On 11/24/21 11:52, Kenneth Parker wrote:
Try Steve Gibson's initdisk. It claims:
"Experience has shown that USB thumb drives believed
to be dead may be brought back to life with InitDisk."
https://www.grc.com/initdisk.htm
Steve has done a lot of testing on USB flash drives and has discovered
On 24/11/2021 16:10, Curt wrote:
On 2021-11-24, piorunz wrote:
On 24/11/2021 10:04, Sven Hartge wrote:
Should I throw it away?
Yes.
Agree. I had some bad USBs, did a lot of trickery on them but never were
able to revive them and put them back to any reasonable use. Bin.
I thought I had a
just timed out on
all I/O operations, during an attempted Mint 20 Install (making me think
Mint was more Defective than it is. [Disclaimer: It does what it needs to
do, and is good for a beginner]).
Finally, I smelled a rat, aborted the Mint install and tried to read it on
a different machine.
On 2021-11-24, piorunz wrote:
> On 24/11/2021 10:04, Sven Hartge wrote:
>>> Should I throw it away?
>> Yes.
>
> Agree. I had some bad USBs, did a lot of trickery on them but never were
> able to revive them and put them back to any reasonable use. Bin.
>
I thought I had a bad one once but it was
On 24/11/2021 10:04, Sven Hartge wrote:
Should I throw it away?
Yes.
Agree. I had some bad USBs, did a lot of trickery on them but never were
able to revive them and put them back to any reasonable use. Bin.
--
With kindest regards, Piotr.
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating s
deloptes wrote:
> I'm sure there are many ideas around, but I want to hear your opinion
> so there is one USB stick that I noticed started mocking about errors when
> booting off.
> I ran badblocks (without options) and then with -s -n and this produced a
> slightly differ
I'm sure there are many ideas around, but I want to hear your opinion
so there is one USB stick that I noticed started mocking about errors when
booting off.
I ran badblocks (without options) and then with -s -n and this produced a
slightly different output.
Is the output resulting fro
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 n
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
minal emulator.
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 ?
mick
It certainly could be. SATA-to-USB adapters are not made the same and
their functiona
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'
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 emulator.
Ran badblocks on partition
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 12:08:35AM +, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> The option -t random specifies that "the block should be filled with a
> random bit pattern".
>
> Now, just how random is that bit pattern.
>
> Does it choose a random byte and fill the entire hard drive with it?
If I'm reading th
The option -t random specifies that "the block should be filled with a
random bit pattern".
Now, just how random is that bit pattern.
Does it choose a random byte and fill the entire hard drive with it?
Does it make up a random disk block and write that to the whole disk?
Or does each block ge
On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 08:40:55 -0400, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
> Camaleón wrote:
>
>>> http://www.amazon.com/Iomega-Prestige-Portable-SuperSpeed-35194/dp/
B004NIDHXC
>>
>> That's exactly the kind of device I would never ever buy O:-)
>>
>>
> Do you have a make and model of hard drive that y
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:50:09PM -0400, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
> developing bad blocks. They are usually at room temperature (no air
> conditioning), partitioned via cfdisk + mke2fs.
I think room temperature is a vague term considering the temperature
range which occurs in each country. T
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:35:42 -0400, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
> Camaleón wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:07:15 -0400, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
>>
>>> One of the partitions on my hard drive has badblocks. I did a
>>>
>>> $sudo e2fsck -c -
Go Linux wrote:
> --- On Thu, 8/30/12, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi
> wrote: I guess iOmega drives are not very stable.
>> I guess iOmega drives are not very stable.
>>
>
> I have several external drives from iOmega that are a few years old. But
> the drives inside the enclosure are Western Digital. I
--- On Thu, 8/30/12, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
I guess iOmega drives are not very stable.
> I guess iOmega drives are not very stable.
>
I have several external drives from iOmega that are a few years old. But the
drives inside the enclosure are Western Digital. I've never had a problem with
On Thursday 30 August 2012 19:35:42 Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
> This one is very slim and does not even have an external case.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Iomega-Prestige-Portable-
> SuperSpeed-35194/dp/B004NIDHXC
Yes, it has got a case. The case is black metal.
Compact Metal Enclosure Lightw
Camaleón wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:07:15 -0400, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
>
>> One of the partitions on my hard drive has badblocks. I did a
>>
>> $sudo e2fsck -c -c -f -v /dev/sdb7
>>
>> on it and it found 757 badblocks. The partition itself
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:07:15 -0400, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
> One of the partitions on my hard drive has badblocks. I did a
>
> $sudo e2fsck -c -c -f -v /dev/sdb7
>
> on it and it found 757 badblocks. The partition itself is 100 GB and
> only 18 GB of it is filled. Now
Long Wind (longwind2...@gmail.com on 2011-09-23 20:07 +0800):
> I bought a 60G disk and test it with badblocks
>
> badblocks -vws /dev/hdb
>
> 6 hours has passed and it's still running
That can happen. My last disk was a 2TB low-rpm disk. It took badblocks
over 50 hours t
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Lisi wrote:
> You didn't let Badblocks finish! The longest it has taken when I have used it
> was 13 hours - and this was a while ago, so probably a 40G HDD.
