Search Results

Search found 8471 results on 339 pages for 'bad boy'.

Page 1/339 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Game Boy Generates Music In An Unexpected Way [Video]

    - by Jason Fitzpatrick
    When we saw a link about a Game Boy generated melody we assumed it was a chip-tune track generated by the Game Boy’s sound processor. We were pleasantly surprised to see the Game Boy itself was the instrument. [via Geeks Are Sexy] Reader Request: How To Repair Blurry Photos HTG Explains: What Can You Find in an Email Header? The How-To Geek Guide to Getting Started with TrueCrypt

    Read the article

  • Finding the file that is on a bad block on a HFS+ volume (debugfs for HFS+)

    - by Blair Zajac
    I have a drive in our iMac that has bad blocks, as booting from an Ubuntu 11.10 live CD and using ddrescue -f /dev/sda /dev/null finds them. I'd like to get the drive to remap them by writing to the blocks, say using hdparm --write-sector, but I don't want to do this without knowing what's in those blocks and finding the file that owns them, so I can restore the file from another source. I found fileXray but don't feel like spending $79 to map a block to a file and hfsdebug has been taken offline. Are there suggestions on a tool or technique to use? I looked at all the Ubuntu HFS+ packages to see if they could provide this info but nothing jumped out at me. BTW, I used Disk Utility to erase the empty space, but it didn't get any of the bad blocks to be remapped, according to smartctl -A.

    Read the article

  • How to install PHP-FPM and PHP on Ubuntu?

