On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 04:33:54AM +0100, Ivan Savcic wrote: > On Jan 7, 2008 5:15 PM, Douglas A. Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > With bad-block remapping, you don't really know where the "damaged part > > of the drive" is. I would go with one whole partition and if after > > fsck -c -c there were still errors showing up in syslog, I'd ditch the > > drive (after sanitizing it). The fsck -c -c should make a manual md5 > > check redundant. > > Do all drives have it? I am pretty sure I got a contiguous part of bad > blocks on all drives that failed me so far. Well, I'm not sure when that feature was added to drives, so no not _all_ drives ever. However, anything with S.M.A.R.T. certainly would, and I would expect any drive over 1 GB to as well. If you ever actually _see_ bad blocks on a newer drive, that means that the drive has run out of spare blocks that it can remap. This means that the drive is toast. The big thing that a badblocks check does is it causes the drive to do a read/write attempt on every block. If there are badblocks and the drive remaps it, you won't see them. If it doesn't remap it, you may end up with a clean filesystem that you can retreive your data off. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
