Thomas Schmitt wrote: >> When I read the block from /dev/sr0 what I get back is all-zeroes. The >> corresponding block on the udf image is full of non-zero data. >> the next 2048-byte block following 8585216 on /dev/sr1 is non-zero. >> > > Ouchers. > That looks much like a failure of transport or > drive. > It happens far before any Close Session failure > could spoil it directly, and it is hard to > imagine how such a final problem should leave > 8 MB unaltered and spoil a single block of 2048 > bytes. > If possible try to find out whether there are > more differing blocks in the image. > > It is a bit astounding that a first altered > block at that address disturbed the UDF tree > without any error message. > Did you check your kernel logs already ? > Sorry, I should have mentioned that. Yes, indeed I did check the kernel logs and they were clean! This is the only thing in there:
[1379091.856282] UDF-fs INFO UDF: Mounting volume 'Old C', timestamp 2009/11/24 22:02 (11e0) So it certainly sees /some/ of the UDF info. Gack! I looked to see if I could find any messages that may have occurred during writing also but no such luck, there are none to be found. FWIW the drive is connected via USB: [1215397.604019] usb 1-2: new high speed USB device using ehci_hcd and address 5 [1215397.737008] usb 1-2: configuration #1 chosen from 1 choice [1215397.737626] scsi8 : SCSI emulation for USB Mass Storage devices [1215397.737706] usb-storage: device found at 5 [1215397.737709] usb-storage: waiting for device to settle before scanning [1215402.736214] usb-storage: device scan complete [1215404.170839] scsi 8:0:0:0: CD-ROM HL-DT-ST BD-RE GGW-H20N XJ03 PQ: 0 ANSI: 0 [1215404.190820] sr1: scsi3-mmc drive: 40x/40x writer dvd-ram cd/rw xa/form2 cdda tray [1215404.191254] sr 8:0:0:0: Attached scsi CD-ROM sr1 [1215404.192384] sr 8:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg4 type 5 > Well, it would be expensive to make lots of > experiments and to compare the outcome. > But currently i see not much other opportunity > to gain wisdom. > Certainly! > My own experience with BD-R and BD-RE tells me > that they are quite reliable. At least compared > with early DVDs. > So if you need that backup then first try > single layer media. It should be not too > cumbersome to split 37 GB onto 22.5 GB media. > (I could provide my splitting backup program > scdbackup, though.) > > Any problem with the bus should show up with > BD-RE as much as with BD-R or BD-R DL. > > I have one BD-RE media right now also so I'll give that a try, just to see if I can get some other mistakes. I'll certainly be upset if it's the drive--I've used it hardly at all. It seems that this drive (Buffalo) is an LG OEM and LG has new firmware revisions but Buffalo is not releasing any updates. Bogus! -- Jens B. Jorgensen [email protected] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
