Re: [LUG] Checking a hard disk

To: list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: Re: [LUG] Checking a hard disk

From: Simon Avery <digdilem@xxxxxxxxx>

Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 19:36:40 +0000

Delivered-to: dclug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dcglug.org.uk; s=1412586362; h=Sender:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Reply-To:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version; bh=hGmaMOWZzIbg4zYVZZcwrUR0BdLWuA7vzVDoCRReD50=; b=PLLpQn7q0++5dI8q0ZDboL/gCIt5FHQ6+JbCMpGIrHcZnVLK6n6zs2i6UPnsfX3oqMUDxLdQFYNiSj+xJza4e3N30VB+CdexOVnYGfPleDaVdEmOwFWcSpLWCDtvR537W6Hl2lSENtNSie2HOKx0M4RMTfVK417TaOXyavRZPYE=;

Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=3ewKp7oSjmbRtW1976Q/2DgD+dOHpR2b2kNTajb8gx8=; b=upg7cIFKnU69fBXuGiyvvsbew6W9WA6cTqMbNtVOq+CuFafz41xYmWMjH6hkYjBCBx HIFJ75xiRcJnxtk+DVwPtlx/e59BQViqfC1cAD/Rmvu8I23nfD/u77qbHRFT5rchCCPC 2yI4KcOFBnQUag6I4SSeE82oGEcmjQ5lQG2gXFfYXieW6/Mea6PlilF3YYR5ifvSaVME vKdji0sOzJcoe49kKu33uT/t4v+fM7ujOv2dqqMtjnzwNpeoBIjehnk4EE01hzHuu6CN T9OOU4IrRBoz1wc7rFXD0bIE2TGKxIgtT6UGbAOvFHrjeOpEyZxf+RgIYoI/iHdRGLtV 15Yw==

On 22 February 2015 at 19:17, Roland Tarver <roland.tarver@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

With this encouraging result, should I take it that the disk is totally fine to use or should I be running another diagnostic test?

Why did you run BB anyway - do you have a reason to think it's dodgy? (Other than like every other hard drive that has ever existed, it is merely lying in wait for the absolute worst time to fail. )

The test does what it's designed to do, but hdd firmware can mask bad blocks when it locks them away from the OS.Â

References:

[LUG] Checking a hard disk
- From: Roland Tarver