1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Disk question

Discussion in 'Windows 7' started by John B. slocomb, Jun 12, 2010.

  1. John B. slocomb

    John B. slocomb Flightless Bird

    Some time ago I installed a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB drive. I
    installed Windows 7 and Fedora 12 and everything was fine until I
    deleted the Linux partitions, re-partitioned, and installed Fedora 13.
    Almost immediately after installing F-13 a warning appeared that the
    disk was failing because there were too many bad blocks, apparently a
    count of blocks that it was necessary to re-assign. However, the disk
    continued to operate normally with no disk read or write errors.

    After several months of warnings I elected to replace the disk with a
    Western Digital 500 GB disk and have had no further warnings.

    After replacing the disk I tested it using a Hitachi disk test
    utility, which performs a 1.5 hour disk test. The results - "No
    Errors" The same utility can check the S.M.A.R.T. disk functions and
    that shows normal operation - no error.

    Now the question. Should I assume that the disk is usable based on the
    Hitachi tests or should I scrap it based on the Fedora tests?

    Cheers,

    John B.
    (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
     
  2. Alias

    Alias Flightless Bird

    John B. slocomb wrote:
    > Some time ago I installed a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB drive. I
    > installed Windows 7 and Fedora 12 and everything was fine until I
    > deleted the Linux partitions, re-partitioned, and installed Fedora 13.
    > Almost immediately after installing F-13 a warning appeared that the
    > disk was failing because there were too many bad blocks, apparently a
    > count of blocks that it was necessary to re-assign. However, the disk
    > continued to operate normally with no disk read or write errors.
    >
    > After several months of warnings I elected to replace the disk with a
    > Western Digital 500 GB disk and have had no further warnings.
    >
    > After replacing the disk I tested it using a Hitachi disk test
    > utility, which performs a 1.5 hour disk test. The results - "No
    > Errors" The same utility can check the S.M.A.R.T. disk functions and
    > that shows normal operation - no error.
    >
    > Now the question. Should I assume that the disk is usable based on the
    > Hitachi tests or should I scrap it based on the Fedora tests?
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > John B.
    > (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)


    Try using Seagate's Disc Wizard to format the hard drive using the long
    method. That sometimes will sort out bad blocks. It will take hours.

    --
    Alias
     
  3. Bob I

    Bob I Flightless Bird

    Two out of three say there are no problems. Perhaps the Fedora is confused?

    On 6/12/2010 7:40 AM, John B. slocomb wrote:
    > Some time ago I installed a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB drive. I
    > installed Windows 7 and Fedora 12 and everything was fine until I
    > deleted the Linux partitions, re-partitioned, and installed Fedora 13.
    > Almost immediately after installing F-13 a warning appeared that the
    > disk was failing because there were too many bad blocks, apparently a
    > count of blocks that it was necessary to re-assign. However, the disk
    > continued to operate normally with no disk read or write errors.
    >
    > After several months of warnings I elected to replace the disk with a
    > Western Digital 500 GB disk and have had no further warnings.
    >
    > After replacing the disk I tested it using a Hitachi disk test
    > utility, which performs a 1.5 hour disk test. The results - "No
    > Errors" The same utility can check the S.M.A.R.T. disk functions and
    > that shows normal operation - no error.
    >
    > Now the question. Should I assume that the disk is usable based on the
    > Hitachi tests or should I scrap it based on the Fedora tests?
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > John B.
    > (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
     
