Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (
More info?)
Thanks to all who try to help me out!
I will try the IDE channel test when I'm home this evening ...
Just one doubt: How can it be a HW problem, when the copy works perfectly in
case I start windows in temporary/save mode. I thought that winXP drives the
HW somewhat different?
Kerry: I used memtest86, at least one full turn around through all steps. If
I remember well it lasted about 15 minutes. The copy problem occures always!
Cheers
Berni
"R. McCarty" wrote:
> Thanks for testing and the results. If you're still inclined to test more
> I would switch your IDE Primary and Secondary connectors on the
> motherboard (Test using the other Channel). You should also reset
> the Write cache on both drives. I would carefully check the BIOS
> settings for the IDE channels and while in Windows check settings
> on the Primary, Secondary and make sure the drives are running at
> UDMA Mode 5 or 6. This seems to be a motherboard issue, not a
> drive related one. If they are new drives, you might consider getting
> a SATA controller card and two IDE-to-SATA conversion adapters.
> On machines that don't have SATA but new large/fast drives I've
> starting configuring them that way, so each has it's own dedicated
> channel to work from. A SATA card is fairly cheap at ~$30.00 &
> the conversion modules are even less at around ~$17.00. Anyway,
> this seems like a motherboard or chipset issue.
>
> "Berni" <Berni@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:35A43E2A-1DC7-465D-AECB-DA5A9EA67BFF@microsoft.com...
> >
> >
> > "R. McCarty" wrote:
> >
> >> Go to Device Manager, Disk Drives category, Double-Click your drive
> >> From the details box click the Policies (TAB). Uncheck "Enable Write
> >> Cache", Apply & then reboot and retry your copy operations.
> >
> > I tried it, the copy runs now much slower (110 sec against 40 sec with
> > cache).
> > The output file is still corrupt, seems in less positions: I made 4 tests
> > and with cache I got 20, 32, 14, 15 differences while without cache I got
> > 8,
> > 22, 5, 6. So even if this sample is not very significative - the average
> > is
> > around the half.
> >
> >
> >> Also,
> >> could you post which Vendor/Model (& Interface type) drive you're
> >> having issues with.
> >>
> >
> > I have 2 Maxtor disks, one 60 and one 200 MB (new). Both behave the same!
> > Both attached to same IDE channel.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Berni" <Berni@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:99B7A563-FFE5-4E99-A82F-8E97F55FAC5B@microsoft.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "David Candy" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> This is a problem, while rare, that is usually caused by network card
> >> >> drivers. Maybe Novell drivers were like Windows drivers.
> >> >
> >> > No sorry, it is disk to disk, it happens even when creating a copy on
> >> > the
> >> > same drive - any idea?
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >>
http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/_comment/001075.html
> >> >> =================================================
> >> >> "billious" <billious_1954@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:432613e3$0$12704$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Berni" <Berni@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:CD7445ED-5FF4-431D-828A-AECB2DF99BE6@microsoft.com...
> >> >> >>I have a problem when copying large files (50MB+):
> >> >> >> Both the DOS copy /B and the drag/drop or copy/paste methods in
> >> >> >> explorer
> >> >> >> result always in a slightly different (corrupt) copy without
> >> >> >> generating
> >> >> >> any
> >> >> >> error message. Aparently everything is fine but when checking on
> >> >> >> binary
> >> >> >> level, there are differences. Depending on the application this
> >> >> >> result
> >> >> >> in
> >> >> >> unreadble files.
> >> >> >> The number of changed bytes is proportional to the length of the
> >> >> >> file.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Example: when I copy a file of about 300MB it results in a compare
> >> >> >> as
> >> >> >> follows:
> >> >> >>> D:\>fc /B aa.ape bb.ape
> >> >> >>> Comparing file aa.ape and BB.APE
> >> >> >>> 0054204C: 7F 31
> >> >> >>> 0054204D: D8 30
> >> >> >>> 03DD478E: B8 F8
> >> >> >>> 0B16184E: 7F AD
> >> >> >>> 0B16184F: C4 0B
> >> >> >>> 0BBC620C: CA 0D
> >> >> >>> 0BBC620D: D7 F0
> >> >> >>> 0BBC620E: C3 AD
> >> >> >>> 0BBC620F: 7E 0B
> >> >> >>> 0C6A00CC: 12 31
> >> >> >>> 0C6A00CD: CA 30
> >> >> >>> 0DE24C8C: E7 31
> >> >> >>> 0DE24C8D: 5B 30
> >> >> >>> 0DE24C8E: D2 71
> >> >> >>> 0DE24C8F: 78 68
> >> >> >>> 0E3D05CC: 1B 31
> >> >> >>> 0E3D05CD: D9 30
> >> >> >>> 0E3D05CE: 2E 71
> >> >> >>> 0E3D05CF: 67 68
> >> >> >>> 0FD1244C: 30 31
> >> >> >>> 0FD1244D: DB 30
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> There are some patterns which repeat themselves. The sequence 30 31
> >> >> >> hex
> >> >> >> often appear in the adjacent positions xxxxxxxC xxxxxxxD, while 68
> >> >> >> appears
> >> >> >> in
> >> >> >> position xxxxxxxF.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I have 2 Harddisks but it does not matter which is source or
> >> >> >> destination,
> >> >> >> it
> >> >> >> can also coincide. (I first noted it when nero in verification
> >> >> >> phase
> >> >> >> found
> >> >> >> differences between source and masterized copy)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The errors do not occure when i use DOS copy in Windows started in
> >> >> >> save
> >> >> >> mode!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Therefore I exclude HW problems. (Anyway I already changed IDE
> >> >> >> cables
> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> run memtest). Also, updating the driver VIA 4in1 did not help.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> please, help!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Not sure whether the D: drive you indicate is local or network.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I had problems of a similar nature about 12 years ago with Netware
> >> >> > "lite,"
> >> >> > which would randomly change bytes in large copied files. The
> >> >> > destination
> >> >> > file would occasionally have bytes changed - always in the same
> >> >> > files,
> >> >> > same
> >> >> > byte-offset, and the changed-to pattern was always one of a small
> >> >> > set
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > rogue bytes.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > As far as I'm aware, since Novell hasn't got back to me about it as
> >> >> > promised, they're still working on it....
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Is there anything of this nature in your setup?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > HTH
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ...Bill
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram