If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
USB Flash Drive Integrity Checker
Hi,
I am a heavy user of USB flash drives. I recently had a minor issue with a couple of files I copied to a hard drive. They were not exactly the same as they were on the flash drive. A file compare exposed a change. I copied them again from the flash drive and the second time they matched. This is the first time this happened. This particular 2G flash drive I use the most. After I copy all files from it, I plan to "Format" it. Does anyone know of an integrity checker for USB flash drives? Thank You in advance, John |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
USB Flash Drive Integrity Checker
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=usb+flash+d...egrity+checker
wrote in message ... Hi, I am a heavy user of USB flash drives. I recently had a minor issue with a couple of files I copied to a hard drive. They were not exactly the same as they were on the flash drive. A file compare exposed a change. I copied them again from the flash drive and the second time they matched. This is the first time this happened. This particular 2G flash drive I use the most. After I copy all files from it, I plan to "Format" it. Does anyone know of an integrity checker for USB flash drives? Thank You in advance, John |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
USB Flash Drive Integrity Checker
In message , Guess Who
writes: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=usb+flash+d...egrity+checker That is even more irritating than people who just say "google it". wrote in message .. . [] Does anyone know of an integrity checker for USB flash drives? Thank You in advance, John -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf 782.55 - The Number of The Beast (including VAT) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
USB Flash Drive Integrity Checker
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
noname writes: jaugustine wrote ... Does anyone know of an integrity checker for USB flash drives? http:// www. lmgtfy. com/ ? q=usb+flash+drive+integrity+checker That is even more irritating than people who just say "google it". Especially since the redirection site requires scripting be enabled. Google does not. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
USB Flash Drive Integrity Checker
Does anybody have a recommendation for an integerity checker?
Googleing does not tell me if others I might trust have used it successfully. -- Noah's Ark was built by amateurs, The Titanic was built by professionals. Row, row, row your boat gently down the stream ... Life is but a dream! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
USB Flash Drive Integrity Checker
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Guess Who writes: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=usb+flash+d...egrity+checker That is even more irritating than people who just say "google it". wrote in message ... [] Does anyone know of an integrity checker for USB flash drives? Thank You in advance, John Sometimes, USB flash drives give non-reproducible errors. As a result, if you told me you integrity checked a USB key, I'd have to discount the effectiveness of such a test. It doesn't guarantee that the next time you use it, it won't have a problem. And if the integrity checker does a lot of writes, all it's doing is wearing out the flash blocks. A modern MLC flash is rated for as low as 3K cycles. And that limits the cost effectiveness of a write/read verify type of test. If you left it running over night, it might wear out the flash. It's easy to cook up your own test case. First, acquire a checksum tool, such as md5sum, sha1sum, fciv etc. Checksum a large file on your hard drive. Copy the file to the flash. Run the checksum tool again, this time reading from the flash. The file size chosen, should be so large, that the file can't fit in system memory, in the system file cache. So if I had a 4GB RAM computer, 3.1GB free, I'd use any file larger than 3.1GB for a test. If the USB key has a LED, verify the LED is active during the read-verify step. (If the file was read from the file cache in system memory, then you wouldn't see much if any accesses to the USB key.) If you want large, random files, you can use dd. You would first send the file to your hard drive. And then checksum it, before copying the file to the USB key. http://www.chrysocome.net/dd dd if=/dev/random of=J:\testfile.bin bs=65536 count=65536 That would create a 4GB file as J:\testfile.bin and the data content would be (pseudo-)random. If J: happened to be FAT32, you'd change the parameters to 65536, 65535 to stay under the 4GB limit. When someone writes a dedicated test program, they likely have the option of turning off the system file cache, rather than defeating it in the crude way I'm suggesting. The Microsoft "fsutil" utility, can also create large files. If the target file system is FAT32, in fact fsutil is fine for that function. If you use "fsutil" and do a createfile on an NTFS partition, the file is "sparse" and very little writing is done to the file system. And then you're stuck with the conundrum, of whether making copies of the newly created file, preserves the sparseness or not. So while "fsutil" is a valid option in some cases, I just don't bother with it any more. I would have preferred that Microsoft wasn't nearly so clever, as to do it that way. (On a Sun system, the mkfile utility always creates real files, and was my old favorite when on SunOS/Solaris systems. The "dd" util is what I use now.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparse_file Paul |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
USB Flash Drive Integrity Checker
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
... In message , Guess Who writes: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=usb+flash+d...egrity+checker That is even more irritating than people who just say "google it". J.P., Actually, what is irritating to some, myself included, is an individual that makes NO attempt whatsoever to research answers or find solutions by themselves. They expect other people to hand them solutions with no effort on their part. So, I actually applaud those who respond with "google it." With so much information available in microseconds via the internet, it is a sad commentary on his part. If he felt the answers he obtained were unreliable or did not solve his problem, then, of course, inquire via a newsgroup, forum or blog. Take my reply as an example of negative reinforcement. The next time he asks a question, he'll remember the irritating response he received Cheers, GW |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
USB Flash Drive Integrity Checker