>
> Let Badblocks finish, however long it takes, and if it still gives no error
>
On Friday 23 September 2011 13:07:54 Long Wind wrote:
> I bought a 60G disk and test it with badblocks
>
> badblocks -vws /dev/hdb
>
> 6 hours has passed and it's still running
> I can no longer wait and press Ctrl+c
> It have finished with 3 test patterns
> It s
Long Wind:
>
> I bought a 60G disk and test it with badblocks
>
> badblocks -vws /dev/hdb
>
> 6 hours has passed and it's still running
> I can no longer wait and press Ctrl+c
> It have finished with 3 test patterns
> It says nothing about whether bad blocks are
> I bought a 60G disk and test it with badblocks
>
> badblocks -vws /dev/hdb
>
> 6 hours has passed and it's still running
> I can no longer wait and press Ctrl+c
> It have finished with 3 test patterns
> It says nothing about whether bad blocks are found or not
> I
I bought a 60G disk and test it with badblocks
badblocks -vws /dev/hdb
6 hours has passed and it's still running
I can no longer wait and press Ctrl+c
It have finished with 3 test patterns
It says nothing about whether bad blocks are found or not
I have read its manual and get no answer abo
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 14:09:22 +, T o n g wrote:
>> $ badblocks -p 99 -c 9 -wv /dev/$tdev badblocks: No such file or
>> directory while trying to determine device size
The keyword here is "newly created" partition.
> that was lenny, rebooted into squeeze and all a
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
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 po
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 3
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
&
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 proces
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
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
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
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
Hi,
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 something wrong? The machine is a Core Duo
1,6, 2GB memory.
Tc
On Sep 3, 2006, at 6:51 PM, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
Independently of whatever any tool is telling you, consider this sound
as the clock ticking the doom of your drive. Backup now.
T.
On Sep 3, 2006, at 4:57 PM, Christopher Pharo Glæserud wrote:
402 bad blocks are 402 too many any way. It me
Le dimanche 03 septembre 2006 à 16:30 +0200, Kaspar Fischer a écrit :
> Hi everybody,
>
> I have recently heard strange noises from one of my IDE harddrives
> and have then run
>
>fsck.ext2 -c -c /dev/hdb1
>
> so that badblocks is executed. From the output in sy
Kaspar Fischer,
> it has found 402 bad blocks, but only some 27 are listed in the
>
> Is this normal? Are 402 bad blocks too many for ext2/3?
402 bad blocks are 402 too many any way. It means that your drive has
started failing and you should replace it.
--
regards,
Christopher Pharo Glæseru
Hi everybody,
I have recently heard strange noises from one of my IDE harddrives
and have then run
fsck.ext2 -c -c /dev/hdb1
so that badblocks is executed. From the output in syslog I see that
it has found 402 bad blocks, but only some 27 are listed in the
filesystem:
dumpe2fs -b /dev
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 03:59:08PM -0400, Angelo Bertolli wrote:
>
>
> Roel Schroeven wrote:
>
> >cc wrote:
> >
> >>my hard disk run into badblocks,
> >>when i run a program which produce much disk activities,
> >>many messages will appear li
Roel Schroeven wrote:
cc wrote:
my hard disk run into badblocks,
when i run a program which produce much disk activities,
many messages will appear like this:
"
Info fld=0x2023f6a, Current sd08:03: sense key Medium Error
Additional sense indicates Error too long to correct
I/O error
Roel Schroeven wrote:
cc wrote:
my hard disk run into badblocks,
when i run a program which produce much disk activities,
many messages will appear like this:
"
Info fld=0x2023f6a, Current sd08:03: sense key Medium Error
Additional sense indicates Error too long to correct
I/O error: d
cc wrote:
my hard disk run into badblocks,
when i run a program which produce much disk activities,
many messages will appear like this:
"
Info fld=0x2023f6a, Current sd08:03: sense key Medium Error
Additional sense indicates Error too long to correct
I/O error: dev 08:03, sector 243
my hard disk run into badblocks,
when i run a program which produce much disk activities,
many messages will appear like this:
"
Info fld=0x2023f6a, Current sd08:03: sense key Medium Error
Additional sense indicates Error too long to correct
I/O error: dev 08:03, sector 24313706
"
on Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 12:03:10AM -0700, Brian Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> "Jacob S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:03:32 -0500
> > "Jacob S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:41:58 -0700
> >> "Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
"Jacob S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:03:32 -0500
> "Jacob S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:41:58 -0700
>> "Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > - The 'Knoppix' hostname worked its way into a few config files.