    - by Sanoj
    I have problems with installing PHP and in Ubuntu. I followed the instructions on the PHP-FPM site, PHP FastCGI Process Manager but when doing ../configure && make to compile PHP I got a lot of not found messages (listed below), and I don't know how to fix them. I tried both the Integrated compilation and Separate compilation but both compilations ends up with the same messages. Is there a solution or workaround? An alternativ way to install PHP with PHP-FPM? ../configure: 11986: ac_fn_c_check_func: not found ../configure: 11997: ac_fn_c_check_func: not found ../configure: 12147: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12147: :: checking for socket in -lsocket: not found ../configure: 12147: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12147: checking for socket in -lsocket... : not found cat: confdefs.h: No such file or directory ../configure: 12147: ac_fn_c_try_link: not found ../configure: 12147: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12147: :: result: no: not found ../configure: 12147: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12147: no: not found ../configure: 12147: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12147: :: checking for __socket in -lsocket: not found ../configure: 12147: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12147: checking for __socket in -lsocket... : not found cat: confdefs.h: No such file or directory ../configure: 12147: ac_fn_c_try_link: not found ../configure: 12147: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12147: :: result: no: not found ../configure: 12147: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12147: no: not found ../configure: 12154: ac_fn_c_check_func: not found ../configure: 12165: ac_fn_c_check_func: not found ../configure: 12315: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12315: :: checking for socketpair in -lsocket: not found ../configure: 12315: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12315: checking for socketpair in -lsocket... : not found cat: confdefs.h: No such file or directory ../configure: 12315: ac_fn_c_try_link: not found ../configure: 12315: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12315: :: result: no: not found ../configure: 12315: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12315: no: not found ../configure: 12315: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12315: :: checking for __socketpair in -lsocket: not found ../configure: 12315: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12315: checking for __socketpair in -lsocket... : not found cat: confdefs.h: No such file or directory ../configure: 12315: ac_fn_c_try_link: not found ../configure: 12315: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12315: :: result: no: not found ../configure: 12315: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12315: no: not found ../configure: 12322: ac_fn_c_check_func: not found ../configure: 12333: ac_fn_c_check_func: not found ../configure: 12483: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12483: :: checking for htonl in -lsocket: not found ../configure: 12483: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12483: checking for htonl in -lsocket... : not found cat: confdefs.h: No such file or directory ../configure: 12483: ac_fn_c_try_link: not found ../configure: 12483: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12483: :: result: no: not found ../configure: 12483: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12483: no: not found ../configure: 12483: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12483: :: checking for __htonl in -lsocket: not found ../configure: 12483: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12483: checking for __htonl in -lsocket... : not found cat: confdefs.h: No such file or directory ../configure: 12483: ac_fn_c_try_link: not found ../configure: 12483: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12483: :: result: no: not found ../configure: 12483: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12483: no: not found ../configure: 12490: ac_fn_c_check_func: not found ../configure: 12501: ac_fn_c_check_func: not found ../configure: 12651: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12651: :: checking for gethostname in -lnsl: not found ../configure: 12651: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12651: checking for gethostname in -lnsl... : not found cat: confdefs.h: No such file or directory ../configure: 12651: ac_fn_c_try_link: not found ../configure: 12651: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12651: :: result: no: not found ../configure: 12651: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12651: no: not found ../configure: 12651: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12651: :: checking for __gethostname in -lnsl: not found ../configure: 12651: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12651: checking for __gethostname in -lnsl... : not found cat: confdefs.h: No such file or directory ../configure: 12651: ac_fn_c_try_link: not found ../configure: 12651: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12651: :: result: no: not found ../configure: 12651: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12651: no: not found ../configure: 12658: ac_fn_c_check_func: not found ../configure: 12669: ac_fn_c_check_func: not found ../configure: 12819: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12819: :: checking for gethostbyaddr in -lnsl: not found ../configure: 12819: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12819: checking for gethostbyaddr in -lnsl... : not found cat: confdefs.h: No such file or directory ../configure: 12819: ac_fn_c_try_link: not found ../configure: 12819: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12819: :: result: no: not found ../configure: 12819: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12819: no: not found ../configure: 12819: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12819: :: checking for __gethostbyaddr in -lnsl: not found ../configure: 12819: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12819: checking for __gethostbyaddr in -lnsl... : not found cat: confdefs.h: No such file or directory ../configure: 12819: ac_fn_c_try_link: not found ../configure: 