On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 01:11:05AM +0500, Alexander V. Makartsev wrote: > On 09.02.2024 00:23, gene heskett wrote: > > Looks neat. Any chance this will crash my machine? I have other design > > work going on, and I'd hate to have to start from scratch. > Well, it will consume CPU cycles for sure, at least to calculate md5 hashes > and perform I/O on the target drive and RAM. ...unless the device under test starts misbehaving (what, after all, is the thing we are after). Then, probably, all bets are off. If it "just" starts reporting bad blocks or just returning corrupted data, I guess the kernel will cope, but things are... complex ;-) > I don't think it could crash the system, but the load could be significant > enough to disturb your work, so > if I was in your place I'd wait until the machine is free from any work or > load and then test the new drive. Sound wise, yes. Perhaps you have a spare raspi you can dedicate to this boring task. Or an old laptop gathering dust. BTW, if it was me, I'd skip the file system part and just dd checksummed blocks to it (and read them back with dd), thus sparing a whole layer of complexity and difficult to predict behaviour (caching, what not). BTW2, there is a program for that, "badblocks", part of e2fsprograms, so chances are it's installed. I'd look into that man page. Cheers -- t
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature