Timeline for How to do a single pass with badblocks in destructive mode?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 25, 2022 at 18:41 | comment | added | Steven Lu | Ah, that makes more sense then. I do believe though for a really secure erase you'll also need multiple passes, I suppose letting it do all 4 passes ought to accomplish that well. | |
| Aug 25, 2022 at 10:15 | comment | added | Jon Bentley | @StevenLu Thanks for spotting that. Actually it was my question that was at fault rather than my answer. My aim when I wrote this was to destroy the data rather than check for errors. I've edited the question accordingly. | |
| Aug 25, 2022 at 3:15 | comment | added | Steven Lu | Keep in mind you can run badblocks in parallel. So if you had 10 of these drives to check you could do a full check on them in the ~72 hours instead of the unacceptable quantity of time that would be 720 hours (30 days). | |
| Aug 25, 2022 at 3:13 | comment | added | Steven Lu |
I don't get it. What about the entire discussion you had in the comments with @Slizzered? I think the most reasonable flags to use are -wsv (taking the -t 0 out from your answer here). I agree that 4 entire passes is a long time to wait and we often don't have that long to wait (my 14TB drives would take 72 hrs). And maybe most issues if there are issues will crop up within the first test. But it's really supposed to do a full pass of all 4 of those patterns... that's what the answer should be. I guess it's subjective because the meaning of "pass" is kind of up for debate here.
|
|
| Feb 21, 2022 at 12:42 | history | edited | Jon Bentley | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 57 characters in body
|
| Feb 21, 2022 at 12:33 | history | edited | Jon Bentley | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Changed example output to match example command and removed commentary
|
| Feb 21, 2022 at 11:24 | history | edited | Vlastimil Burián | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
adding verbose switch might be a good idea + I tested it myself, and added _proof_, will flag all the disputes in comments as no longer needed
|
| Feb 21, 2022 at 7:58 | history | edited | Vlastimil Burián | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
/dev/sdb1 does make no sence to me, one shall never do a "destructive scan" with a partition, I edited the line to aim on the whole disk + someone could run the command not really reading upon the `-w` manual, so I changed it the drive "letter" to `z`, less chance for mistakes, cheers
|
| Dec 6, 2019 at 21:02 | vote | accept | Jon Bentley | ||
| Dec 6, 2019 at 10:34 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Dec 6, 2019 at 20:59 | |||||
| S Sep 10, 2018 at 18:08 | history | edited | Jon Bentley | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Please look at the comments or the manpage; added quote for clearance
|
| S Sep 10, 2018 at 18:08 | history | suggested | ArchLinuxTux | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Please look at the comments or the manpage; added quote for clearance
|
| Sep 10, 2018 at 18:00 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Sep 10, 2018 at 18:08 | |||||
| May 5, 2015 at 8:24 | history | edited | Jon Bentley | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| May 5, 2015 at 7:43 | history | answered | Jon Bentley | CC BY-SA 3.0 |