Guess Who wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message ... In message , Guess Who writes: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=usb+flash+d...egrity+checker That is even more irritating than people who just say "google it". J.P., Actually, what is irritating to some, myself included, is an individual that makes NO attempt whatsoever to research answers or find solutions by themselves. Alas, not everyone that has expended the effort to do prior research makes note of all of it when asking for help in Usenet. They may come here after they already failed to find satisfactory search results on their own. A post that remarks on everything researched or tried before posting here could become a tome that no one would read or avoid as soon as they opened it. However, lack of such information means that respondents will likely duplicate the OP's same efforts, if any (beyond the OP posting here). They expect other people to hand them solutions with no effort on their part. So, I actually applaud those who respond with "google it." Without providing reasonable search criteria (as you did), someone responding with merely "Google it" is a waste of bandwidth and disk space. Without reasonable search criteria that narrows the results to something actually usable to the OP, such a respondent might as well say "gribble frockle mendersmittenburg" or some other babble trash. With so much information available in microseconds via the internet, it is a sad commentary on his part. If he felt the answers he obtained were unreliable or did not solve his problem, then, of course, inquire via a newsgroup, forum or blog. Maybe that's what he did. You might assume by omission that the OP didn't do any prior research but it is an assumption. Take my reply as an example of negative reinforcement. The next time he asks a question, he'll remember the irritating response he received Wishful thinking on your part. You are also assuming that he will have scripting enabled in his web browser. Yet you probably know there is a large number of Firefox users that have the NoScript extension installed or Google Chrome users with NotScript extension installed (or even IE users that know how to use .reg files to disable/enable scripting). A user visiting that site won't see anything happen there and figure you were stupid in providing a non-working non-solution. Turn off scripting in your web browser or use an add-on/extension that disables it by default when visiting non-whitelisted sites and see just what that irritation site looks like. You won't see much happen there. I doubt you using that site will have the lasting effect you wish it had versus just giving them the Google search URL. If they're too lazy to do the research before asking, you really think using an irritating "Google tutorial" site is going to make them rethink their future knee-jerk posts? While you provided a better response than just "Google it" by including some search criteria, I'm pretty sure any user visiting that site would either not take into account that you are trying to negatively reinforce that they should do their own prior research or they'll just figure you for an ahole and not bother with your search at the irritation site. The effect might not be what you thought it would be. Don't bother trying to teach them with your unmentioned objectives. Just give them a Google search URL with reasonable criteria that gives them results that are usable to them. If they aren't going to "learn" to do their own research beforehand by giving them a good search URL, pushing them to irritation site isn't going to "learn" them, either. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
USB Flash Drive Integrity Checker
"VanguardLH" wrote in message
... Guess Who wrote: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message ... In message , Guess Who writes: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=usb+flash+d...egrity+checker That is even more irritating than people who just say "google it". J.P., Actually, what is irritating to some, myself included, is an individual that makes NO attempt whatsoever to research answers or find solutions by themselves. Alas, not everyone that has expended the effort to do prior research makes note of all of it when asking for help in Usenet. They may come here after they already failed to find satisfactory search results on their own. A post that remarks on everything researched or tried before posting here could become a tome that no one would read or avoid as soon as they opened it. However, lack of such information means that respondents will likely duplicate the OP's same efforts, if any (beyond the OP posting here). They expect other people to hand them solutions with no effort on their part. So, I actually applaud those who respond with "google it." Without providing reasonable search criteria (as you did), someone responding with merely "Google it" is a waste of bandwidth and disk space. Without reasonable search criteria that narrows the results to something actually usable to the OP, such a respondent might as well say "gribble frockle mendersmittenburg" or some other babble trash. With so much information available in microseconds via the internet, it is a sad commentary on his part. If he felt the answers he obtained were unreliable or did not solve his problem, then, of course, inquire via a newsgroup, forum or blog. Maybe that's what he did. You might assume by omission that the OP didn't do any prior research but it is an assumption. Take my reply as an example of negative reinforcement. The next time he asks a question, he'll remember the irritating response he received Wishful thinking on your part. You are also assuming that he will have scripting enabled in his web browser. Yet you probably know there is a large number of Firefox users that have the NoScript extension installed or Google Chrome users with NotScript extension installed (or even IE users that know how to use .reg files to disable/enable scripting). A user visiting that site won't see anything happen there and figure you were stupid in providing a non-working non-solution. Turn off scripting in your web browser or use an add-on/extension that disables it by default when visiting non-whitelisted sites and see just what that irritation site looks like. You won't see much happen there. I doubt you using that site will have the lasting effect you wish it had versus just giving them the Google search URL. If they're too lazy to do the research before asking, you really think using an irritating "Google tutorial" site is going to make them rethink their future knee-jerk posts? While you provided a better response than just "Google it" by including some search criteria, I'm pretty sure any user visiting that site would either not take into account that you are trying to negatively reinforce that they should do their own prior research or they'll just figure you for an ahole and not bother with your search at the irritation site. The effect might not be what you thought it would be. Don't bother trying to teach them with your unmentioned objectives. Just give them a Google search URL with reasonable criteria that gives them results that are usable to them. If they aren't going to "learn" to do their own research beforehand by giving them a good search URL, pushing them to irritation site isn't going to "learn" them, either. Vanguard, I don't disagree with you. I certainly don't expect a dissertation on specific attempts they made to find a solution before posting here. When you respond with a solution to a problem and the OP replies with "I tried that", how do you feel? Do you feel like you wasted your time responding when they could have mentioned what they tried ? I would. A simple "I searched the internet but couldn't find a solution" would suffice. At least it indicates they made an attempt. That's all. Regardless, I am a realist. If these people haven't learned at this stage in their lives (presuming they are adults) then they never will. Others will forever be shoving solutions down their piehole and that's fine. Also, I really don't care how they interpret my response. If scripting isn't enabled then my solution helped them as much as their own attempts did. Searching google for solutions isn't part of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity ! GW |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|