Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!clyde.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!samsung!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!n8emr!uncle!donlash
From: donlash@uncle.uucp (Donald Lashomb)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.3b1
Subject: Re: Fun with the Bad Block Table
Message-ID: <1991Feb18.124031.26729@uncle.uucp>
Date: 18 Feb 91 12:40:31 GMT
References: <1991Feb15.231011.19453@cbnewsc.att.com>
Reply-To: donlash@uncle.UUCP (Donald Lashomb)
Organization: U.N.C.L.E.
Lines: 19

In article <1991Feb15.231011.19453@cbnewsc.att.com> cmv@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (C M Votava) writes:
[...]
=OK, maybe sector 10 really means sector 11, so I un-bad-block sec 10 and
=bad-block sec 11. Still no good...rats! Well, after diddling around for a
=couple of days with this garbage, I finally did something that bad-blocked
=BOTH sectors 10 and 11... THAT WORKED! Just to double-check, I took each
=out one at a time and re-verified... they BOTH have to be marked as bad
=blocks to get rid of that nasty HDERR message.
=
=Anybody know why??? I don't.

Not really sure of this, but my guess is that the software deals with logical
blocks of 1024 bytes vs the physical blocks of 512 bytes (ie it uses pairs of
physical blocks).  Anyway, I just always lockout pairs when I get bad blocks,
so I never tried locking only one physical block to find out what would happen.

-Don
----
donlash@uncle.UUCP