  4. SC Tom

    SC Tom Flightless Bird

    "John B. slocomb" <johnbslocomb@invalid.com> wrote in message
    news:ntv61651hi39dbup2frf6855fg6crhb6v9@4ax.com...
    > Some time ago I installed a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB drive. I
    > installed Windows 7 and Fedora 12 and everything was fine until I
    > deleted the Linux partitions, re-partitioned, and installed Fedora 13.
    > Almost immediately after installing F-13 a warning appeared that the
    > disk was failing because there were too many bad blocks, apparently a
    > count of blocks that it was necessary to re-assign. However, the disk
    > continued to operate normally with no disk read or write errors.
    >
    > After several months of warnings I elected to replace the disk with a
    > Western Digital 500 GB disk and have had no further warnings.
    >
    > After replacing the disk I tested it using a Hitachi disk test
    > utility, which performs a 1.5 hour disk test. The results - "No
    > Errors" The same utility can check the S.M.A.R.T. disk functions and
    > that shows normal operation - no error.
    >
    > Now the question. Should I assume that the disk is usable based on the
    > Hitachi tests or should I scrap it based on the Fedora tests?
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > John B.
    > (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)


    You could try the Seagate diagnostics and see what it says:
    http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.j...toid=720bd20cacdec010VgnVCM100000dd04090aRCRD

    --
    SC Tom
     
  5. Percival P. Cassidy

    Percival P. Cassidy Flightless Bird

    On 06/12/10 08:40 am, John B. slocomb wrote:

    > Some time ago I installed a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB drive. I
    > installed Windows 7 and Fedora 12 and everything was fine until I
    > deleted the Linux partitions, re-partitioned, and installed Fedora 13.
    > Almost immediately after installing F-13 a warning appeared that the
    > disk was failing because there were too many bad blocks, apparently a
    > count of blocks that it was necessary to re-assign. However, the disk
    > continued to operate normally with no disk read or write errors.
    >
    > After several months of warnings I elected to replace the disk with a
    > Western Digital 500 GB disk and have had no further warnings.
    >
    > After replacing the disk I tested it using a Hitachi disk test
    > utility, which performs a 1.5 hour disk test. The results - "No
    > Errors" The same utility can check the S.M.A.R.T. disk functions and
    > that shows normal operation - no error.
    >
    > Now the question. Should I assume that the disk is usable based on the
    > Hitachi tests or should I scrap it based on the Fedora tests?


    Some Seagate drives manufactured during the last year or two have bad
    firmware. Go to the Seagate Web site and enter the model# and serial# to
    find out whether yours needs an update.

    Perce
     
  6. Canuck57

    Canuck57 Flightless Bird

    On 12/06/2010 6:40 AM, John B. slocomb wrote:
    > Some time ago I installed a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB drive. I
    > installed Windows 7 and Fedora 12 and everything was fine until I
    > deleted the Linux partitions, re-partitioned, and installed Fedora 13.
    > Almost immediately after installing F-13 a warning appeared that the
    > disk was failing because there were too many bad blocks, apparently a
    > count of blocks that it was necessary to re-assign. However, the disk
    > continued to operate normally with no disk read or write errors.


    Because the MS Windows boot loader is so brain dead, most install
    programs put the boot loader in a seperate partition or in with Linux.
    So when you whacked the Linux partition, you probably wipped out the
    boot loader.

    If you are running 3rd class OEM versions, you probably do not have the
    ability to rewrite the MS Windows boot tracks. Some might have some
    utilities that might help.

    > After several months of warnings I elected to replace the disk with a
    > Western Digital 500 GB disk and have had no further warnings.


    Always good to replace disks early.

    > After replacing the disk I tested it using a Hitachi disk test
    > utility, which performs a 1.5 hour disk test. The results - "No
    > Errors" The same utility can check the S.M.A.R.T. disk functions and
    > that shows normal operation - no error.
    >
    > Now the question. Should I assume that the disk is usable based on the
    > Hitachi tests or should I scrap it based on the Fedora tests?


    Hard to tell. I have seen this situation go both ways. But tend
    towards saying if BIOS is set right, and Linux says it is bad, replace
    it. I have seen SMART tests pass after initial trouble, then pass, then
    fail shortly there after.

    --
    Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.
     
  7. Frank

    Frank Flightless Bird

    On 6/12/2010 1:11 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
    > On 12/06/2010 6:40 AM, John B. slocomb wrote:
    >> Some time ago I installed a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB drive. I
    >> installed Windows 7 and Fedora 12 and everything was fine until I
    >> deleted the Linux partitions, re-partitioned, and installed Fedora 13.
    >> Almost immediately after installing F-13 a warning appeared that the
    >> disk was failing because there were too many bad blocks, apparently a
    >> count of blocks that it was necessary to re-assign. However, the disk
    >> continued to operate normally with no disk read or write errors.

    >
    > Because the MS Windows boot loader is so brain dead, most install
    > programs put the boot loader in a seperate partition or in with Linux.
    > So when you whacked the Linux partition, you probably wipped out the
    > boot loader.
    >
    > If you are running 3rd class OEM versions, you probably do not have the
    > ability to rewrite the MS Windows boot tracks. Some might have some
    > utilities that might help.
    >

    WoW! You really have no idea what the OP is talking about do you. You
    must be drunk or on drugs or both and your MS hatred has taken over your
    little, dysfunctional brain.
    But we've all seen this bullshit dreck from you in the past.
    Get some help asshole.

    >> After several months of warnings I elected to replace the disk with a
    >> Western Digital 500 GB disk and have had no further warnings.

    >
    > Always good to replace disks early.
    >
    >> After replacing the disk I tested it using a Hitachi disk test
    >> utility, which performs a 1.5 hour disk test. The results - "No
    >> Errors" The same utility can check the S.M.A.R.T. disk functions and
    >> that shows normal operation - no error.
    >>
    >> Now the question. Should I assume that the disk is usable based on the
    >> Hitachi tests or should I scrap it based on the Fedora tests?

    >
    > Hard to tell. I have seen this situation go both ways. But tend towards
    > saying if BIOS is set right, and Linux says it is bad, replace it. I
    > have seen SMART tests pass after initial trouble, then pass, then fail
    > shortly there after.
    >
     
  8. Trimble Bracegirdle

    Trimble Bracegirdle Flightless Bird

    I think its a matter of different O/S's not understanding each others
    action.
    You don't say which O/S was giving those error messages.???
    Sounds like Windows.
    You tested the Disc very thoroughly with no problems found.. I say it OK.
    (\__/)
    (='.':]
    (")_(") mouse
     
  9. Parko

    Parko Flightless Bird

    On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 19:40:19 +0700, John B. slocomb sgraffire:

    > Some time ago I installed a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB drive. I
    > installed Windows 7 and Fedora 12 and everything was fine until I
    > deleted the Linux partitions, re-partitioned, and installed Fedora 13.
    > Almost immediately after installing F-13 a warning appeared that the
    > disk was failing because there were too many bad blocks, apparently a
    > count of blocks that it was necessary to re-assign. However, the disk
    > continued to operate normally with no disk read or write errors.
    >
    > After several months of warnings I elected to replace the disk with a
    > Western Digital 500 GB disk and have had no further warnings.
    >
    > After replacing the disk I tested it using a Hitachi disk test utility,
    > which performs a 1.5 hour disk test. The results - "No Errors" The same
    > utility can check the S.M.A.R.T. disk functions and that shows normal
    > operation - no error.
    >
    > Now the question. Should I assume that the disk is usable based on the
    > Hitachi tests or should I scrap it based on the Fedora tests?
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > John B.
    > (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)


    To check the disc install gsmartctl and smartmontools (Linux) and run
    them. See what the output says. In my experience Linux distributions
    complain about dodgy hardware long before Windows will...



