DiskWarrior Error Codes
Nick Naym
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)."
--
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)
Kevin McMurtrie
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? 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 won't see Goolge Groups replies because I must filter them as spam
Nick Naym
kevi...@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?)
Kevin McMurtrie
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.
You should definitely stop using 4.1.0. Alsoft says it can cause minor
damage.
Nick Naym
kevi...@sonic.net wrote on 10/28/09 11:56 PM:
I don't understand.
> 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.)
Kevin McMurtrie
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.
Nick Naym
kevi...@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."
Kevin McMurtrie
Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> In article 4aea75f6$0$2036$742e...@news.sonic.net, Kevin McMurtrie at
> kevi...@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.
Nick Naym
kevi...@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.