On Sun, 19 Feb 2006, Jason Boxman wrote:
> On Sunday 19 February 2006 17:53, Eben King wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006, Jason Boxman wrote:
> <snip>
>>>
>>> How fast would you like damaged media to be?
>>
>> Oh, 950 K/s is fine under those circumstances. A 5.5 minute wait seems
>> excessive, though. Having an unoptimized NTFS driver isn't really Linux's
>> fault; AIUI, MS won't release the specs for NTFS so Linux's driver is
>> reverse-engineered.
>
> Why only 950 KB/s? You don't have a USB 2.0 connector on your target box?
Yeah, I must; my other USB HD gets 15-20 MB/s. ehci-hcd loads too. I'm
chalking it up to "poorly optimized NTFS driver".
>>> Write the data back to a disk that isn't failing?
>>
>> The disk is fine; it was the filesystem that was corrupt.
>
> Even vfat ought to be able to be written to faster than a few hundred KB/s.
I think so too. It appears to work fine on small files, but on big ones it
chokes. I haven't found the threshold yet.
> Were you shooting for ~ 950KB/s? If you can't do USB 2.0 and time isn't a
> factor, I'd just wait it out. :)
I'm creating a mondo file to loopback mount etc in parallel (it gets made
while tar churns slowly), to see which is faster.
-- -eben ebQenW1@EtaRmpTabYayU.rIr.OcoPm home.tampabay.rr.com/hactarQ: What kind of modem did Jimi Hendrix use? A: A purple Hayes. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 18:35:23 EDT