    --
    Became a recluse
    And bought a computer
    Set it up in the home
    Elusive big one
     
  10. Frank

    Frank Flightless Bird

    On 6/12/2010 5:40 AM, John B. slocomb wrote:
    > Some time ago I installed a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB drive. I
    > installed Windows 7 and Fedora 12 and everything was fine until I
    > deleted the Linux partitions, re-partitioned, and installed Fedora 13.
    > Almost immediately after installing F-13 a warning appeared that the
    > disk was failing because there were too many bad blocks, apparently a
    > count of blocks that it was necessary to re-assign. However, the disk
    > continued to operate normally with no disk read or write errors.
    >
    > After several months of warnings I elected to replace the disk with a
    > Western Digital 500 GB disk and have had no further warnings.
    >
    > After replacing the disk I tested it using a Hitachi disk test
    > utility, which performs a 1.5 hour disk test. The results - "No
    > Errors" The same utility can check the S.M.A.R.T. disk functions and
    > that shows normal operation - no error.
    >
    > Now the question. Should I assume that the disk is usable based on the
    > Hitachi tests or should I scrap it based on the Fedora tests?
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > John B.
    > (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)


    The best HDD repair and diagnostic tool is SpinRite 6.
    There is nothing better for what you want.

    http://www.grc.com/intro.htm
     
  11. Schweik

    Schweik Flightless Bird

    On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 14:11:18 -0600, Canuck57 <Canuck57@nospam.com>
    wrote:

    >On 12/06/2010 6:40 AM, John B. slocomb wrote:
    >> Some time ago I installed a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB drive. I
    >> installed Windows 7 and Fedora 12 and everything was fine until I
    >> deleted the Linux partitions, re-partitioned, and installed Fedora 13.
    >> Almost immediately after installing F-13 a warning appeared that the
    >> disk was failing because there were too many bad blocks, apparently a
    >> count of blocks that it was necessary to re-assign. However, the disk
    >> continued to operate normally with no disk read or write errors.

    >
    >Because the MS Windows boot loader is so brain dead, most install
    >programs put the boot loader in a seperate partition or in with Linux.
    >So when you whacked the Linux partition, you probably wipped out the
    >boot loader.


    Where the boot loader went has nothing to do with it. The system
    booted and ran, why do you want to talk about the boot loader? It has
    nothing to do with a error warning that too many bad blocks had to be
    reassigned.

    >If you are running 3rd class OEM versions, you probably do not have the
    >ability to rewrite the MS Windows boot tracks. Some might have some
    >utilities that might help.


    As it had nothing to do with the problems I wonder why you keep going
    on about the boot tracks?

    >> After several months of warnings I elected to replace the disk with a
    >> Western Digital 500 GB disk and have had no further warnings.

    >
    >Always good to replace disks early.


    >> After replacing the disk I tested it using a Hitachi disk test
    >> utility, which performs a 1.5 hour disk test. The results - "No
    >> Errors" The same utility can check the S.M.A.R.T. disk functions and
    >> that shows normal operation - no error.
    >>
    >> Now the question. Should I assume that the disk is usable based on the
    >> Hitachi tests or should I scrap it based on the Fedora tests?

    >
    >Hard to tell. I have seen this situation go both ways. But tend
    >towards saying if BIOS is set right, and Linux says it is bad, replace
    >it. I have seen SMART tests pass after initial trouble, then pass, then
    >fail shortly there after.


    How so BIOS? The machine had worked normally for a couple of years and
    still works normally with no changes to the BIOS.

    It wasn't a SMART test it was a Hitachi disk test program
    that takes about 11/2 hours to run the test.

    Cheers,

    Schweik
    (goodsoldierschweikatgmail)
     
  12. Schweik

    Schweik Flightless Bird

    On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 23:06:23 +0100, "Trimble Bracegirdle"
    <no-spam@never.spam> wrote:

    >I think its a matter of different O/S's not understanding each others
    >action.
    >You don't say which O/S was giving those error messages.???
    >Sounds like Windows.
    >You tested the Disc very thoroughly with no problems found.. I say it OK.
    >(\__/)
    >(='.':]
    >(")_(") mouse
    >


    Windows says nothing. It was the Fedora 13 system that complained
    after I wiped the Linux partitions and re-installed Fedora 13. the
    Fedora 12 installation had not made a murmur.

