Re: SCSI Tape Corruption - 2nd round experiment result

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Tue, 15 May 2001, Lorenzo Marcantonio wrote:
> The differences:
> ----------------
> (File offsets in hex, patterns were found without other matches in
> the file)
> 
> First test:
> 64 bytes at D9E0800 (found starting at D9D8800, 32KB before)
> 
> Second test:
> 64 bytes at 2F187C0 (found starting at 2F107C0, 32KB before)
> 64 bytes at A8643C0 (found starting at A8343C0, 192KB before[!])
> 
> Third test:
> No differences (sheer luck?)
> 
> Fourth test:
> 32 bytes at B937640 (found starting at B8D7640, 384KB before[!!])
> 
> Conclusions (IMO):
> ------------------
> 
> It's the first time I see 64 consecutive corrupted bytes. Also, on the
> fourth test the data were from MUCH earlier in the file... (maybe in some
> remote cache area... I've got 512MB RAM, 1024MB swap)

I saw them before. However, in my case they were obviously the result of 2
consecutive 32-byte errors, as the latter occurred many more times.

I never saw an offset different from the block size, though.

Assuming you did have 32-byte errors, you had 7 errors for 1.3 GB.

I have approx. 6 errors for 256 MB. But I have only 128 MB RAM.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [e-mail]

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds