On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 21:36:14 -0500, Filipus Klutiero wrote: > >>This install clearly has problems reading optical discs. > >Ok, so cdck's output about 16 bad sectors is not implausible, > >correct? > Not really correct. Taken to the extreme, this install's issue with > optical discs would cause it to declare any disc as bad (or worst, > to be so slow that it would never complete a check). That doesn't > mean the discs are actually bad. It seems the install is more > sensitive to "weak sectors". It takes a huge time to read weak > sectors, and in this rare case, it simply failed. My desktop > confirmed that the 16 sectors are not actually bad. Even the > problematic install confirms they're not really bad in this second > run on the same CD:
Thanks for the additional information. I guess we can sum this up as "cdck doesn't really provide realiable results" :/ We've had something like that already in #544107: "inconsistent results between runs". > >> From these, the disk is only BAD in case 3.1. And even if there are > >>actually BAD sectors on the disc, that doesn't mean all sectors are > >>bad. > >Right, and in the output above we see 2295088 good and 16 bad > >sectors. > Right... but the conclusion instructs to get rid of the entire disc, > not just of the 16 bad sectors. It is generally a good idea to get > rid of the entire disc, but only after making sure at least the good > sectors are not needed. Ack, the recommendation has room for improvement :) > >So the issue your pointing at is the output or more precisely the > >last part "put it into trash can!"? > > The issue I'm pointing at is the output. The output says 2 things: > > 1. The disc contains unreadable (or even BAD) sectors. > 2. The disc should be discarded. > > 2. is definitely a problem. As for 1., it might be true in a certain > sense. In a given context, some sectors were unreadable by the > install. On the other hand, it is not that it contains *generally* > unreadable sectors, as these sectors could be read in a different > install. Ok. > >I hope you can agree that throwing away a disk is still the owner's > >decision and responsibility and not the one of a piece of software > >that write a slightly sloppy message to the screen :) > > Of course. I think at this stage of development cdck should avoid > colloquiality and focus on utility and clarity. It looks like the stage of development is basically "initial and abandoned at the same time". At least I failed to reach upstream the last time I tried to contact them ... Cheers, gregor -- .''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Joan Baez: Jaria Hamuda
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
