From: John McCormac (jmcc at domain hackwatch.com)
Date: Mon 30 Aug 1999 - 23:25:16 IST
Paul Curtayne wrote:
> So, I went to do this on a 486 with 36MB RAM, and an almost new 2GB
How old is the disk and what brand?
> Scandisk started marking them as bad. This was unbelievably slow, and
> when it got to the latter parts of the disk which contained no data, I
> aborted it.
Low level checking is always slow on an old machine.
> My clients are naturally perturbed as it is a new-ish HD, and they
> have had lots of miscellaneous problems recently. They are pressuring
> me heavily for an explanation, and I need reassurance that my patches
> didn't cause damage.
Given that the box is a 486, it is probably going to be 5 years or so
old. It sounds more like failing technology than software. However the
bit rot on the harddrive is more characteristic of a drive at the end of
its operational life.
> Question: apart from the disk being a factory dud, what explanations
> can I offer? What causes bad blocks?
Since the drive is not a new one (see earlier), you may have got an
older ex-equipment drive. One other thought - have you any AntiVirus
progs checking the harddrive?
Regards...jmcc
-- ******************************************** John McCormac * Hack Watch News jmcc at domain hackwatch.com * 22 Viewmount, Voice: +353-51-873640 * Waterford, BBS&Fax: +353-51-850143 * Ireland http://www.hackwatch.com/~kooltek ******************************************** -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6 mQCNAzAYPNsAAAEEAPGTHaNyitUTNAwF8BU6mF5PcbLQXdeuHf3xT6UOL+/Od+z+ ZOCAx8Ka9LJBjuQYw8hlqvTV5kceLlrP2HPqmk7YPOw1fQWlpTJof+ZMCxEVd1Qz TRet2vS/kiRQRYvKOaxoJhqIzUr1g3ovBnIdpKeo4KKULz9XKuxCgZsuLKkVAAUX tCJKb2huIE1jQ29ybWFjIDxqbWNjQGhhY2t3YXRjaC5jb20+tBJqbWNjQGhhY2t3 YXRjaC5jb20= =sTfy -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:04:31 GMT