    Besides, Windows runs in a Windows partition and Linux runs in the
    Linux partitions and neither normally has access to the others area.

    Cheers,

    Schweik
    (goodsoldierschweikatgmail)
     
  13. Canuck57

    Canuck57 Flightless Bird

    On 13/06/2010 6:50 AM, Schweik wrote:
    > On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 14:11:18 -0600, Canuck57<Canuck57@nospam.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> On 12/06/2010 6:40 AM, John B. slocomb wrote:
    >>> Some time ago I installed a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB drive. I
    >>> installed Windows 7 and Fedora 12 and everything was fine until I
    >>> deleted the Linux partitions, re-partitioned, and installed Fedora 13.
    >>> Almost immediately after installing F-13 a warning appeared that the
    >>> disk was failing because there were too many bad blocks, apparently a
    >>> count of blocks that it was necessary to re-assign. However, the disk
    >>> continued to operate normally with no disk read or write errors.

    >>
    >> Because the MS Windows boot loader is so brain dead, most install
    >> programs put the boot loader in a seperate partition or in with Linux.
    >> So when you whacked the Linux partition, you probably wipped out the
    >> boot loader.

    >
    > Where the boot loader went has nothing to do with it. The system
    > booted and ran, why do you want to talk about the boot loader? It has
    > nothing to do with a error warning that too many bad blocks had to be
    > reassigned.


    Sure does, if it points to a removed partition that no longer exists.

    >> Hard to tell. I have seen this situation go both ways. But tend
    >> towards saying if BIOS is set right, and Linux says it is bad, replace
    >> it. I have seen SMART tests pass after initial trouble, then pass, then
    >> fail shortly there after.

    >
    > How so BIOS? The machine had worked normally for a couple of years and
    > still works normally with no changes to the BIOS.
    >
    > It wasn't a SMART test it was a Hitachi disk test program
    > that takes about 11/2 hours to run the test.


    Batteries go dead and weird settings lost is one common issue. Plus
    when things go wrong, people putz...

    But when in doubt, I replace the things. A 1 TB drive is cheap.

    --
    Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.
     
  14. Canuck57

    Canuck57 Flightless Bird

    On 13/06/2010 6:50 AM, Schweik wrote:
    > On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 23:06:23 +0100, "Trimble Bracegirdle"
    > <no-spam@never.spam> wrote:
    >
    >> I think its a matter of different O/S's not understanding each others
    >> action.
    >> You don't say which O/S was giving those error messages.???
    >> Sounds like Windows.
    >> You tested the Disc very thoroughly with no problems found.. I say it OK.
    >> (\__/)
    >> (='.':]
    >> (")_(") mouse
    >>

    >
    > Windows says nothing. It was the Fedora 13 system that complained
    > after I wiped the Linux partitions and re-installed Fedora 13. the
    > Fedora 12 installation had not made a murmur.
    >
    > Besides, Windows runs in a Windows partition and Linux runs in the
    > Linux partitions and neither normally has access to the others area.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Schweik
    > (goodsoldierschweikatgmail)


    So which boot loader were you using? MS Windows or Grub?

    http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/10/html/Installation_Guide/ch-bootloader.html

    --
    Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.
     
  15. Trimble Bracegirdle

    Trimble Bracegirdle Flightless Bird

    The Spin Rite 6 seems to date from 2004 ..Will it work on Vista / Win 7
    64 Bit ???
    (\__/)
    (='.':]
    (")_(") mouse
     
  16. Pen

    Pen Flightless Bird

    On 6/13/2010 6:34 PM, Trimble Bracegirdle wrote:
    > The Spin Rite 6 seems to date from 2004 ..Will it work on Vista / Win 7
    > 64 Bit ???
    > (\__/)
    > (='.':]
    > (")_(") mouse
    >
    >

    Spinrite works from a DOS clone. You boot to it. The
    operating system is immaterial.
     
