On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:04:42 -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon
<tls@rek.tjls.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 12:00:51PM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:58:03 +0200, Manuel Bouyer
> > <bouyer@antioche.eu.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 11:53:25AM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > The badsect will grab the sector, but is the problem exactly that
> > > > sector or all sectors past that point?
> > > 
> > > Exactly this sector.
> > > 
> > 
> > Then badsect(8) should do exactly what's desired.
> 
> But why would one want to use it? 

Someone, I forget who, thought that there might be a serious
performance hit from LBA48.  If there's no such problem, or you're
going to encounter it anyway on much of the disk, I agree that badsect
is not the right way to go.

		--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb