On 2009-11-04, Mike Jones <Not@Arizona.Bay> wrote:
>
> My problem is that I can't get anything to read the disk.
>
>
> mount -t iso9660 -o ro /dev/hda /mnt/tmp
>
> mount -t ext2 -o ro /dev/hda /mnt/tmp
>
> mount -t auto -o ro /dev/hda /mnt/tmp
>
> ...all bomb out with errors.
>

Why do you keep trying to mount it?

It's been said before:_Don't_ mount it. Use ddrescue.

Even better: Make it a raw device, that's helped me sometimes when ddrescue
can't even read normal /dev, I've made it a raw device.

You'll get whatever bits and bytes there are left to recover.

Vahis
--
"Sunrise 7:56am (EET), sunset 4:11pm (EET) at Espoo, Finland (8:15 hours daylight)"
http://waxborg.servepics.com
Linux 2.6.25.20-0.5-default #1 SMP 2009-08-14 01:48:11 +0200 x86_64
9:26am up 5 days 14:27, 12 users, load average: 0.10, 0.08, 0.08

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:33:21 +0000, Vahis wrote:

> On 2009-11-04, Mike Jones <Not@Arizona.Bay> wrote:
>>
>> My problem is that I can't get anything to read the disk.
>>
>>
>> mount -t iso9660 -o ro /dev/hda /mnt/tmp
>>
>> mount -t ext2 -o ro /dev/hda /mnt/tmp
>>
>> mount -t auto -o ro /dev/hda /mnt/tmp
>>
>> ...all bomb out with errors.
>>
>>
> Why do you keep trying to mount it?
>
> It's been said before:_Don't_ mount it. Use ddrescue.

He says he hasn't tried ddrescue yet. Why, I don't know.

>
> Even better: Make it a raw device, that's helped me sometimes when
> ddrescue can't even read normal /dev, I've made it a raw device.

What do you mean by making it a raw device, and how do you do so?

>
> You'll get whatever bits and bytes there are left to recover.
>
> Vahis

Responding to jellybean stonerfish:

>> Why do you keep trying to mount it?
>>
>> It's been said before:_Don't_ mount it. Use ddrescue.
>
> He says he hasn't tried ddrescue yet. Why, I don't know.


Trying to exhaust all other options before installing something.

That, and the disk doesn't seem to even want to be recognised.

It does seem to be a physical problem, happening at the reader itself,
before any software can get a grip on it, though ddrescue might indeed do
the trick.

--
*===( http://www.400monkeys.com/God/
*===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
*===( http://www.slackware.com/

On 2009-11-05, jellybean stonerfish <stonerfish@geocities.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:33:21 +0000, Vahis wrote:
>
>> Why do you keep trying to mount it?
>>
>> It's been said before:_Don't_ mount it. Use ddrescue.
>
> He says he hasn't tried ddrescue yet. Why, I don't know.
>
>>
>> Even better: Make it a raw device, that's helped me sometimes when
>> ddrescue can't even read normal /dev, I've made it a raw device.
>
> What do you mean by making it a raw device, and how do you do so?

http://tinyurl.com/yl2pfxk

Vahis
--
"Sunrise 7:56am (EET), sunset 4:11pm (EET) at Espoo, Finland (8:15 hours daylight)"
http://waxborg.servepics.com
Linux 2.6.25.20-0.5-default #1 SMP 2009-08-14 01:48:11 +0200 x86_64
7:23pm up 6 days 0:24, 12 users, load average: 0.25, 0.25, 0.25

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:25:13 +0000, Vahis wrote:

> On 2009-11-05, jellybean stonerfish <stonerfish@geocities.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:33:21 +0000, Vahis wrote:
>>
>>> Why do you keep trying to mount it?
>>>
>>> It's been said before:_Don't_ mount it. Use ddrescue.
>>
>> He says he hasn't tried ddrescue yet. Why, I don't know.
>>
>>
>>> Even better: Make it a raw device, that's helped me sometimes when
>>> ddrescue can't even read normal /dev, I've made it a raw device.
>>
>> What do you mean by making it a raw device, and how do you do so?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yl2pfxk
>
> Vahis

Ok, Thanks.

On 2009-11-03, Mike Jones <Not@Arizona.Bay> wrote:

>> The problem with dvds is that they have massive error correction on
>> them. Thus by the time they crap out, there is a huge error rate But
>> certainly try reading it slowly, try reading it on different drives, try
>> on the same drive it was recorded on, etc.

> Would this work in reverse? As in, burning a CDROM in a DVD burner
> resulting in a sloppily burned CDROM?
>
> One would think that the things would have become more accurate, not less.

That's not experience shows. DVD's are much less reliable over time than
CD-ROM's. And CD-ROm's burned in a DVD burner are of less quality that if
they are in a CD burner. It helps somewhat to slow the burning, but stil...



--
Any time things appear to be going better, you have overlooked
something.

Responding to Rikishi42:

> On 2009-11-03, Mike Jones <Not@Arizona.Bay> wrote:
>
>>> The problem with dvds is that they have massive error correction on
>>> them. Thus by the time they crap out, there is a huge error rate But
>>> certainly try reading it slowly, try reading it on different drives,
>>> try on the same drive it was recorded on, etc.
>
>> Would this work in reverse? As in, burning a CDROM in a DVD burner
>> resulting in a sloppily burned CDROM?
>>
>> One would think that the things would have become more accurate, not
>> less.
>
> That's not experience shows. DVD's are much less reliable over time than
> CD-ROM's. And CD-ROm's burned in a DVD burner are of less quality that
> if they are in a CD burner. It helps somewhat to slow the burning, but
> stil...



I've been getting that idea from my experiences so far.

Looks like I've got another lump of hardware to buy then.

--
*===( http://www.400monkeys.com/God/
*===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
*===( http://www.slackware.com/

On 2009-11-06, Mike Jones <Not@Arizona.Bay> wrote:
>> That's not experience shows. DVD's are much less reliable over time than
>> CD-ROM's. And CD-ROm's burned in a DVD burner are of less quality that
>> if they are in a CD burner. It helps somewhat to slow the burning, but
>> stil...

> I've been getting that idea from my experiences so far.
>
> Looks like I've got another lump of hardware to buy then.

Well, it seems that BlueRay would be more reliable. Something to do with a
thicker, or more sturdy, layer. And also an extra layer on the label side.

I'm holding it off until prices drop dramatically, and actual experiences
start showing up on Usenet.

--
Any time things appear to be going better, you have overlooked
something.

Responding to Rikishi42:

> On 2009-11-06, Mike Jones <Not@Arizona.Bay> wrote:
>>> That's not experience shows. DVD's are much less reliable over time
>>> than CD-ROM's. And CD-ROm's burned in a DVD burner are of less quality
>>> that if they are in a CD burner. It helps somewhat to slow the
>>> burning, but stil...
>
>> I've been getting that idea from my experiences so far.
>>
>> Looks like I've got another lump of hardware to buy then.
>
> Well, it seems that BlueRay would be more reliable. Something to do with
> a thicker, or more sturdy, layer. And also an extra layer on the label
> side.
>
> I'm holding it off until prices drop dramatically, and actual
> experiences start showing up on Usenet.


I'll be avoiding it like the plague. Remember VHS? Do we /really/ want to
hand defining standards over to Sony again?

--
*=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
*=( For all your UK news needs.