|
From: Jim K. <jek...@kl...> - 2003-09-25 06:03:19
|
Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote: > On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Jim Kleckner wrote: ... >>Do you have any idea how much danger there might be in clearing the bad >>block list? > > In theory 0. Think about it: that's a case when, for example, bad sectors > start to appear. Windows should handle it gracefully, otherwise everybody > who has bad sectors would have a problem. > > If you get the source and comment out only this one line [of course my > solution is much more complex but it still needs the time I don't have :(], > it should work, > > look_for_bad_sector(ctx->attr); > to > // look_for_bad_sector(ctx->attr); > > If you enlarge and you're _really_ unlucky ntfsresize might quit with error > if it tries to use just one of the bad sectors. But Windows chkdsk at boot > time (its scheduling by ntfsresize must be successful) must fix this. I > wrote ntfsresize in a way that any time it quits (or box crashes, power > outage, etc), the scheduled, boot time chkdsk must be always able to fix > the relevant NTFS. > > If it works out then don't forget to run chkdsk again with the "scan for > bad sectors" option. This part is not scheduled and I never looked how it's > possible however several people showed interest in this, so one day I might > look. > > Szaka I got around to doing this last week and it worked great, thanks! To ensure that there were still no bad blocks, I ran dd to read the entire disk and write it to /dev/null dd if=/dev/hda of=/dev/null No errors so I then ran a recompiled version of ntfsresize with the look_for_bad_sector call commented out as suggested. It worked fine and the subsequently scheduled chkdsk was clean. The filesystem was now 60GB instead of 20GB. Many thanks for the help! Jim |
