> * The "stiction" is claimed to be from lubricant migrating to the area
> between the heads and the platters, and creating enough grab (surface
> tension?) so that the spindle motor can't start the platters spinning.
> Warm/hot lubricant will certainly flow into this critical area much
> easier than cold lubricant.
I'm sorry, but if lubricant can get to the drive heads, and cause
sticking, it's an inherently broken design in my book. I don't see that
even allowing the posability of a lubricant (except air) to get to parts
that are microns from a suface that is moveing at 24.6 miles an hour
(11.0 m/s, or 7/2 * PI m/s) on a 3500rpm drive, and 50.6 miles an hour
(22.6 m/s, or 36/5 * PI m/s) on a 7200rpm drive, all at 1.5" (3 cm) from
the spindle.
> And finally:
> * If there is a significant chance of messing up a disk drive, why take that
> chance? Manufcaturers rate the running MTBF, and the number of stop/start
> cycles, but AFAIK *NOT* the "spun down with power applied" time. It's quite
> possible (likely?) that the drives are NOT designed or certified or tested
> for operation this regime.
>
Ok, they don't quote figures for it, but they still program the drives to
react to a spindown command, if they really thought that it's a very bad
idea they'd just have the drives ignore the commands to spindown. (yes I
am repeating my self, and consusly (?sp) so).
> -30- Ray
>
Bryn
-- PGP key available from any good server \ Overload -- core meltdown sequence 1024/EB275221 1995/09/05 Bryn P. A. Jones | initiated. <bpaj@gytha.demon.co.uk> (use this key) / This space is intentionally left fingerprint: 83 AF D8 65 BC 52 74 31 | blank, apart from this text ;-) 67 1A 5F 31 F5 A0 9C 82 \____________________________________