12819: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12819: :: result: no: not found ../configure: 12819: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12819: no: not found ../configure: 12826: ac_fn_c_check_func: not found ../configure: 12837: ac_fn_c_check_func: not found ../configure: 12987: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12987: :: checking for yp_get_default_domain in -lnsl: not found ../configure: 12987: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12987: checking for yp_get_default_domain in -lnsl... : not found cat: confdefs.h: No such file or directory ../configure: 12987: ac_fn_c_try_link: not found ../configure: 12987: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12987: :: result: no: not found ../configure: 12987: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12987: no: not found ../configure: 12987: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12987: :: checking for __yp_get_default_domain in -lnsl: not found ../configure: 12987: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12987: checking for __yp_get_default_domain in -lnsl... : not found cat: confdefs.h: No such file or directory ../configure: 12987: ac_fn_c_try_link: not found ../configure: 12987: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12987: :: result: no: not found ../configure: 12987: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 12987: no: not found ../configure: 12995: ac_fn_c_check_func: not found ../configure: 13006: ac_fn_c_check_func: not found ../configure: 13156: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13156: :: checking for dlopen in -ldl: not found ../configure: 13156: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13156: checking for dlopen in -ldl... : not found cat: confdefs.h: No such file or directory ../configure: 13156: ac_fn_c_try_link: not found ../configure: 13156: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13156: :: result: no: not found ../configure: 13156: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13156: no: not found ../configure: 13156: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13156: :: checking for __dlopen in -ldl: not found ../configure: 13156: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13156: checking for __dlopen in -ldl... : not found cat: confdefs.h: No such file or directory ../configure: 13156: ac_fn_c_try_link: not found ../configure: 13156: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13156: :: result: no: not found ../configure: 13156: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13156: no: not found ../configure: 13164: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13164: :: checking for sin in -lm: not found ../configure: 13164: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13164: checking for sin in -lm... : not found cat: confdefs.h: No such file or directory ../configure: 13196: ac_fn_c_try_link: not found ../configure: 13198: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13198: :: result: no: not found ../configure: 13198: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13198: no: not found ../configure: 13214: ac_fn_c_check_func: not found ../configure: 13225: ac_fn_c_check_func: not found ../configure: 13510: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13510: :: checking for inet_aton in -lresolv: not found ../configure: 13510: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13510: checking for inet_aton in -lresolv... : not found cat: confdefs.h: No such file or directory ../configure: 13510: ac_fn_c_try_link: not found ../configure: 13510: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13510: :: result: no: not found ../configure: 13510: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13510: no: not found ../configure: 13510: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13510: :: checking for __inet_aton in -lresolv: not found ../configure: 13510: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13510: checking for __inet_aton in -lresolv... : not found cat: confdefs.h: No such file or directory ../configure: 13510: ac_fn_c_try_link: not found ../configure: 13510: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13510: :: result: no: not found ../configure: 13510: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13510: no: not found ../configure: 13510: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13510: :: checking for inet_aton in -lbind: not found ../configure: 13510: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13510: checking for inet_aton in -lbind... : not found cat: confdefs.h: No such file or directory ../configure: 13510: ac_fn_c_try_link: not found ../configure: 13510: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13510: :: result: no: not found ../configure: 13510: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13510: no: not found ../configure: 13510: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13510: :: checking for __inet_aton in -lbind: not found ../configure: 13510: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13510: checking for __inet_aton in -lbind... : not found cat: confdefs.h: No such file or directory ../configure: 13510: ac_fn_c_try_link: not found ../configure: 13510: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13510: :: result: no: not found ../configure: 13510: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13510: no: not found ../configure: 13516: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13516: :: checking for ANSI C header files: not found ../configure: 13516: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13516: checking for ANSI C header files... : not found cat: confdefs.h: No such file or directory ../configure: 13615: ac_fn_c_try_compile: not found ../configure: 13617: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13617: :: result: no: not found ../configure: 13617: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13617: no: not found ../configure: 13665: ac_cv_header_dirent_dirent.h: not found ../configure: 13665: 5: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13665: :: checking for dirent.h that defines DIR: not found ../configure: 13665: 6: Bad file descriptor ../configure: 13665: checking for dirent.h that defines DIR... : not found eval: 1: Bad substitution

