Utility to burn in new hard drive?

"Teh White Recluse" wrote in message
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:05:43 GMT, in alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Phat Bytestard wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 07:43:43 -0500, Teh White Recluse Gave us:

Troll with malfunctioning synapse.

Top posting Usenet twit with less than nothing to say.

Hell, one cannot even determine whom you were referring to. More
proof that top posting is utterly retarded.

LMFAO

You didn't get it.

His life in a nut(t)shell.

I was torlling john-doe-the-****wit. He top posts headers of anyone he
disagrees with. Wasn't a great torll, all I came up with was a phat *******.

Phat Bytestard wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Phat Bytestard wrote
Rod Speed write
Phat Bytestard wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Also, replacing it would bring the system back up with no loss of data,

Depends on how the raid hardware dies.

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.

How can a soldier in the field mirror data to another machine,

Over the comms link that he's useless without, child.

You are an idiot.

You are a terminal pig ignorant ****wit child.

My array is the most reliable platform for them.

Nope. And they dont need that volume of data storage anyway.

You are obviously unaware of what is in place on a modern
battlefield, chump. They record live A/V streams nowadays.

No use to anyone stuck in that system, child.

I have made DVRs that are utilized on carrier flight decks.

Well whoopy ****ing do. Completely irrelevant to the OP, child.

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

reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old could
leave for dead flushed where it belongs

Phat Bytestard wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Come back when your maturity level is at least half your numerical age.

Any 2 year old could leave that for dead, child.

Get one to help you before posting again, if anyone
is actually stupid enough to let you anywhere near one.

Teh White Recluse wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Phat Bytestard wrote

A stupid user will inordinately exercise a piece of equipment when
it is not even necessary, further reducing its overall "in use"
lifespan, and wasting a lot of personal time.

And made a VERY spectacular fool of yourself again with that bit.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

We'll see...

If something does not run it does not wear out.

Wrong, as always.

In spades with hard drives.

Phat Bytestard wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Pity about what happens between the pallet load and the end user.

If a hard drive in the box gets submitted to
a 250 G shock, the package will be damaged.

Not if its outside the package at the time, fool.

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
Phat Bytestard wrote
just the puerile **** thats always pouring from the back of it.

Phat Bytestard wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:35:23 -0400, kony Gave us:

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:02:02 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 06:33:59 +0100, Mike Tomlinson
Gave us:

In article , Phat
Bytestard writes

Flawed, ****ed up logic. They have already been thoroughly
tested as long as one sticks with a reputable manufacturer.

They may have been (though I have my doubts), but that doesn't take
account of any damage that may have occurred while the drive makes
its way from China, through the channel to the end-user.

That's total bull**** due to the specs of the drive. When not
under power, they typically can handle 250 plus G shocks, and the
way they are packaged and shipped, no such shock is even possible
to impart on a drive without damaging the packaging. Hence, if the
packaging is in proper order, the drive inside is as well. They
can even typically survive 60G shocks when in operation.

Try again. In fact, **** that... YOU LOSE! Hands down!

Actually at least one drive manufacturer cites handling,
including shipping, as the major causes of premature drive
failure. Wish I remembered which one but that's not even a
guarantee their webpage or docs haven't changed in the
interim.

Probably MaxTurd.

How much force do you think a 250G shock imparts?

If the ****ing box is not damaged, the drive inside is very likely
not going to be damaged, and if it is, it was not done during
shipping.

They aint always in that sort of packing all
the way from china to the end user's table.

Phat Bytestard wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Do you think they just turn them on for three minutes and call them "ready"?

Yep, thats what happens with mass market commodity drives, child.

Absolutely incorrect.

Easy to claim, child.

reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old
could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

Phat Bytestard wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:07:12 +1000, "Rod Speed"
Gave us:


Nope I just use it to rub the noses of the pig ignorant in thanks.

reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

Phat Bytestard wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:07:12 +1000, "Rod Speed"
Gave us:

"When possible, it is better to eliminate the root
cause of early failures than doing a burn in."

Irrelevant to his pig ignorant claim about
ELEVATED TEMPERATURES and burn in tests.

Yes.... remove the last wagon from the train, as it is
always the one that is most damaged in an accident.

Irrelevant to his pig ignorant claim about
ELEVATED TEMPERATURES and burn in tests.

Of course the solution is the very best, if the value-component
in the decision is limited to preventing damage, but... well...
the factual component should get some consideration too.

Irrelevant to his pig ignorant claim about
ELEVATED TEMPERATURES and burn in tests.

reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs