
Nope.

I thought it was a form of usage concentrated into a short period of time.

Yes, and often at higher than usual temperatures too.

 

[kony]

A "burn-in test" is performed on complete products, not individual
components thereof.

Never suggested otherwise.

"Certain parts" meant certain whole products, in other words
companies don't just throw everything into an oven, the
burn-in test is in the context of what the part is.

Component testing and qualification takes place at the component
makers locale.

Calling something "component" is rather arbitrary, in the
context of an entire computer a whole hard drive, for
example, could likewise be called one component.

THAT is NOT a "burn-in" test.

Wrong.

It was a noteworthy thing to subject some parts to a very
high temp, as in an oven, thus "burn-in" became a generic
term for it but the term burn-in is not exclusionary, still
applied likewise to other parts undergoing the same testing
criteria but that didn't need testing at THAT high a temp.

 

[Phat Bytestard]

Failure of the RAID hardware and the PC its in isnt extremely rare at all.



Nope, pointless if its mirrored over multiple machines.


Its much better to ensure that power line surges cant fry anything instead.


Assuming its even obtainable anymore. And that
it didnt **** the array in the process of dying too.


Dont need that if its mirrored over multiple machines.

ALL you need to do even if the entire machine fails is to
replace it with another machine and new machines will always
be available since there isnt anything unique about them.


You in spades, 'trusting' the raid hardware and the machine its in.



Corse it is.


No point with multiple machines.


Completely pointless with mirrored multiple machines.



Taint gunna happen if you've got enough of a clue to ensure that
no mains surge can do that, and thats completely trivial to ensure.


Nope.

I take back my original post which stated that you knew hat was going
on.

 

[Phat Bytestard]

Bullshit it does. In spades when you are stupid enough to use laptop drives.

You're an idiot. A raid 3 array has the potential to have 8 times
the throughput, placing the bottleneck on other subsystems.

 

[Phat Bytestard]

Depends on how the raid hardware dies.

That is true with any failure, you fucking retard.

 

[Phat Bytestard]

That aint a 'factory burn in lab'

A hot test after manufacturing at the factory IS the definition of
"burn-in testing", you retarded ****.

 

[Phat Bytestard]

No thanks, they keep breaking when I do that.

I have no doubts about that whatsoever.

 

[Phat Bytestard]

Wrong, as always. And he said parts, not components anyway.

You're an idiot. The two words are synonymous, and particularly so
in this case.

Pity about hard drives.

What is the pity, you incomplete thought twit?

Call WD and ask them if they test their drives... ALL of their
drives. Get a clue, boy.

 

[Phat Bytestard]

Is "burning-in" a form of test? I thought it was a form of usage
concentrated into a short period of time.

Burn-in testing is usually a test done in an elevated temperature AT
RATED output for a specific period of time, and is meant to catch
component abnormalities which cause complete system failures.

In the old days, it exposed everything from bad solder joints
(modern processes have all but done away with poor soldering, except
for the new RoHS CRAP), to bad lead frame connections in chips, which
were less reliable in the days of old as well, to poor mechanical
tolerances.

 

[Phat Bytestard]

Yes, and often at higher than usual temperatures too.

NO. NOT "often". ALWAYS. That is the very definition of the test
process.

If it is not, it is merely a live, pre-shipping test, not a
"burn-in".

 

[Phat Bytestard]

Never suggested otherwise.

"Certain parts" meant certain whole products, in other words
companies don't just throw everything into an oven, the
burn-in test is in the context of what the part is.




Calling something "component" is rather arbitrary,

Not at all. If you work in electronics, it has a very specific
meaning.

in the
context of an entire computer a whole hard drive, for
example, could likewise be called one component.

We were talking about hard drives here. Get a clue.

Wrong.

You are wrong.

It was a noteworthy thing to subject some parts to a very
high temp, as in an oven, thus "burn-in" became a generic
term for it but the term burn-in is not exclusionary,

Not generic at all, dipshit. In fact, the term has a quite specific
meaning in the industry, before dopes like you started generisizing
everything.

still
applied likewise to other parts undergoing the same testing
criteria but that didn't need testing at THAT high a temp.

Wrong again. ENTIRE rooms are utilized at elevated temperatures,
not just some "oven". Hence the term "burn-in lab".

 

[Rod Speed]

I take back my original post which stated that you knew hat was going on.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

And none of your drivel has ever amounted to a hill of beans anyway.

 

[Rod Speed]

You're an idiot.

You're a terminal pig ignorant fuckwit.

A raid 3 array has the potential to have 8 times the
throughput, placing the bottleneck on other subsystems.

Nice theory, pity about the reality, child.

And anyone who cares about thruput, doesnt use laptop drives.

 

[Rod Speed]

That is true with any failure,

Nope, if the data is mirrored over multiple systems,
doesnt matter a damn how one of the systems dies,
the data is still safe on the one that hasnt died.

Not so with any raid system where a death can render the data fucked.

 

[Rod Speed]

A hot test after manufacturing at the factory IS the definition of "burn-in testing",

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

 

[Rod Speed]

You're an idiot.

You're a terminal pig ignorant fuckwit.

The two words are synonymous, and particularly so in this case.

Wrong, as always.

What is the pity,

Pathetic, really.

Call WD and ask them if they test their drives... ALL of their drives.

Nothing even remotely resembling anything like
your pig ignorant drivel about 'factory burn in labs'

 

[Rod Speed]

NO. NOT "often". ALWAYS. That is the very definition of the test process.

Wrong, as always.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burn_in

If it is not, it is merely a live, pre-shipping test, not a "burn-in".

Wrong, as always.

 

[Rod Speed]

Not at all. If you work in electronics, it has a very specific meaning.

Wrong, as always. And he used the word parts anyway.

We were talking about hard drives here.

Irrelevent to your pig ignorant claim about PARTS.

You are wrong.

Nope, you are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burn_in

Not generic at all, dipshit. In fact, the term has a quite specific meaning
in the industry, before dopes like you started generisizing everything.

Easy to claim, child.

Wrong again. ENTIRE rooms are utilized at elevated temperatures,
not just some "oven". Hence the term "burn-in lab".

Pity there is no such animal with mass market commodity drives, child.