    Read the article

  • scan partition for bad blocks

    - by user22559
    Hello everyone I have a hard disk with bad sectors on it. I want to partition the drive so that the partitions are in the good part of the hard disk, and the parts that have bad sectors are not used. The first ~20GB of the hard disk are good. Then comes a ~13GB part that is riddled with bad sectors. After that, the hard disk is good again, but at the very end there is a ~2GB part with bad sectors. I have used an app called "Hdtune" to get this information, and I have created a 19GB c: partition at the beginning of the drive, then skipping the 13GB of bad sectors, then creating the D: partition that spans the rest of the disk, minus the last 2GB. The C: partition works well (i have been using it for a month and i have got no error whatsoever), but the D partition has been giving me problems. Somehow, it seems that I have some bad sectors in the D: partition. I am looking for an app that scans the HDD, finds the bad blocks, and shows them in a map so I can see if they are in the D partition. Or, an app that scans only a specified partition for bad sectors, and then shows in a map where the bad sectors are in the partition. I want to know this so I can resize the D partition so that it is outside of the bad area of the disk.

    Read the article

  • "wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock" error while mounting FAT Drives

    - by cshubhamrao
    I am unable to mount any fat32 or fat16 formatted usb disks under Ubuntu 13.10. The thing here to note is that it is happening only with fat formatted Disks. ntfs, ext formatted external usb disks work well (I tried formatting the same with ext4 and it worked) While mounting via nautilus: Error while mounting from terminal: root@shubham-pc:~# mount -t vfat /dev/sdc1 /media/shubham/n mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/sdc1, missing codepage or helper program, or other error In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try dmesg | tail or so As suggested by the error: Output from dmesg | tail root@shubham-pc:~# dmesg | tail [ 3545.482598] scsi8 : usb-storage 1-1:1.0 [ 3546.481530] scsi 8:0:0:0: Direct-Access SanDisk Cruzer 1.26 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5 [ 3546.482373] sd 8:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg3 type 0 [ 3546.483758] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdc] 15633408 512-byte logical blocks: (8.00 GB/7.45 GiB) [ 3546.485254] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdc] Write Protect is off [ 3546.485262] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdc] Mode Sense: 43 00 00 00 [ 3546.488314] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdc] Write cache: disabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA [ 3546.499820] sdc: sdc1 [ 3546.503388] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdc] Attached SCSI removable disk [ 3547.273396] FAT-fs (sdc1): IO charset iso8859-1 not found Output from fsck.vfat: root@shubham-pc:~# fsck.vfat /dev/sdc1 dosfsck 3.0.16, 01 Mar 2013, FAT32, LFN /dev/sdc1: 1 files, 1/1949978 clusters All normal Tried re-creating the whole partition table and then formatting as fat32 but to no avail so the possibility of corrupted drive is ruled out. Tried the same with around 4 Disks or so and all have the same things

    Read the article

  • Bad Effects From Bad Neighbors

    There are websites who make use of ethical SEO but still don't reach the top positions of the search engine results. The main reason why this situation happens can be chosen from the three: sandbox effect, over optimization or bad neighborhood.

    Read the article

  • Bad Effects From Bad Neighbors

    There are websites who make use of ethical SEO but still don't reach the top positions of the search engine results. The main reason why this situation happens can be chosen from the three: sandbox effect, over optimization or bad neighborhood.

    Read the article

  • How do you deal with intentionally bad code?

    - by mafutrct
    There are many stories about intentionally bad code, not only on TDWTF but also on SO. Typical cases include: Having a useless time-wasting construct (e.g. an empty loop counting to some huge value) so programmers can easily "speed up" the application by removing it when they are tasked to. Providing intentionally misleading, wrong or no documentation to generate expensive support requests. Readily generating errors, or worse, generating even though everything worked fine, locking up the application so an expensive support call is required to unlock. These points display a more or less malicious attitude (even though sometimes by accident), especially the first point occurs rather often. How should one deal with such constructs? Ignore the issue, or just remove the offending code? Notify their manager, or speak to the person who introduced the "feature"?

    Read the article

  • Demonstrate bad code to client?

    - by jtiger
    I have a new client that has asked me to do a redesign of their website, an ASP.NET Webforms application that was developed by another consultant. It seemed straight-forward (it never is) but I took a look at the code to make sure I knew what I was in for. This application was not written well. At all. It is extremely vulnerable to SQL Injection attacks, business logic is spread throughout the entire application, a lot of duplication, and dead end code that does nothing. On top of that, it keeps throwing exceptions that are being smothered, so it all appears to be running smoothly. My job is to simply update the html and css, but much of the html is being generated in business logic and would be a nightmare for me to sort everything out. My estimates on the redesign were longer than the client was aiming for, and they are asking why so long. How can I explain to my client just how bad this code is? In their mind, the application is running great and the redesign should be a quick one-off. It's my word against the previous consultant, so how can I actually give simple, concrete examples that a non-technical client would understand?

    Read the article

  • The curious case(s) of the Microsoft product naming department

    - by AaronBertrand
    A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away... Okay, it was here on earth, a little over 5 years ago. With SQL Server 2005, Microsoft introduced a very useful feature called the DAC. DAC stands for "dedicated administrator connection"... you can read about it here , but essentially, it allows you a single connection into the server with priority resource allocation - so you can actually get in and kill a rogue process that is otherwise taking over the server. On its own this was a fine acronym choice,...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Dangerous programming

    - by benhowdle89
    Ok, i'm talking pure software/web, i'm not on about code to power Life Support machines or NASA rockets. In terms of software/web development what is the most dangerous single piece of code someone could put into a program (say if they had a grudge against a client/employee) In PHP, the first thing that comes to mind is some sort of file deletion: function EmptyDir($dir) { $handle=opendir($dir); while (($file = readdir($handle))!==false) { echo "$file <br>"; @unlink($dir.'/'.$file); } closedir($handle); } EmptyDir('images'); Or a PHP script that takes a user's sensitive input and posts it to Google sitemap or something? I hope this doesnt get closed off as subjective as there surely must be a ranking order of dangerous code. So i'm asking for the No.1 spot :) DISCLAIMER: I have no grudges against anyone, just curious for the answer!

