Linux - SoftwareThis forum is for Software issues.
Having a problem installing a new program? Want to know which application is best for the job? Post your question in this forum.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
the problem is that you (we) have no any idea about the reason, so probably you will have additional 2 blocks on every [rainy] day or even the disk may die "suddenly". 2 blocks, 8 kb space itself is not a problem at all (of course). Recovering lost data is a problem and costs much more than a new disk.
If I run ntfsresize using a minus bad blocks option, do you think it will help?
How do I run ntfsresize using a minus bad blocks option, so that the drive will be 'safe' or will it be safe?
Do you have any other suggestion than running ntfsresize using minus bad blocks option?
Can I run ntfsresize when a 2TB drive has only 125GB free space; shortly will it affect my data in there?
(I am already checking about ntfsresize, but still want to get user opinion and advices)
P.S.: The more I read about ntfsresize, I realize that --bad-blocks is just a work out. Would Western Digital replace the drive since it has bad clusters and it is still under guarantee (They never replied my e-mail case though)?
The spliceing I/O error, and not being able to copy files in my expierence only happens on Western Digital Drives. I just returned 2 brand new WD Black 3TB (5yr warranty) drives with the same problem, Replaced with 3TB Hitachi drives used (2 years old) they work perfect. I have Hitachi drives over 10 yrs. old with zero errors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by imayneed
This is the chkdsk /r result from Windows and it shows only 2 bad clusters.
Code:
2 bad clusters.
8kb in bad sectors.
488369919 total allocation units on disk.
488333004 allocation units available on disk.
Because of that 8kb space, the disk is unsafe (I am asking because I don't have much knowledge about disks and bad clusters). It is just surprising me that 2 bad clusters would show a sign of being unsafe. Of course, I don't know anything about bad clusters or how many there can or should be.
WD replaced my 2 WD black 3TB drives with WD RED drives. (my brother had same Black problem).
I lost a ton of data on the WD Black drives that were only a few months old. The drives are Junk and should be removed from the market by WD.
Their (less expensive) RED drives seem to be Solid. Both my brother and I have had NO problems using these replacement 3TB 7200RPM drives.
I don't understand why WD continues to sell more expensive Black 5 yr warranted drives that Don't work?
I recommend all to stay away from WD Black drives, even for free. You will loose your data.
Old Hitachi 3TB 7200RPM are the best. I bought 2 used ones and never had a failure. I have owned Hitachi drives (purchased new) for over 10 years and never one failure. WD owns Hitachi now.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.