 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Does anybody know of a way to make the Unix "dd" tool *not* abort if the
output device has bad blocks? (That's *output*, not input.) I'm trying
to erase a harddrive, but it appears to be defective. dd keeps giving up
as soon as it reaches the first bad block.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Does anybody know of a way to make the Unix "dd" tool *not* abort if the
> output device has bad blocks? (That's *output*, not input.) I'm trying
> to erase a harddrive, but it appears to be defective. dd keeps giving up
> as soon as it reaches the first bad block.
I'd be happy if it didn't hang when you tried to seek past the last block of
the disk and write. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
There aren't any trees on Mars.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Does anybody know of a way to make the Unix "dd" tool *not* abort if the
> output device has bad blocks? (That's *output*, not input.) I'm trying
> to erase a harddrive, but it appears to be defective. dd keeps giving up
> as soon as it reaches the first bad block.
Doesn't answer your specific question, but perhaps dban would be a
better alternative? Granted, I don't know if it would perhaps gag on
bad blocks as well.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:18:02 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> Does anybody know of a way to make the Unix "dd" tool *not* abort if the
> output device has bad blocks? (That's *output*, not input.) I'm trying
> to erase a harddrive, but it appears to be defective. dd keeps giving up
> as soon as it reaches the first bad block.
The man page suggests "noerror" might be the option you're looking for....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> The man page suggests "noerror" might be the option you're looking for....
That makes it ignore *read* errors, but not *write* errors.
With enough Googling, I found lots of people complaining about this, but
no fixes for it.
However, I discovered a program called dd_rescue which ignores write
errors by default. So that solves me problem...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> With enough Googling, I found lots of people complaining about this, but
> no fixes for it.
I think the fix is to write your own DD program. If you're just zeroing a
disk, it's probably about 10 lines of code.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
There aren't any trees on Mars.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Does anybody know of a way to make the Unix "dd" tool *not* abort if the
> output device has bad blocks? (That's *output*, not input.) I'm trying
> to erase a harddrive, but it appears to be defective. dd keeps giving up
> as soon as it reaches the first bad block.
Dunno if they help in that direction, but have you tried ddrescue or
dd_rescue?
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Dunno if they help in that direction, but have you tried ddrescue or
> dd_rescue?
dd_rescue did what I wanted.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:35:11 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> The man page suggests "noerror" might be the option you're looking
>> for....
>
> That makes it ignore *read* errors, but not *write* errors.
>
> With enough Googling, I found lots of people complaining about this, but
> no fixes for it.
>
> However, I discovered a program called dd_rescue which ignores write
> errors by default. So that solves me problem...
Ah, that would explain the difference - I had used that for imaging a
dead hard drive, but it would've been read errors.
But it seems you found your answer. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Eero Ahonen wrote:
>
>> Dunno if they help in that direction, but have you tried ddrescue or
>> dd_rescue?
>
> dd_rescue did what I wanted.
>
I just realized you had written that earlier. But hey, 1) problem
solved, 2) you did yourself (I assume). :)
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