  17. Parko

    Parko Flightless Bird

    On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 19:50:53 +0700, Schweik sgraffire:

    > Besides, Windows runs in a Windows partition and Linux runs in the Linux
    > partitions and neither normally has access to the others area.


    I do beg to differ. Windows 7 home premium from Linux Mint:

    Parko@gruntmaster-5000 /media/C81C81E11C81CAC0 $ ls -a
    .. hiberfil.sys pagefile.sys
    ... install.exe PerfLogs
    autoexec.bat install.ini prefs.js
    Boot install.res.1028.dll ProgramData
    Boot.BAK install.res.1031.dll Program Files
    Boot.ini.saved install.res.1033.dll Program Files (x86)
    bootmgr install.res.1036.dll Python31
    BOOTSECT.BAK install.res.1040.dll Recovery
    Config.Msi install.res.1041.dll $Recycle.Bin
    config.sys install.res.1042.dll RECYCLER
    Documents and Settings install.res.2052.dll System Volume Information
    eula.1028.txt install.res.3082.dll Temp
    eula.1031.txt Intel Users
    eula.1033.txt IO.SYS VC_RED.cab
    eula.1036.txt mbam-error.txt vcredist.bmp
    eula.1040.txt MSDOS.SYS VC_RED.MSI
    eula.1041.txt MSOCache VritualRoot
    eula.1042.txt My Documents Windows
    eula.2052.txt NTDETECT.COM Windows.old
    eula.3082.txt ntldr Windows.old.000
    globdata.ini NVIDIA
    Parko@gruntmaster-5000 /media/C81C81E11C81CAC0 $

    If you want Linux FS access from windows you should use the older ext2fs
    and install this
    http://www.fs-driver.org/
    --
    Became a recluse
    And bought a computer
    Set it up in the home
    Elusive big one
     
  18. J. D.

    J. D. Flightless Bird

    On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:49:38 -0600, Canuck57 <Canuck57@nospam.com>
    wrote:

    >On 13/06/2010 6:50 AM, Schweik wrote:
    >> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 23:06:23 +0100, "Trimble Bracegirdle"
    >> <no-spam@never.spam> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I think its a matter of different O/S's not understanding each others
    >>> action.
    >>> You don't say which O/S was giving those error messages.???
    >>> Sounds like Windows.
    >>> You tested the Disc very thoroughly with no problems found.. I say it OK.
    >>> (\__/)
    >>> (='.':]
    >>> (")_(") mouse
    >>>

    >>
    >> Windows says nothing. It was the Fedora 13 system that complained
    >> after I wiped the Linux partitions and re-installed Fedora 13. the
    >> Fedora 12 installation had not made a murmur.
    >>
    >> Besides, Windows runs in a Windows partition and Linux runs in the
    >> Linux partitions and neither normally has access to the others area.
    >>
    >> Cheers,
    >>
    >> Schweik
    >> (goodsoldierschweikatgmail)

    >
    >So which boot loader were you using? MS Windows or Grub?
    >
    >http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/10/html/Installation_Guide/ch-bootloader.html



    Well, as I believe I wrote, There are two systems on the disk. Windows
    7 and Linux.... Now, since there would be very little logic in having
    two systems on the same disk if they were not both bootable what do
    you think I'm using to boot with? The Windows boot system that will
    only boot to Windows? Or maybe something else?