    Read the article

  • Should "closed as duplicate" software programming be extreme or functional? [migrated]

    - by Web Developer
    I'm a web developer loving this site for it's potential, and it's Coffee look . I was reading a great question, that is this: click here and noticed 8 moderators tagged it as DUPLICATED! The question was closed! Obviously it isn't and I'm going to explain why if needed but it can be seen: the question is unique, is the case/story of a young who have SPECIFIC experience with C++ , VB and Assembler and asking, knowing this specifications an answer (It is not a general question like "hey I'm young can I do the programmer??") Let me know your opinion! do you think this question should or should not be closed? And let's think about also the people not only the "data" and "cases covered" ... do you think this is important too? or is better to keep a place where people doesn't count?

    Read the article

  • Pointless Code In Your Source

    - by Ali
    I've heard stories of this from senior coders and I've seen some of it myself. It seems that there are more than a few instances of programmers writing pointless code. I will see things like: Method or function calls that do nothing of value. Redundant checks done in a separate class file, object or method. if statements that always evaluate to true. Threads that spin off and do nothing of note. Just to name a few. I've been told that this is because programmers want to intentionally make the code confusing to raise their own worth to the organization or make sure of repeat business in the case of contractual or outsourced work. My question is. Has anyone else seen code like this? What was your conclusion was to why that code was there? If anyone has written code like this, can you share why?

    Read the article

  • Reconciling the Boy Scout Rule and Opportunistic Refactoring with code reviews

    - by t0x1n
    I am a great believer in the Boy Scout Rule: Always check a module in cleaner than when you checked it out." No matter who the original author was, what if we always made some effort, no matter how small, to improve the module. What would be the result? I think if we all followed that simple rule, we'd see the end of the relentless deterioration of our software systems. Instead, our systems would gradually get better and better as they evolved. We'd also see teams caring for the system as a whole, rather than just individuals caring for their own small little part. I am also a great believer in the related idea of Opportunistic Refactoring: Although there are places for some scheduled refactoring efforts, I prefer to encourage refactoring as an opportunistic activity, done whenever and wherever code needs to cleaned up - by whoever. What this means is that at any time someone sees some code that isn't as clear as it should be, they should take the opportunity to fix it right there and then - or at least within a few minutes Particularly note the following excerpt from the refactoring article: I'm wary of any development practices that cause friction for opportunistic refactoring ... My sense is that most teams don't do enough refactoring, so it's important to pay attention to anything that is discouraging people from doing it. To help flush this out be aware of any time you feel discouraged from doing a small refactoring, one that you're sure will only take a minute or two. Any such barrier is a smell that should prompt a conversation. So make a note of the discouragement and bring it up with the team. At the very least it should be discussed during your next retrospective. Where I work, there is one development practice that causes heavy friction - Code Review (CR). Whenever I change anything that's not in the scope of my "assignment" I'm being rebuked by my reviewers that I'm making the change harder to review. This is especially true when refactoring is involved, since it makes "line by line" diff comparison difficult. This approach is the standard here, which means opportunistic refactoring is seldom done, and only "planned" refactoring (which is usually too little, too late) takes place, if at all. I claim that the benefits are worth it, and that 3 reviewers will work a little harder (to actually understand the code before and after, rather than look at the narrow scope of which lines changed - the review itself would be better due to that alone) so that the next 100 developers reading and maintaining the code will benefit. When I present this argument my reviewers, they say they have no problem with my refactoring, as long as it's not in the same CR. However I claim this is a myth: (1) Most of the times you only realize what and how you want to refactor when you're in the midst of your assignment. As Martin Fowler puts it: As you add the functionality, you realize that some code you're adding contains some duplication with some existing code, so you need to refactor the existing code to clean things up... You may get something working, but realize that it would be better if the interaction with existing classes was changed. Take that opportunity to do that before you consider yourself done. (2) Nobody is going to look favorably at you releasing "refactoring" CRs you were not supposed to do. A CR has a certain overhead and your manager doesn't want you to "waste your time" on refactoring. When it's bundled with the change you're supposed to do, this issue is minimized. The issue is exacerbated by Resharper, as each new file I add to the change (and I can't know in advance exactly which files would end up changed) is usually littered with errors and suggestions - most of which are spot on and totally deserve fixing. The end result is that I see horrible code, and I just leave it there. Ironically, I feel that fixing such code not only will not improve my standings, but actually lower them and paint me as the "unfocused" guy who wastes time fixing things nobody cares about instead of doing his job. I feel bad about it because I truly despise bad code and can't stand watching it, let alone call it from my methods! Any thoughts on how I can remedy this situation ?

