From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2979613877A for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 13:20:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6D09CE0BB1; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 13:20:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13E43E0B1C for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 13:20:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([84.133.128.119]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MRCCJ-1X4P7g2CLv-00UdeN for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 15:19:59 +0200 Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 15:19:58 +0200 From: meino.cramer@gmx.de To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Contradictionary behaviour of SMART on hds ?!? Message-ID: <20140727131958.GB16178@solfire> References: <20140727101247.GA3817@solfire> <20140727112736.54eb3995@digimed.co.uk> <20140727104115.GB3817@solfire> <53D4DE5C.2080307@gmail.com> <20140727112922.GC3817@solfire> <53D4F1AF.3010305@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=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53D4F1AF.3010305@gmail.com> User-Agent: mutt-ng/devel-r804 (Linux) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:hXpXSO+yY0Jvk3OxPEDNAybBHvz7GDeyIRmMyo+voV7VB7RYdVt v9hlqxizGxyA3mbhVTZwUA1DaBzLpZIZRz19THKwu81PvfjtVdBMFjlFk61bwZ4zrMG+cvt nxWZ5E+Yz6rnkxnSTswIdJd1gR9+hwvMrKcFI15RRucNUiBYDjTudBZAXXNShkLbOd/XqjW HJaq8/ugONCRovu/Bx6+w== X-Archives-Salt: f6506b3c-7f38-410c-848a-4df67e4eb083 X-Archives-Hash: 0ec5dcc3b2c102bd0277af8a2232304b Dale [14-07-27 14:36]: > meino.cramer@gmx.de wrote: > > Back to the initial problem: How can I offline test the rest of the > > disk if the first bad sector (10%) of the surface breaks the test with > > an error? Best regards, mcc > > I never got mine to go past the first failure until I used dd to erase > the drive. As mentioned before, I may could have done that without > moving my data but that was to complicated and risky for me at the > time. From my understanding tho, until that data is moved off the bad > spot so that the drive knows it can do what it needs to, that spot is > still going to show up. I don't know of a way to make it test beyond > the bad spot either. > > If you have a drive that you can move that data over to so that you can > play with the bad drive, that's what I would do. Once you get it moved, > then dd the whole drive, run the test and then see what results you > get. I looked at a howto that someone posted or I found and doing it > with the data on there just made me nervous. > > I'm running out of info here. Anyone else provide more help than me? > > Dale > > :-) :-) > Hi Dale, thanks for the info... I already did this. PLEASE read my previous posting completly. dd failed with an I/O error at that spot.