Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #237019 > unrolled thread

badblocks

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  badblocks mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2021-07-07 18:20 +0200
    Re: badblocks Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2021-07-07 18:50 +0200
    Re: badblocks "Alexander V. Makartsev" <avbetev@gmail.com> - 2021-07-07 19:00 +0200
    Re: badblocks Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-07-07 19:40 +0200
      Re: badblocks Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-07-07 21:00 +0200
        Re: badblocks mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2021-07-11 09:00 +0200
      Re: badblocks Cindy Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2021-07-07 23:00 +0200
        Re: badblocks Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2021-07-08 09:20 +0200

#237019 — badblocks

hello,
I got a cheap SATA to USB external adaptor and used it to look at a 
500Gb drive from redundant PC that I'd already got what I wanted from.
Bullseye Xfce tried to auto mount it but baulked over one directory.
I mounted partition OK in terminal emulator.
Ran badblocks on partition which reported
"488251288 bad blocks found"
which seems excessive.
Might I think that there is something amiss with the USB/SATA adapter 
thing ?

mick
-- 
Key ID    4BFEBB31

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#237020

On Wed, 07 Jul 2021 17:19:15 +0100
mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ran badblocks on partition which reported
> "488251288 bad blocks found"
> which seems excessive.
> Might I think that there is something amiss with the USB/SATA adapter 
> thing ?

Yeah, that sounds fishy. I'd run "fdisk -l" on the device file
(/dev/sdX) and see if that's reasonable. If it does, try "fsck -N" on
each partition and see if those results look reasonable.

-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#237021

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 07.07.2021 21:19, mick crane wrote:
> hello,
> I got a cheap SATA to USB external adaptor and used it to look at a 
> 500Gb drive from redundant PC that I'd already got what I wanted from.
> Bullseye Xfce tried to auto mount it but baulked over one directory.
> I mounted partition OK in terminal emulator.
> Ran badblocks on partition which reported
> "488251288 bad blocks found"
> which seems excessive.
> Might I think that there is something amiss with the USB/SATA adapter 
> thing ?
>
> mick
It certainly could be. SATA-to-USB adapters are not made the same and 
their functionality depends on microcontroller IC they based on.
Some of these adapters can interrogate the drive and get SMART data, 
some of them can't.
Now there is also a possibility, if the bad block(-s) was actually found 
during the scan, HDD firmware could fall into "retry/error" loop trying 
to recover, constantly reporting failed state to a host system, which 
could be interpreted\translated by HDD-to-USB adapter as operation 
failure for each sector requested by badblock utility.

-- 
With kindest regards, Alexander.

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#237022

> I got a cheap SATA to USB external adaptor and used it to look at a 500Gb
[...]
> Might I think that there is something amiss with the USB/SATA adapter
> thing ?

In my experience, USB<->SATA adapters are not super-reliable (cheap or
not), the main problem stemming from power delivery, so you might like
to retry it on other USB ports, the more power it can deliver
the better.

[ Obviously, I presume that your adapter does not have its own power
  source.  ]


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#237024

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mi, 07 iul 21, 13:30:40, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > I got a cheap SATA to USB external adaptor and used it to look at a 500Gb
> [...]
> > Might I think that there is something amiss with the USB/SATA adapter
> > thing ?
> 
> In my experience, USB<->SATA adapters are not super-reliable (cheap or
> not), the main problem stemming from power delivery, so you might like
> to retry it on other USB ports, the more power it can deliver
> the better.
> 
> [ Obviously, I presume that your adapter does not have its own power
>   source.  ]

I've had occasional failures with a powered version, so that's no 
guarantee either.

The error is indeed quite suspicious and I'd be weary of making any 
permanent changes to the drive, unless it's 100% reproducible with a 
known good connection (preferably pure SATA).

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#237189

On 2021-07-07 19:59, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

> The error is indeed quite suspicious and I'd be weary of making any
> permanent changes to the drive, unless it's 100% reproducible with a
> known good connection (preferably pure SATA).

I got another USB/SATA adapter and badblocks reports no problems.

mick
-- 
Key ID    4BFEBB31

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#237032

On 7/7/21, mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2021-07-07 18:30, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> I got a cheap SATA to USB external adaptor and used it to look at a
>>> 500Gb
>> [...]
>>> Might I think that there is something amiss with the USB/SATA adapter
>>> thing ?
>>
>> In my experience, USB<->SATA adapters are not super-reliable (cheap or
>> not), the main problem stemming from power delivery, so you might like
>> to retry it on other USB ports, the more power it can deliver
>> the better.
>>
>> [ Obviously, I presume that your adapter does not have its own power
>>   source.  ]
>
> has 12v supply, I've ordered another one and see if any different.


I think I'm picturing what you're using because I've used that myself.
I switched to the black, boxlike "docking stations" a couple years ago
because I was having some kind of trouble, maybe even like you now,
with those other "wiring harness" adapters.

One caveat is that the "dual" docking stations that have the clone
ability may be easy to trigger into an irreversible clone that
destroys data on the second hard drive. I'd seen someone complain
about that in their product review.

Now I think I did it myself because one hard drive keeps reporting
that it's a duplicate something or other at boot. All I can figure is
I accidentally bumped the duplicate button on the docking station, and
off it went without asking for verification first. The harmed hard
drive is sitting untouched until I brave up toward attempting a
software autopsy in hopes of salvaging data. The holdup is that I'm
mentally not prepared to hear I lost that data forever. :)

Cindy :)
-- 
Cindy-Sue Causey
Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA

* runs with birdseed *

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#237047

Cindy Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> writes:

> One caveat is that the "dual" docking stations that have the clone
> ability may be easy to trigger into an irreversible clone that
> destroys data on the second hard drive. I'd seen someone complain
> about that in their product review.

I suppose. I also have one of these docks with a clone button in
front. It also has a selector switch marked "clone" and "pm" in the
back. The little slip of instructions for it says it won't clone if it's
in the "pm" mode, whatever that means. Play mode? Post meridiem?-)
Also, one needs to bump the clone button twice to start cloning. Seems
like there has been feedback about accidental cloning.

Anyways, I've never tried the clone function nor had more than one drive
plugged in since the few times I've needed it I've copied or imaged to an
internal drive.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web