    Read the article

  • Make vmware virtual machine from HDD with bad sectros

    - by mike1616
    I have a notebook with a bad HDD (it has bad sectors). I would like make a virtual disk with VMware workstation from this computer. I installed VMware Workstation & VMware vCenter Converter Standalone Client on this notebook, then I used virtualize a physical machine. It started procedure but at 38% I got this error: FAILED: An error occurred during the conversion: 'BlockLevelVolumeCloneMgr::CloneVolume: Detected a write error during the cloning of volume \WindowsBitmapDriverVolumeId=[39-06-3A-06-00-02-13-4C-1D-00-00-00]. Error: 209 (type: 1, code: 13)' I Googled it and I think it means that I have bad sectors on the HDD. How can I solve this problem and make a virtual machine from HDD with bad sectors?

    Read the article

  • Fix bad blocks on Mac hard disk

    - by Andrew Vit
    I have a hard disk that I scanned with TechTool and it reports one bad block. As far as I can tell, TechTool only scans and reports a failure. It doesn't fix anything. Back in the day, Norton Disk Doctor did the job of scanning and flagging (remapping) bad blocks on the Mac. Today we have various tools for fixing up HFS+ directory errors (Disk Utility, fsck, DiskWarrior, TechTool), but I don't know of any tool that will do a surface scan and fix the bad blocks too. What software is available for this? If I know the address of the bad block, is there a low-level terminal utility for marking it?

    Read the article

  • Sysadmin bad habits

    - by chmeee
    I think it would be interesting to have a list of bad habits you observe related to system administration. For example: Always using root on servers Sharing account passowrds Inserting passwords on code Still using telnet ... Although I'm mostly interested on security, you bad habit doesn't have to be security related. Bad habits stories are also welcomed.

    Read the article

  • permanent NAS-mount in Ubuntu - wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock

    - by Emil
    My network drive shows up in the file browser, just like my external usb-harddrive. Moving, running and editing files works. Hovering over it shows smb://lacie-2big/nasdisk . BUT, when I want to save a file, the drive doesn't come up as an option. All I can see is my other places, including my usb-harddrive. I am a complete newbie but I am GUESSING that it has something to do with the mount not being a "real" mount but just a shortcut to the smb location. So I ran the tutorial at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MountWindowsSharesPermanently about how to "mount a network drive permanently". edited my fstab to //LaCie-2big/nasdisk /media/nasmount cifs guest,uid=1000,iocharset=utf8,codepage=unicode,unicode 0 0 and running sudo mount -a gave me the following error: mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on //LaCie-2big/nasdisk, missing codepage or helper program, or other error (for several filesystems (e.g. nfs, cifs) you might need a /sbin/mount. helper program) In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try dmesg | tail or so Now thats a very helpful error message, BUT, before I go any further, I'd be really thankful if one of you could tell me if I'm even in the right ballpark, or if my actual need: to be able to download files (ie torrents) directly to the drive, can be possible as it is already. Question: How to fix "wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on //LaCie-2big/nasdisk, missing codepage or helper program" when running mount -a