>> >
>> >
on Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 08:22:48PM -0500, Jacob S. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:03:32 -0500
> "Jacob S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:41:58 -0700
> > "Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > - The 'Knoppix' hostname worked its
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:03:32 -0500
"Jacob S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:41:58 -0700
> "Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > - The 'Knoppix' hostname worked its way into a few config files.
> >
> > # find /etc -type f -print0 | xargs -0 grep -il
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:41:58 -0700
"Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - The 'Knoppix' hostname worked its way into a few config files.
>
> # find /etc -type f -print0 | xargs -0 grep -il knoppix
>
> ...and clean those up.
One question, in hopes that I can learn someth
on Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 02:17:04AM -0700, Karsten M. Self ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> on Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 05:59:57PM -0400, Silvan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Thursday 08 July 2004 06:59 am, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> >
> > > - Bad drive?
> >
> That's pretty much the conclusion I'm co
on Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 05:59:57PM -0400, Silvan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thursday 08 July 2004 06:59 am, Karsten M. Self wrote:
>
> > - Bad drive?
>
> I'm not an expert by any stretch, but I think it quite likely. One of
> those old reports you read might have been mine. I don't remem
on Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 02:32:39PM -0700, Richard Weil ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Sorry if this is beating a dead horse since you've already checked ...
> I believe there are (at least) three different "speed" 80-conductor ide
> cables -- ATA66, ATA100, and ATA133. They are not always labeled, so
On Thursday 08 July 2004 06:59 am, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> - Bad drive?
I'm not an expert by any stretch, but I think it quite likely. One of those
old reports you read might have been mine. I don't remember the model number
I had, but if yours is one of the ~5400 RPM 40 GB Maxtors, the on
Sorry if this is beating a dead horse since you've already checked ...
I believe there are (at least) three different "speed" 80-conductor ide
cables -- ATA66, ATA100, and ATA133. They are not always labeled, so it
can be hard to tell. My "slow" cable was a left over from an old
machine and it was
on Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 07:28:19AM -0700, Richard Weil ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> --- "Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm trying to find out why my disk performance is so slow -- 150x
> > worse than a comperable system -- and what I can do to improve it.
> >
> > I've got a syst
using_dma= 1 (on)
> keepsettings = 0 (off)
> readonly = 0 (off)
> readahead= 8 (on)
> geometry = 4982/255/63, sectors = 80041248, start = 0
>
>
> The disk is a Maxtor 54098U8 40 GiB UMDA66 drive.
>
> It's S.M.A.R.T capable
drive.
It's S.M.A.R.T capable, and I've run some additional diagnostics using:
- hdparm (-i -tT and no options)
- smartctl (-L -S -X -a -c -g -i -L and -v options)
- badblocks (no results when I left)
- bonnie++ (a disk testing utility -- no results when I left)
- Additional diag
On 26 Sep, this message from Bastien Nocera echoed through cyberspace:
>> Dunno why, but if my powerbook runs out of juice while suspended it
>> screws the time.
>
> That's because the battery that keeps the time is a very small
> capacitor. Doesn't hold for long at all...
Hmmm, IIRC from the l
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 11:18, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22 2003, Georg Nikodym wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Jan 1904 00:13:59 +0100
> >
> > Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Upgrade your kernel, this bug is fixed in 2.4.20 and newer.
> >
> > Wow, dude. You're old :-
On Mon, Sep 22 2003, Georg Nikodym wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jan 1904 00:13:59 +0100
>
> Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Upgrade your kernel, this bug is fixed in 2.4.20 and newer.
>
> Wow, dude. You're old :-)
Better? :)
Dunno why, but if my powerbook runs out of juice
On Fri, 1 Jan 1904 00:13:59 +0100
Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Upgrade your kernel, this bug is fixed in 2.4.20 and newer.
Wow, dude. You're old :-)
-g
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, Sep 20 2003, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
> When I give the following command to do a DESTRUCTIVE bad block check:
>
> badblocks -o 11.bb -b 4096 -v -w /dev/sda11
>
> the following message appears repeatedly on the console:
>
> Warning - running *really* short on
When I give the following command to do a DESTRUCTIVE bad block check:
badblocks -o 11.bb -b 4096 -v -w /dev/sda11
the following message appears repeatedly on the console:
Warning - running *really* short on DMA buffers
However, the test seems to proceed normally. Is this a problem
Hello. I started getting a disk error on my Maxtor 17.2 GB disk tonight.
It's been running fine for over 2 months, and my current uptime is 63 days
with no apparent disk problems.
Here's how I have my disk partitioned:
Filesystem 1024-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on
/dev/hda2
72 matches
Mail list logo
