On jan. 18, 21:40, Towncat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On jan. 12, 22:20, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 01/12/08 11:40, Towncat wrote:
>
> > > Hi,
>
> > > I did a
>
> > > /sbin/badblocks -c 10240 -w -t random -v /dev/sda2
>
> > Why? Don't you trust brand new disk drives?
>
> Wel
On jan. 12, 22:20, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 01/12/08 11:40, Towncat wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
> > I did a
>
> > /sbin/badblocks -c 10240 -w -t random -v /dev/sda2
>
> Why? Don't you trust brand new disk drives?
Well, you do have a point... But then, this is the only time I can do
this
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 11:14:13AM -0800, Towncat wrote:
> On jan. 12, 19:20, Michael Shuler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 01/12/2008 11:40 AM, Towncat wrote:
> >
> > > /sbin/badblocks -c 10240 -w -t random -v /dev/sda2
> >
> > > where sda2 is a 320 gb partition. The process has been running fo
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 09:40:36AM -0800, Towncat wrote:
>
> I did a
>
> /sbin/badblocks -c 10240 -w -t random -v /dev/sda2
>
> where sda2 is a 320 gb partition. The process has been running for
> approx 18 hours and is just over three thirds. Is this really supposed
> to be so slow, or is there
On 01/12/08 15:29, Alex Samad wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 03:11:57PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 01/12/08 11:40, Towncat wrote:
Hi,
I did a
/sbin/badblocks -c 10240 -w -t random -v /dev/sda2
Why? Don't you trust brand new disk drives?
where sda2 is a 320 gb partition. The process has
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 03:11:57PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 01/12/08 11:40, Towncat wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I did a
>>
>> /sbin/badblocks -c 10240 -w -t random -v /dev/sda2
>
> Why? Don't you trust brand new disk drives?
>
>> where sda2 is a 320 gb partition. The process has been running for
>>
On 01/12/08 11:40, Towncat wrote:
Hi,
I did a
/sbin/badblocks -c 10240 -w -t random -v /dev/sda2
Why? Don't you trust brand new disk drives?
where sda2 is a 320 gb partition. The process has been running for
approx 18 hours and is just over three thirds. Is this really supposed
to be so sl
On jan. 12, 19:20, Michael Shuler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 01/12/2008 11:40 AM, Towncat wrote:
>
> > /sbin/badblocks -c 10240 -w -t random -v /dev/sda2
>
> > where sda2 is a 320 gb partition. The process has been running for
> > approx 18 hours and is just over three thirds. Is this really s
On 01/12/2008 11:40 AM, Towncat wrote:
/sbin/badblocks -c 10240 -w -t random -v /dev/sda2
where sda2 is a 320 gb partition. The process has been running for
approx 18 hours and is just over three thirds. Is this really supposed
to be so slow, or is there something wrong? The machine is a Core Du
Hi,
I did a
/sbin/badblocks -c 10240 -w -t random -v /dev/sda2
where sda2 is a 320 gb partition. The process has been running for
approx 18 hours and is just over three thirds. Is this really supposed
to be so slow, or is there something wrong? The machine is a Core Duo
1,6, 2GB memory.
Tc
--
10 matches
Mail list logo