DiskWarrior Error Codes
in [Mac Applications]
|
Prev: NeoOffice Mobile
Next: Letterbox and Widemail
From: Kevin McMurtrie on 30 Oct 2009 01:13 In article <C70EB388.49C5B%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: > In article 4ae91278$0$2003$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net, Kevin McMurtrie at > kevinmcm(a)sonic.net wrote on 10/28/09 11:56 PM: > > > In article <C70D679A.49B79%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, > > Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> In article 4ae7cfb7$0$2039$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net, Kevin McMurtrie at > >> kevinmcm(a)sonic.net wrote on 10/28/09 12:59 AM: > >> > >>> In article <C70D2F45.49B70%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, > >>> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Anyone know where I can find a list of them? I wanted to view a graph of > >>>> my > >>>> TM drive directory (I had DW graph it a few weeks ago, and was curious if > >>>> it > >>>> changed much), but halfway through I got a DW dialog (it has the DW badge > >>>> embedded in it) stating the drive couldn't be graphed because "an > >>>> unexpected > >>>> error occurred," and it referred to "error code (2403, -50)." > >>> > >>> Have you upgraded to DiskWarrior 4.2? > >> > >> No...I'm running 4.1. > >> > >> > >>> 4.1 will crash or fail on Time > >>> Machine volumes. 4.1.1 removes features that crash but misdiagnoses > >>> latency on a remote TM disk image as failing media. I haven't tried 4.2 > >>> but Alsoft says it's needed for reliable operation in 10.6. > >> > >> I mostly use TechTool Pro to check and repair my drives. I use DW mostly to > >> check the state of the directory prior to and after running TTP on my > >> internal drive (or my external clone drive). However, I've never had > >> occasion to use either TTP or DW to actually "repair" my TM volume. > >> > >> Thanks for the info, though...it's good to know. > >> > >> (Curious: Do you happen to know what those two DW errors mean?) > > > > No idea what the errors codes are. Check what it's logging to the > > console. > > > > I tried DW 4.2. Rebuilding a directory is the only remaining feature > > for TM disk images. It still stupidly believes that latency is I/O > > errors. > > I don't understand. Which part? > > > You should definitely stop using 4.1.0. Alsoft says it can cause minor > > damage. > > I don't recall seeing that on the website. (Historically, I've only used DW > to graph the directory, not to repair it -- I've been using TechTool Pro for > that.) It's on their web site. Graphing should be harmless but 4.1.0 has side effects if it's used for rebuilding. -- I won't see Goolge Groups replies because I must filter them as spam
From: Nick Naym on 30 Oct 2009 02:21 In article 4aea75f6$0$2036$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net, Kevin McMurtrie at kevinmcm(a)sonic.net wrote on 10/30/09 1:13 AM: .... .... >>> >>> I tried DW 4.2. Rebuilding a directory is the only remaining feature >>> for TM disk images. It still stupidly believes that latency is I/O >>> errors. >> >> I don't understand. > > Which part? Everything following "I tried DW 4.2." > >> >>> You should definitely stop using 4.1.0. Alsoft says it can cause minor >>> damage. >> >> I don't recall seeing that on the website. (Historically, I've only used DW >> to graph the directory, not to repair it -- I've been using TechTool Pro for >> that.) > > It's on their web site. Can you point me to where it is? I've looked (and just looked again), but though it may be staring me in the face, I didn't see it. > Graphing should be harmless but 4.1.0 has side > effects if it's used for rebuilding. I assume those "side effects" are what you meant above by "minor damage." -- iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)