    Read the article

  • xt_TCPMSS: bad length messages

    - by Matic
    I'm getting loads of messages like: Jun 23 10:24:20 awakening kernel: [ 1691.596823] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (1492 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:21 awakening kernel: [ 1692.663362] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (1448 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:21 awakening kernel: [ 1692.663495] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (1448 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:21 awakening kernel: [ 1692.663588] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (1448 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:21 awakening kernel: [ 1692.663671] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (1440 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:26 awakening kernel: [ 1697.062914] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (474 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:26 awakening kernel: [ 1697.305525] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (1492 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:27 awakening kernel: [ 1698.946633] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (1492 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:36 awakening kernel: [ 1707.481198] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (1492 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:37 awakening kernel: [ 1708.723526] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (805 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:38 awakening kernel: [ 1709.599461] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (805 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:41 awakening kernel: [ 1712.211052] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (1492 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:41 awakening kernel: [ 1712.260588] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (1492 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:41 awakening kernel: [ 1712.976058] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (1492 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:43 awakening kernel: [ 1714.225209] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (1492 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:43 awakening kernel: [ 1714.914961] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (1492 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:55 awakening kernel: [ 1726.192696] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (1480 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:55 awakening kernel: [ 1726.192825] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (1480 bytes) In my dmesg/syslog. This linux machine is among other things used as an internet gateway. Connection is over PPPoE. I have the following line in my iptables script: $IPT -A FORWARD -p tcp --tcp-flags SYN,RST SYN -j TCPMSS --clamp-mss-to-pmtu # PPPoE fix The frequency of this messages increased 10x when I upgraded from Debian lenny with 2.6.27 to squeeze with 2.6.32 few days ago. Why am I seeing this messages and how can I fix them?

    Read the article

  • xt_TCPMSS: bad length messages

    - by Matic
    Hey! I'm getting loads of messages like: Jun 23 10:24:20 awakening kernel: [ 1691.596823] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (1492 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:21 awakening kernel: [ 1692.663362] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (1448 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:21 awakening kernel: [ 1692.663495] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (1448 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:21 awakening kernel: [ 1692.663588] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (1448 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:21 awakening kernel: [ 1692.663671] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (1440 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:26 awakening kernel: [ 1697.062914] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (474 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:26 awakening kernel: [ 1697.305525] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (1492 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:27 awakening kernel: [ 1698.946633] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (1492 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:36 awakening kernel: [ 1707.481198] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (1492 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:37 awakening kernel: [ 1708.723526] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (805 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:38 awakening kernel: [ 1709.599461] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (805 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:41 awakening kernel: [ 1712.211052] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (1492 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:41 awakening kernel: [ 1712.260588] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (1492 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:41 awakening kernel: [ 1712.976058] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (1492 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:43 awakening kernel: [ 1714.225209] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (1492 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:43 awakening kernel: [ 1714.914961] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (1492 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:55 awakening kernel: [ 1726.192696] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (1480 bytes) Jun 23 10:24:55 awakening kernel: [ 1726.192825] xt_TCPMSS: bad length (1480 bytes) In my dmesg/syslog. This linux machine is among other things used as an internet gateway. Connection is over PPPoE. I have the following line in my iptables script: $IPT -A FORWARD -p tcp --tcp-flags SYN,RST SYN -j TCPMSS --clamp-mss-to-pmtu # PPPoE fix The frequency of this messages increased 10x when I upgraded from Debian lenny with 2.6.27 to squeeze with 2.6.32 few days ago. Why am I seeing this messages and how can I fix them?

    Read the article

  • What makes a bad programming language bad?

