> It is nice that speed is improving now, but the gain I was thinking about was > a sustained speed for a longer time before trimming.
Yeah well, clearly we can't always get what we want... ;-) > In case you feel like trying reverse mode, take into account that reversing > direction in the middle of a rescue is tricky. (It continues backward from > the current position, not from the end). Not sure I want to exchange "tricky" for this "great" run right now - I mean, 6 days to reclaim 30GB from the first 500GB isn't great... but it isn't terrible either. Particularly considering what the image for the rest of the disc seems to look like - I think I will probably get through it in two weeks. Or do you think this would significantly increase the speed? And: would your proposal make sense after I'm done with the current run? cheers, David On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Antonio Diaz Diaz <[email protected]> wrote: > David Deutsch wrote: >> >> Quick update - Seems like speed is indeed improving (slightly redacted >> for space): > > > It is nice that speed is improving now, but the gain I was thinking about > was a sustained speed for a longer time before trimming. > > > >> Close to breaking 1750GB, too. I think this kills the "1/8 of the disc >> is dead" idea, ie. one platter/side or read head being dead. Still >> curious what could produce such a regular error, though. Particularly >> across the entire space of the disc. Or maybe I just have no frigging >> clue how hard discs werk (I really don't). > > > To make things difficult, most probably every disc works differently. :-) > > > >> Reading still progresses in a steady pace in general, although it's >> kind of weird: It only reads every two to three minutes, sometimes up >> to ten. Not sure whether that is the drive hardware failing more, in >> general (though speeds improving would say otherwise) or just the >> general issue with bad sectors. Then again: Shouldn't it just skip >> past those? Or are the sectors around the bad ones just hard to get >> anything out of? > > > The sectors around the bad ones are hard to get out of. > > > >> This is what it looks like now in ddrescueview, btw: > > > I am just now testing an idea inspired by your images; making each copying > pass run in the inverse direction as the previous one. This should read > faster all those large non-tried areas remaining behind the large errors. > > In case you feel like trying reverse mode, take into account that reversing > direction in the middle of a rescue is tricky. (It continues backward from > the current position, not from the end). The following sequence makes the > trick: > > ddrescue your_options_and_files -i position -s 512 > ddrescue your_options_and_files -R > > > Best regards, > Antonio. _______________________________________________ Bug-ddrescue mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-ddrescue
