On 5/24/06, Erez D <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
thats what i suspected, and that explaines why it dowsn't recognise any
partition starting after the bed sector
i hope dd_rescue skips on the destination if finds a problem on the source.
i'll try it and let you all know
ddrescue indeed sounds lik
thats what i suspected, and that explaines why it dowsn't recognise any partition starting after the bed sectori hope dd_rescue skips on the destination if finds a problem on the source.i'll try it and let you all know
thanks,erez.On 5/23/06, Yedidyah Bar-David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Ma
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 05:57:57PM +0300, Ariel Biener wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 May 2006 17:14, Yedidyah Bar-David wrote:
> >
> > Just to make it clear - even without really getting deep into your
> > problem, you should know that 'dd conv=noerror' is pointless in your
> > situation, because it does
On Tuesday 23 May 2006 17:14, Yedidyah Bar-David wrote:
>
> Just to make it clear - even without really getting deep into your
> problem, you should know that 'dd conv=noerror' is pointless in your
> situation, because it does not write zeros (or anything) instead of the
> unreadable sectors - its
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 16:57 +0300, Erez D wrote:
> dd reported 57000 blocks (1M each) copied so i assume that was the
> whole hd
Did the same number get reported for blocks being read and for blocks
being written?
If Didi's hypothesis is correct, then those numbers would be different.
In this cas
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 05:00:15PM +0300, Yedidyah Bar-David wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 04:16:25PM +0300, Erez D wrote:
> > hi
> >
> > i have a damaged 60M HD. it only runs if it is positioned vertical.
> > any idea ?
>
> I strongly suggest using dd_rescue and/or ddrhelp.
Just to make it c
i forgot to mention that i used kill -USR1 to see DD's status every 10 secondserez.On 5/23/06, Erez D <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:dd reported 57000 blocks (1M each) copied so i assume that was the whole hd.
of course i ran 'sync' before shuting down.i didn't use DD's sync option as i understand it p
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 04:16:25PM +0300, Erez D wrote:
> hi
>
> i have a damaged 60M HD. it only runs if it is positioned vertical.
> any idea ?
I strongly suggest using dd_rescue and/or ddrhelp.
--
Didi
=
To unsubscribe, send ma
dd reported 57000 blocks (1M each) copied so i assume that was the whole hdof course i ran 'sync' before shuting down.i didn't use DD's sync option as i understand it pads, not syncs.i do not recall the exact partition table, it was somthing like:
hda1 - fat32 (30G)hda2 - linux (ext3 10G)hda3 - swa
1. Wild guess: in spite of your options, dd finished in middle of hda1.
2. How many blocks were actually copied (dd reports this when it
finishes its work)?
3. Exactly what do you get when listing partitions using fdisk on the
old and new disks?
I do not think that this is due to the difference i
hii have a damaged 60M HD. it only runs if it is positioned vertical.i bought a new 80M HD, and copied with ddi used conv=noerror as my HD has bad sectors at offset about 10Gi did it by booting single user into linux (hda2), remounting / read-only
and typing: dd if=/dev/hda of=/dev/hdb bs=1M conv=n
11 matches
Mail list logo