    - by sub
    We have all seen things like the typing system of JavaScript (There is a funny post including a truth table somewhere around here). I consider this one of the main things that makes a programming language bad. Other things that spring to mind: Bad Error messages (Either obfuscated so you can't figure out whats wrong, not existing or simply too long and red) The language wasn't planned and just grew uncontrolled in all directions (PHP?) The language encourages bad programm(er/ing) habits such as: Global variables everywhere, bad variable names Inconsistent naming conventions inside the language I can't come up with any more at the moment and would be very happy to read what you think about this. What shouldn't be missing in a language created to be as bad (from the perspectives of the programmer, the company that hires to programmer, the team leader and the customer) as possible? (I ask this because I'm designing a bad, experimental language at the moment)

    Read the article

  • HDD bad sectors with OS

    - by Michael Z
    I wonder is that possible for OS to make bad sectors on Hard Drive? Preface: I have bought new HDD on 1Tb WB Caviar Black. I have installed new OS on ext4 partition Ubuntu 12.04.1 LTS. After few days S.M.A.R.T. of the Ubuntu's Disk Utility show that my hard has bad sectors! I have checked on S.M.A.R.T. immediately after installing OS - all was OK. During new OS working I have noticed some strange with HDD - all OS was freezed from 20 sec to 1 min and I have heard like HDD's engine restarting. At the dmes I have found something like this: [40085.407947] ata1.00: device reported invalid CHS sector 0

    Read the article

  • Bad Blocks Exist in Virtual Device PERC H700 Integrated

    - by neoX
    I have a DELL server with PERC H700 Integrated controller. I've made RAID5 with 12 harddrives and the virtual device is in Optimal state, but I receive such errors under linux: sd 0:2:0:0: [sda] Unhandled error code sd 0:2:0:0: [sda] Result: hostbyte=0x07 driverbyte=0x00 sd 0:2:0:0: [sda] CDB: cdb[0]=0x88: 88 00 00 00 00 07 22 50 bd 98 00 00 00 08 00 00 end_request: I/O error, dev sda, sector 30640487832 sd 0:2:0:0: [sda] Unhandled error code sd 0:2:0:0: [sda] Result: hostbyte=0x07 driverbyte=0x00 sd 0:2:0:0: [sda] CDB: cdb[0]=0x88: 88 00 00 00 00 07 22 50 bd 98 00 00 00 08 00 00 end_request: I/O error, dev sda, sector 30640487832 sd 0:2:0:0: [sda] Unhandled error code sd 0:2:0:0: [sda] Result: hostbyte=0x07 driverbyte=0x00 sd 0:2:0:0: [sda] CDB: cdb[0]=0x88: 88 00 00 00 00 07 22 50 bc e0 00 00 01 00 00 00 end_request: I/O error, dev sda, sector 30640487648 But all disk are in Firmware state: Online, Spun Up. Also there is not a single ATA read or write error in any disk in the raid (I check them with smartctl -a -d sat+megaraid,N -H /dev/sda). The only strange thing is in the output in megacli: megacli -LDInfo -L0 -a0 ... Bad Blocks Exist: Yes How could there be bad blocks in a Virtual Drive, which is in optimal state and no disk is broken or even with a single error? I tried "Consistency Check", but it finished successfully and the errors are still in dmesg. Could Someone help me to figure it out what is wrong with my raid?

    Read the article

  • Hard Drive Bad Sector marking utility

    - by Kevin Boyd
    I already have Windows XP, During installing Ubuntu(dual boot) the disk drive just stuck up at one place and doesn't seem to move ahead.. Is there a disk bad sector mark utility that just marks these sectors so that the disk doesn't seek them later. I tried running Seagate Seatools on the drive but both the short test and long test fail even before they start even chkdsk /f/r doesn't seem to work as the system locks up at stage four.

    Read the article

  • bad ram or bad motherboard

    - by user39508
    I have a computer which crashes after about 5-45 seconds of operation. It can run memtest86+, and it doesn't display any errors, but it doesn't prevent it from crashing within the time frame listed above. The heat sink appears to be installed correctly, and I don't think it is related to overheating. The motherboard is connected to the ram and a monitor, nothing else is installed. The processor is an atom 330, running memtest86+ 4.0. Any insight into if the ram is bad or if it is the motherboard/psu/cpu? Thanks!

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >