> -Original Message-
> From: ubuntu-uk-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com [mailto:ubuntu-uk-
> boun...@lists.ubuntu.com] On Behalf Of Liam Proven
> Sent: 16 April 2010 13:49
> To: UK Ubuntu Talk
> Subject: Re: [ubuntu-uk] Hard drive- Bad sectors
>
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 1
On 16/04/10 14:52, Alan Lord (News) wrote:
> On 16/04/10 14:46, David King wrote:
>> Western Digital hard drives are not known for reliability. I avoid them
>> due to the bad experiences I have read about these drives.
>
> I have tended toward Samsung (1st choice) or Hitachi (2nd) for HDDs for
> ye
On 16/04/10 13:38, javadayaz wrote:
> the hard drive is only a few months old btw
>
If it's only a few months old then you can possibly get it replaced
under warranty, but you'd need to get the data off it first of course as
you'll get a blank drive back.
Rob
--
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
ht
On 16/04/10 11:44, Adam Bagnall wrote:
> As a true last resort you can try putting the drive in a sealed bag (to
> prevent condensation) and then in the freezer for a few hours. A quick
> google shows there are many reports of this working, although I've never
> tried it and hope I never have to..
On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 15:36 +0100, Thomas Ibbotson wrote:
> Does anyone know how SSDs compare in terms of lifetime? I know
> theoretically they have a shorter lifetime than conventional hard
> drives, but in practice?
Stuff like this - http://www.storagesearch.com/ssdmyths-endurance.html -
has le
David King wrote:
> I have had a Hitachi DeskStar go bad recently. They are even nicknamed
> DeathStar due to a high failure rate years ago when the brand was still
> owned by IBM.
>
> Samsung drives have so far been good for me.
>
>
> david
>
>
>
Sorry, I was looking at the wrong drive, it
On 16 April 2010 15:26, David King wrote:
>
>
> Alan Lord (News) wrote:
> >
> > I have tended toward Samsung (1st choice) or Hitachi (2nd) for HDDs for
> > years now. Not had one every fail - yet. (But I still take nightly
> backups)
> >
> > Al
> >
> >
> I have had a Hitachi DeskStar go bad recen
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Thomas Ibbotson
wrote:
> On 16 April 2010 15:26, David King wrote:
> > Alan Lord (News) wrote:
> >>
> >> I have tended toward Samsung (1st choice) or Hitachi (2nd) for HDDs for
> >> years now. Not had one every fail - yet. (But I still take nightly
> backups)
> >>
On 16 April 2010 15:26, David King wrote:
> Alan Lord (News) wrote:
>>
>> I have tended toward Samsung (1st choice) or Hitachi (2nd) for HDDs for
>> years now. Not had one every fail - yet. (But I still take nightly backups)
>>
>> Al
>>
>>
> I have had a Hitachi DeskStar go bad recently. They are
Alan Lord (News) wrote:
>
> I have tended toward Samsung (1st choice) or Hitachi (2nd) for HDDs for
> years now. Not had one every fail - yet. (But I still take nightly backups)
>
> Al
>
>
I have had a Hitachi DeskStar go bad recently. They are even nicknamed
DeathStar due to a high failure
On 16/04/10 14:46, David King wrote:
> Western Digital hard drives are not known for reliability. I avoid them
> due to the bad experiences I have read about these drives.
I have tended toward Samsung (1st choice) or Hitachi (2nd) for HDDs for
years now. Not had one every fail - yet. (But I still
javadayaz wrote:
> the hard drive is only a few months old btw
>
>
Western Digital hard drives are not known for reliability. I avoid them
due to the bad experiences I have read about these drives.
David
--
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https
Adam Bagnall wrote:
> As a true last resort you can try putting the drive in a sealed bag
> (to prevent condensation) and then in the freezer for a few hours. A
> quick google shows there are many reports of this working, although
> I've never tried it and hope I never have to...
>
> Regards,
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 1:38 PM, javadayaz wrote:
> the hard drive is only a few months old btw
Please try to put your replies /below/ the text you're quoting.
Does your brother tend to treat his disks roughly? That kind of
failure rate implies it's the user, not the hardware.
