On 2021-07-07 19:59, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
The error is indeed quite suspicious and I'd be weary of making any
permanent changes to the drive, unless it's 100% reproducible with a
known good connection (preferably pure SATA).
I got another USB/SATA adapter and badblocks reports no problems.
m
Cindy Sue Causey writes:
> One caveat is that the "dual" docking stations that have the clone
> ability may be easy to trigger into an irreversible clone that
> destroys data on the second hard drive. I'd seen someone complain
> about that in their product review.
I suppose. I also have one of t
> I got a cheap SATA to USB external adaptor and used it to look at a 500Gb
[...]
> Might I think that there is something amiss with the USB/SATA adapter
> thing ?
In my experience, USB<->SATA adapters are not super-reliable (cheap or
not), the main problem stemming from power delivery, so you mig
On 7/7/21, mick crane wrote:
> On 2021-07-07 18:30, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> I got a cheap SATA to USB external adaptor and used it to look at a
>>> 500Gb
>> [...]
>>> Might I think that there is something amiss with the USB/SATA adapter
>>> thing ?
>>
>> In my experience, USB<->SATA adapters are
On Mi, 07 iul 21, 13:30:40, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > I got a cheap SATA to USB external adaptor and used it to look at a 500Gb
> [...]
> > Might I think that there is something amiss with the USB/SATA adapter
> > thing ?
>
> In my experience, USB<->SATA adapters are not super-reliable (cheap or
>
On 2021-07-07 18:30, Stefan Monnier wrote:
I got a cheap SATA to USB external adaptor and used it to look at a
500Gb
[...]
Might I think that there is something amiss with the USB/SATA adapter
thing ?
In my experience, USB<->SATA adapters are not super-reliable (cheap or
not), the main proble
On 07.07.2021 21:19, mick crane wrote:
hello,
I got a cheap SATA to USB external adaptor and used it to look at a
500Gb drive from redundant PC that I'd already got what I wanted from.
Bullseye Xfce tried to auto mount it but baulked over one directory.
I mounted partition OK in terminal emulat
On Wed, 07 Jul 2021 17:19:15 +0100
mick crane wrote:
> Ran badblocks on partition which reported
> "488251288 bad blocks found"
> which seems excessive.
> Might I think that there is something amiss with the USB/SATA adapter
> thing ?
Yeah, that sounds fishy. I'd run "fdisk -l" on the device fi
On jan. 18, 21:40, Towncat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On jan. 12, 22:20, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 01/12/08 11:40, Towncat wrote:
>
> > > Hi,
>
> > > I did a
>
> > > /sbin/badblocks -c 10240 -w -t random -v /dev/sda2
>
> > Why? Don't you trust brand new disk drives?
>
> Wel
On jan. 12, 22:20, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 01/12/08 11:40, Towncat wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
> > I did a
>
> > /sbin/badblocks -c 10240 -w -t random -v /dev/sda2
>
> Why? Don't you trust brand new disk drives?
Well, you do have a point... But then, this is the only time I can do
this
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 11:14:13AM -0800, Towncat wrote:
> On jan. 12, 19:20, Michael Shuler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 01/12/2008 11:40 AM, Towncat wrote:
> >
> > > /sbin/badblocks -c 10240 -w -t random -v /dev/sda2
> >
> > > where sda2 is a 320 gb partition. The process has been running fo
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 09:40:36AM -0800, Towncat wrote:
>
> I did a
>
> /sbin/badblocks -c 10240 -w -t random -v /dev/sda2
>
> where sda2 is a 320 gb partition. The process has been running for
> approx 18 hours and is just over three thirds. Is this really supposed
> to be so slow, or is there
On 01/12/08 15:29, Alex Samad wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 03:11:57PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 01/12/08 11:40, Towncat wrote:
Hi,
I did a
/sbin/badblocks -c 10240 -w -t random -v /dev/sda2
Why? Don't you trust brand new disk drives?
where sda2 is a 320 gb partition. The process has
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 03:11:57PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 01/12/08 11:40, Towncat wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I did a
>>
>> /sbin/badblocks -c 10240 -w -t random -v /dev/sda2
>
> Why? Don't you trust brand new disk drives?
>
>> where sda2 is a 320 gb partition. The process has been running for
>>
On 01/12/08 11:40, Towncat wrote:
Hi,
I did a
/sbin/badblocks -c 10240 -w -t random -v /dev/sda2
Why? Don't you trust brand new disk drives?
where sda2 is a 320 gb partition. The process has been running for
approx 18 hours and is just over three thirds. Is this really supposed
to be so sl
On jan. 12, 19:20, Michael Shuler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 01/12/2008 11:40 AM, Towncat wrote:
>
> > /sbin/badblocks -c 10240 -w -t random -v /dev/sda2
>
> > where sda2 is a 320 gb partition. The process has been running for
> > approx 18 hours and is just over three thirds. Is this really s
On 01/12/2008 11:40 AM, Towncat wrote:
/sbin/badblocks -c 10240 -w -t random -v /dev/sda2
where sda2 is a 320 gb partition. The process has been running for
approx 18 hours and is just over three thirds. Is this really supposed
to be so slow, or is there something wrong? The machine is a Core Du
17 matches
Mail list logo
