From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LXADR-0001AR-5l for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:13:05 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BA777E033A; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:12:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.netspace.net.au (mail-out5.netspace.net.au [203.10.110.92]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 712E8E033A for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:12:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [121.90.70.150] (unknown [121.90.70.150]) by mail.netspace.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11217171FB8 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:12:30 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: testing a corrupt SD card From: Iain Buchanan To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: References: <1233898098.21997.10.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:54:06 +1300 Message-Id: <1234313646.21507.49.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: df6ac0e2-9603-4e16-b0f4-59f02c3a7caa X-Archives-Hash: 69ca777654db7a0f31c900516cab801b On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 16:47 +0000, James wrote: > Iain Buchanan netspace.net.au> writes: > > > > Does that mean my memory card is good to go, or should I use some other > > method of bad sector detection? > > Hello Iain, Hi James! [snip] > Here are a couple of links for your perusal: Unfortunately I'm travelling, and the company here has a draconian internet policy that doesn't allow much of anything. I'll have to check them out in a couple of weeks. > Sorry, there is not a clear answer. Keep it for non critical needs, > upgrade to SDHC(fat 32) if your equipment supports that format. unfortunately not! > Fat 32 on top of the memory, helps with (bit)error masking with > some enhance (undocumented) feature not part of fat 32. This is > what makes reverse engineering, complicated on SD memory. > You may need to upgrade the firmware of your equipment to support > newer SD standards (SD 1.1 and SD 2.0). not much chance of that either (camera). The more I look into it, the solid state features (moving bad blocks around in firmware and hiding it from the system) make me think it's time to throw it out anyway... > Good luck and good hunting (mate)..... cheers, mate! -- Iain Buchanan I might have gone to West Point, but I was too proud to speak to a congressman. -- Will Rogers