Hard disks are ul
the hard drive is only a few months old btw
On 16 April 2010 13:30, Alan Pope wrote:
> On 16 April 2010 13:19, javadayaz wrote:
> > quote : "The problem is that testdisk cant find any partitions at all..
> or
> > even read any data off it"
> >
>
> Unlikely to be the mbr then. More likely the ci
thank you again. will forward your advice.
On 16 April 2010 13:30, Alan Pope wrote:
> On 16 April 2010 13:19, javadayaz wrote:
> > quote : "The problem is that testdisk cant find any partitions at all..
> or
> > even read any data off it"
> >
>
> Unlikely to be the mbr then. More likely the cir
On 16 April 2010 13:19, javadayaz wrote:
> quote : "The problem is that testdisk cant find any partitions at all.. or
> even read any data off it"
>
Unlikely to be the mbr then. More likely the circuitry, controller on
the motherboard or disk itself. All of which are hardware issues. if
it were m
quote : "The problem is that testdisk cant find any partitions at all.. or
even read any data off it"
On 16 April 2010 13:00, Alan Pope wrote:
> On 16 April 2010 12:54, javadayaz wrote:
> > Quote my brother:
> > "I don't think it's a sector issue because its practically impossible
> for
> > ev
thank you...i will forward this to him
On 16 April 2010 13:00, Alan Pope wrote:
> On 16 April 2010 12:54, javadayaz wrote:
> > Quote my brother:
> > "I don't think it's a sector issue because its practically impossible
> for
> > every sector to have become corrupt overnight. Rather, I think th
On 16 April 2010 12:54, javadayaz wrote:
> Quote my brother:
> "I don't think it's a sector issue because its practically impossible for
> every sector to have become corrupt overnight. Rather, I think the mbr may
> have got corrupted somehow and needs to be rebuilt but that wud need to wipe
> th
Quote my brother:
"I don't think it's a sector issue because its practically impossible for
every sector to have become corrupt overnight. Rather, I think the mbr may
have got corrupted somehow and needs to be rebuilt but that wud need to wipe
the whole thing. Is there a recover utility that coul
I've done the freezer trick before on a failing hard drive and it does work.
I found it best to wrap the drive up and give it half an hour in the freezer
and then when you take it out balance it circuit board down on a pack of
frozen sausages to keep it cooler for longer.
However I don't think thi
its a hard drive attached to the netbook. Funnily enough this is his third
HD...and is a western digital HD as well.
On 16 April 2010 12:20, John Stevenson wrote:
>
> On 16 April 2010 11:44, Adam Bagnall wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:23 AM, javadayaz wrote:
>>
>>> i dont think
On 16 April 2010 11:44, Adam Bagnall wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:23 AM, javadayaz wrote:
>
>> i dont think he has another machine. He is using ubuntu one on his
>> netbook
>>
>> but i will forward this option to him as well.
>>
>> On 16 April 2010 11:21, Simon Greenwood wrote:
>
On 16 April 2010 11:23, javadayaz wrote:
> i dont think he has another machine. He is using ubuntu one on his
> netbook
>
> but i will forward this option to him as well.
>
> On 16 April 2010 11:21, Simon Greenwood wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 16 April 2010 11:08, javadayaz wrote:
>>
>>> My brother
cool will forward this as well
On 16 April 2010 11:44, Adam Bagnall wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:23 AM, javadayaz wrote:
>
>> i dont think he has another machine. He is using ubuntu one on his
>> netbook
>>
>> but i will forward this option to him as well.
>>
>> On 16 April 2010
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:23 AM, javadayaz wrote:
> i dont think he has another machine. He is using ubuntu one on his
> netbook
>
> but i will forward this option to him as well.
>
> On 16 April 2010 11:21, Simon Greenwood wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 16 April 2010 11:08, javadayaz wrote:
>>
>>>
i dont think he has another machine. He is using ubuntu one on his
netbook
but i will forward this option to him as well.