From: Kevin McMurtrie on 30 Oct 2009 04:15 In article <C70FFE2B.49ED2%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: > In article 4aea75f6$0$2036$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net, Kevin McMurtrie at > kevinmcm(a)sonic.net wrote on 10/30/09 1:13 AM: > > ... > ... > > >>> > >>> I tried DW 4.2. Rebuilding a directory is the only remaining feature > >>> for TM disk images. It still stupidly believes that latency is I/O > >>> errors. > >> > >> I don't understand. > > > > Which part? > > Everything following "I tried DW 4.2." If you select a disk image in DW 4.2, like the type of storage Time Machine uses for network backups, it immediately rebuilds the directory. It doesn't offer any other options or user interaction. It also repeatedly complains about latency being I/O errors on remote disk images. More than a few of them causes the directory rebuild to abort. It's a dumb assumption that only I/O errors could cause latency. Here's the log entry it makes: Oct 27 22:21:25 desktop [0x0-0x5a75a7].com.alsoft.diskwarrior[48158]: DiskWarrior App: disk3s2: Bad (slow) blocks appearing in range 70444104 to 70444104, unless disk was asleep and delay was due to spin-up. (315) > > > >> > >>> You should definitely stop using 4.1.0. Alsoft says it can cause minor > >>> damage. > >> > >> I don't recall seeing that on the website. (Historically, I've only used > >> DW > >> to graph the directory, not to repair it -- I've been using TechTool Pro > >> for > >> that.) > > > > It's on their web site. > > Can you point me to where it is? I've looked (and just looked again), but > though it may be staring me in the face, I didn't see it. > > > Graphing should be harmless but 4.1.0 has side > > effects if it's used for rebuilding. > > I assume those "side effects" are what you meant above by "minor damage." http://www.alsoft.com/DiskWarrior/support.html Link in "Click here for limitations on using the older DiskWarrior version 4.0 or 4.1 with Snow Leopard." http://supportdb.alsoft.com:591/FMPro?-db=AlsoftSupport&-lay=main&-max=5& -format=AlsoftSupport-qa.html&-script=counter&-token=193&-Skip=114&-find I also have several e-mails traded with Alsoft support about 4.1.0 failing, hanging the OS, and causing panics in MacOS 10.5. -- I won't see Goolge Groups replies because I must filter them as spam
From: Nick Naym on 30 Oct 2009 04:53
In article 4aeaa0ab$0$1955$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net, Kevin McMurtrie at kevinmcm(a)sonic.net wrote on 10/30/09 4:15 AM: .... .... >>>>> >>>>> I tried DW 4.2. Rebuilding a directory is the only remaining feature >>>>> for TM disk images. It still stupidly believes that latency is I/O >>>>> errors. >>>> >>>> I don't understand. >>> >>> Which part? >> >> Everything following "I tried DW 4.2." > > If you select a disk image in DW 4.2, like the type of storage Time > Machine uses for network backups, it immediately rebuilds the directory. > It doesn't offer any other options or user interaction. You mean it won't let you graph the directory? > It also repeatedly complains about latency being I/O errors on remote > disk images. More than a few of them causes the directory rebuild to > abort. It's a dumb assumption that only I/O errors could cause latency. > Here's the log entry it makes: > > Oct 27 22:21:25 desktop [0x0-0x5a75a7].com.alsoft.diskwarrior[48158]: > DiskWarrior App: disk3s2: Bad (slow) blocks appearing in range 70444104 > to 70444104, unless disk was asleep and delay was due to spin-up. (315) > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> You should definitely stop using 4.1.0. Alsoft says it can cause minor >>>>> damage. >>>> >>>> I don't recall seeing that on the website. (Historically, I've only used >>>> DW >>>> to graph the directory, not to repair it -- I've been using TechTool Pro >>>> for >>>> that.) >>> >>> It's on their web site. >> >> Can you point me to where it is? ... .... .... > > http://www.alsoft.com/DiskWarrior/support.html > Link in "Click here for limitations on using the older DiskWarrior > version 4.0 or 4.1 with Snow Leopard." Oh, well, I wasn't looking for Snow Leopard caveats. .... .... > > I also have several e-mails traded with Alsoft support about 4.1.0 > failing, hanging the OS, and causing panics in MacOS 10.5. Strange that they haven't commented about it on the site. It seems, though, that I may have a problem if I ever want to use DW to fix anything: I've read that a lot of folks have had extreme difficulties upgrading from 4.1. -- iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8) |