    Cheers,

    John D. Slocomb
    (jdslocombatgmail)
     
  19. J. D.

    J. D. Flightless Bird

    On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:47:23 -0600, Canuck57 <Canuck57@nospam.com>
    wrote:

    >On 13/06/2010 6:50 AM, Schweik wrote:
    >> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 14:11:18 -0600, Canuck57<Canuck57@nospam.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 12/06/2010 6:40 AM, John B. slocomb wrote:
    >>>> Some time ago I installed a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB drive. I
    >>>> installed Windows 7 and Fedora 12 and everything was fine until I
    >>>> deleted the Linux partitions, re-partitioned, and installed Fedora 13.
    >>>> Almost immediately after installing F-13 a warning appeared that the
    >>>> disk was failing because there were too many bad blocks, apparently a
    >>>> count of blocks that it was necessary to re-assign. However, the disk
    >>>> continued to operate normally with no disk read or write errors.
    >>>
    >>> Because the MS Windows boot loader is so brain dead, most install
    >>> programs put the boot loader in a seperate partition or in with Linux.
    >>> So when you whacked the Linux partition, you probably wipped out the
    >>> boot loader.

    >>
    >> Where the boot loader went has nothing to do with it. The system
    >> booted and ran, why do you want to talk about the boot loader? It has
    >> nothing to do with a error warning that too many bad blocks had to be
    >> reassigned.

    >
    >Sure does, if it points to a removed partition that no longer exists.


    Go back and read what I originally wrote. "The disk booted and ran
    normally". then come back and tell me what the boot section has to
    with the problem?

    >
    >>> Hard to tell. I have seen this situation go both ways. But tend
    >>> towards saying if BIOS is set right, and Linux says it is bad, replace
    >>> it. I have seen SMART tests pass after initial trouble, then pass, then
    >>> fail shortly there after.

    >>
    >> How so BIOS? The machine had worked normally for a couple of years and
    >> still works normally with no changes to the BIOS.
    >>
    >> It wasn't a SMART test it was a Hitachi disk test program
    >> that takes about 11/2 hours to run the test.

    >
    >Batteries go dead and weird settings lost is one common issue. Plus
    >when things go wrong, people putz...
    >
    >But when in doubt, I replace the things. A 1 TB drive is cheap.


    The system boots and runs normally so you will change a battery? Weird
    settings lost? Whatever are you talking about?

    Cheers,

    John D. Slocomb
    (jdslocombatgmail)
     
  20. Alias

    Alias Flightless Bird

    J. D. wrote:
    > On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:49:38 -0600, Canuck57<Canuck57@nospam.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> On 13/06/2010 6:50 AM, Schweik wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 23:06:23 +0100, "Trimble Bracegirdle"
    >>> <no-spam@never.spam> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I think its a matter of different O/S's not understanding each others
    >>>> action.
    >>>> You don't say which O/S was giving those error messages.???
    >>>> Sounds like Windows.
    >>>> You tested the Disc very thoroughly with no problems found.. I say it OK.
    >>>> (\__/)
    >>>> (='.':]
    >>>> (")_(") mouse
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Windows says nothing. It was the Fedora 13 system that complained
    >>> after I wiped the Linux partitions and re-installed Fedora 13. the
    >>> Fedora 12 installation had not made a murmur.
    >>>
    >>> Besides, Windows runs in a Windows partition and Linux runs in the
    >>> Linux partitions and neither normally has access to the others area.
    >>>
    >>> Cheers,
    >>>
    >>> Schweik
    >>> (goodsoldierschweikatgmail)

    >>
    >> So which boot loader were you using? MS Windows or Grub?
    >>
    >> http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/10/html/Installation_Guide/ch-bootloader.html

    >
    >
    > Well, as I believe I wrote, There are two systems on the disk. Windows
    > 7 and Linux.... Now, since there would be very little logic in having
    > two systems on the same disk if they were not both bootable what do
    > you think I'm using to boot with? The Windows boot system that will
    > only boot to Windows? Or maybe something else?
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > John D. Slocomb
    > (jdslocombatgmail)


    I use the BIOS. With my ASUS MB, all I have to do is hit F8 and then
    choose which hard drive I would like to boot to. I have two hard drives
    with Windows on one and Ubuntu on the other. When Ubuntu has a kernel or
    Grub update, I power down and disconnect the Windows drive before
    updating so that it doesn't write anything to the Windows drive.

    --
    Alias
     

Share This Page