On 16 April 2010 11:21, Simon Greenwood wrote:
>
>
> On 16 April 2010 11:08, javadayaz wrote:
>
>> My brother has just had his hard drive fail. Testdisk is saying "All
On 16 April 2010 11:08, javadayaz wrote:
> My brother has just had his hard drive fail. Testdisk is saying "All bad
> sectors". Is there anything that can be done to rescue the data?
>
If he (or you) have another machine, it could be removed and put in that
either directly or with a USB hard d
i dont think there is a backup :)
i will recommend spinrite to him.
On 16 April 2010 11:17, Alan Pope wrote:
> On 16 April 2010 11:08, javadayaz wrote:
> > My brother has just had his hard drive fail. Testdisk is saying "All bad
> > sectors". Is there anything that can be done to rescue the
On 16 April 2010 11:08, javadayaz wrote:
> My brother has just had his hard drive fail. Testdisk is saying "All bad
> sectors". Is there anything that can be done to rescue the data?
Restore from backup?
People say spinrite is good, never tried it myself.
Cheers,
Al.
--
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubunt
My brother has just had his hard drive fail. Testdisk is saying "All bad
sectors". Is there anything that can be done to rescue the data?
--
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
cool,
thank you very much sir!
Regards
Javad
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:22:53 +0100> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:
> ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com> Subject: Re: [ubuntu-uk] Hard drive> > Hello,> >
> Install the ntfs-3g and ntfs-config packages, and maybe reboot
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:27:21AM +0100, Tom Bamford wrote:
> I believe it's better to use ntfs-3g rather than ntfs as the filesystem
> type, unless they mean the same thing now.
They mean the same thing in Gutsy, but I'd be inclined to stick with
just ntfs in Feisty.
--
Colin Watson
I believe it's better to use ntfs-3g rather than ntfs as the filesystem
type, unless they mean the same thing now.
Regards
Michael Holloway wrote:
> Whats your " sudo fdisk -l " output.
>
> You should still be able to mount them - with "mount" or just putting
> them in fstab (replacing sbd1 wi
Whats your " sudo fdisk -l " output.
You should still be able to mount them - with "mount" or just putting
them in fstab (replacing sbd1 with whatever it is listed as in fdisk).
/dev/sdb1 /media/C-Drive ntfsdefaults,nls=utf8,umask=007,gid=46
0 1
On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 07:41 +, STONE C
Hello,
Install the ntfs-3g and ntfs-config packages, and maybe reboot if
necessary. You should get read access to your partitions, you can then
run 'gksudo ntfs-config' to enable write-support.
Regards,
Tom
STONE COLD wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a dual boot...my windows OS detects my partiti
Hi,
I have a dual boot...my windows OS detects my partitions...but ubuntu fiesty
doesnt...
The two partitions in question are in ntfs format is there anyway i can
load them into fiesty without having to reinstall!
--
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listin
Hi,
On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 10:51 +, STONE COLD wrote:
> I have a dual boot installed on an 80gb hd. I installed a 400gb for my
> media. I partitioned this 400gb hd into two 200gb partitions But after
> a gutsy install they are now showing 186gb of free space each!
> I don’t understand why this
STONE COLD wrote:
> I have a dual boot installed on an 80gb hd. I installed a 400gb for
> my media. I partitioned this 400gb hd into two 200gb partitions But
> after a gutsy install they are now showing 186gb of free space each!
> I don’t understand why this is? Any information will be appreciated
Hi Javad,
On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 10:51 +, STONE COLD wrote:
> I have a dual boot installed on an 80gb hd. I installed a 400gb for my
> media. I partitioned this 400gb hd into two 200gb partitions But after
> a gutsy install they are now showing 186gb of free space each!
> I don’t understand why
On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 10:51 +, STONE COLD wrote:
> I have a dual boot installed on an 80gb hd. I installed a 400gb for my
> media. I partitioned this 400gb hd into two 200gb partitions But after
> a gutsy install they are now showing 186gb of free space each!
> I don’t understand why this is?
I have a dual boot installed on an 80gb hd. I installed a 400gb for my media. I
partitioned this 400gb hd into two 200gb partitions But after a gutsy install
they are now showing 186gb of free space each!
I don’t understand why this is?
Any information will be appreciated
Regards
Javad--
ubuntu
43 matches
Mail list logo
