From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OfHWn-0005Uw-B3 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:15:25 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7BAA5E0B10; Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:14:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wy0-f181.google.com (mail-wy0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EABAE0B10 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:14:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wyb36 with SMTP id 36so2674324wyb.40 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:14:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date :user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=MLjcjBOVSzqGtgJHkgbELQhGkzUex0JqDxVmz7z9HIM=; b=SwAtjktk+82JUP7n0mOAvVItDHAYy0hJb5INvd/MhmZU6gIxihNuj+ynZW5NezaEWl jdubi28uFlKSX7a9xgBtbUG+QrllqKG5cfoekW4yYp3aHE/StaynN65X9Ej+azOlNStW NRTDHlgAR9LT9WXq6reGhT4qVx5qO5fWQ7PyM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=Vcglet+0zrBFv6XDzFJRhpYlxbiKFghtSsSr18/TCgHrhslSm0z3i+D55e4GDFlG0y UgjqWheoJ8uBCnyuHJbg197+NZTSYumDq+cvKkPxikpZJo1JfiDlq7+wag697JPO5PNK JPlPL5c6mM8Urz50+1FblkIcsuUkNEirfRDDs= Received: by 10.227.69.134 with SMTP id z6mr3063303wbi.201.1280603680582; Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:14:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from energy.localnet (p5DCC09A3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.204.9.163]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h3sm3165747wbb.15.2010.07.31.12.14.39 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:14:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Volker Armin Hemmann To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] OT: hard disk access and recovery impossible under linux ? Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:14:38 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.34r4; KDE/4.4.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <20100731152732.4da6f3d1@matrix.inten.pl> <201007312004.47268.volkerarmin@googlemail.com> <201007311932.37788.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201007311932.37788.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> 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 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <201007312114.38454.volkerarmin@googlemail.com> X-Archives-Salt: baba74c3-d12a-4ec9-a7dd-9285569581b8 X-Archives-Hash: 5d70f7dc8b10fb1c53b2716f8ea080c0 On Samstag 31 Juli 2010, Mick wrote: > On Saturday 31 July 2010 19:04:47 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > > On Samstag 31 Juli 2010, Mick wrote: > > > On Saturday 31 July 2010 16:33:18 Dale wrote: > > > > Kacper Kopczy=C5=84ski wrote: > > > > > Dnia 2010-07-31, o godz. 16:15:51 > > > > >=20 > > > > > Volker Armin Hemmann napisa=C5=82(a): > > > > >> On Samstag 31 Juli 2010, Kacper Kopczy=C5=84ski wrote: > > > > >>> Hi, > > > > >>>=20 > > > > >>> My problem is really strange - I can't access my hard drive from > > > > >>> linux, but it works from windows without problems. It has some > > > > >>> bad blocks. > > > > >>=20 > > > > >> it has a lot of bad blocks and a fucked up firmware it seems. No > > > > >> way it is working 'without problems'. > > > > >=20 > > > > > Well total space taken by bad blocks according to chkdsk is less > > > > > than 1MB, windows is still able to access all data. Linux is only > > > > > able to see partition table "for a while" - as you can see in > > > > > dmesg. > > > > >=20 > > > > > If firmware is broken then how it is possible that windows is able > > > > > to use this disk? > > > >=20 > > > > Maybe windoze is ignoring the problem? It's not like windoze has > > > > never done that before right? > > > >=20 > > > > Just a thought. > > >=20 > > > Couldn't it be that the MSWindows partition has no bad blocks, while > > > Linux does? > >=20 > > it is not about partitions. >=20 > Please explain, I thought that bad blocks would coincide with some > partitions. because defectice partitions don't give you no sense errors nor do they giv= e=20 you zero capacity errors. Read his dmesg.