Re: How long will this take?
High security operations do this routinely. They properly don't trust
parts are as labeled from manufacturers especially manufacturers that
send any of their stuff or get any of their stuff from China.
I'm thinking of the binary search method and am wondering if disk
operations of all sorts could be speeded up using it rather than
sequential searches. Or is binary already used now?
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020, l0f4r0@tuta.io wrote:
> Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 14:08:34
> From: l0f4r0@tuta.io
> To: Debian User <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
> Subject: Re: How long will this take?
> Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 18:08:47 +0000 (UTC)
> Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
>
> Hi,
>
> 8 juin 2020 ? 22:22 de trenix25@pm.me:
>
> > I bought a new 4 terrabyte hard drive that is connected with a USB cable using USB2. It took about 32 hours to read every sector on the drive to look for bad sectors. I started blanking the sectors using /dev/zero last Friday night.
> >
> Out of curiosity, what is the purpose to wipe a brand new HDD?
> Wouldn't formatting (or GPT overwrite) be sufficient?
>
> 9 juin 2020 ? 08:59 de dpchrist@holgerdanske.com:
>
> > Also as others have stated, writing zeros to an SSD may wear it out prematurely (depends upon internals of SSD). The best approach is to do a "secure erase".
> >
> It seems to be a hard drive here ;)
> > Rather than wiping storage devices with GNU/Linux userland tools, your best bet is to use the manufacturer's diagnostic utility. In the ideal case, the utility sends a command to the drive controller and everything gets done internally at maximum speed. I prefer the bootable "Live" tools, if available. Each manufacturer has their own toolkit. Get the one for your drive brand. For example, SeaTools Bootable:
> >
> > https://www.seagate.com/support/downloads/seatools/
> >
> Even more true for an SSD (and yet, I'm not sure we can say "secure" for sure as those utilities are generally proprietary so we cannot verify what they do exactly).
>
> Best regards,
> l0f4r0
>
>
--
Reply to: