Low-Level Format For a USB Flash Drive?
Luyseyal writes "I unwittingly bought one of these terrible flash cards at Fry's and have managed to nuke two of them, successively. I have a USB flash card reader that will read/write the current one at USB 1.0 speed, but it locks up every Ubuntu and XP machine I've come across in high-speed access mode. I have read that if I low-level format it that it could be fixed, though my current one doesn't support it. My Google-fu must be weak because I cannot seem to find a USB flash reader that specifies that it will do low-level formatting." Can anyone offer advice for resurrecting such drives?
http://www.sdcard.org/consumers/formatter_3/
They don't abstract the filesystem, but they abstract the hell out of the lowlevel Flash blocks and just present you with a pretty array of sectors that all work perfectly... until they don't, and then you're screwed.
Good luck, but I wouldn't hold my breath. These things are essentially disposable, and probably more trouble than it's worth reviving.
The specifics:
sudo dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/rdiskxxx bs=1024000
or whatever variation you need for your distro. The above is for mac os x. yes, rdisk is a character device I know I know, but for some reason os x io's a LOT faster o that than the block device. (double or better) No idea why. Block works too tho, whatever works for you. Just plug in the correct disk number for the xxx. Careful which device you're nuking, dd is both swift and unforgiving.
I'd also like to get slightly pedantic and point out that this is NOT a low level format. Low level format refers to laying down the address blocks, and also the data headers and trailers. All dd does is write zeros to the meat of the data block, and update its checksum. There's no such thing as a low level format for non magnetic media because flash drive blocks are electrically addressed, not physically.
FWIW, you can probably tack on "count=20" to make things go much faster. I assume all you need is the partition table completely zapped, and the first 20mb should do it fine. Without this it will wipe the entire device, which for a flash drive may take a little bit. But then again your distro or whatnot may try to find a backup copy of the boot block and partition table etc at the end of the device in which case just wipe the whole thing to avoid it "fixing it" for you.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
He said "low-level", which I suppose is what's getting you confused. I know it's subjective, but to be considered "low-leveled" for me, it'd have to be under level 5.
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
Here's what I used to use for a low-level format:
A>debug
g=c800:5
If you've got a fairly speedy machine, set the interleave to 1:1. Don't forget to input the list of bad blocks so the drive won't try to store data in them. There's some more info in this KB article
HTH, HAND
I am responding to your post on the chance that you are seeing a photo import bug because you use gthumb.
The 16GB flash card you link to in your Ask Slashdot question looks like the 8GB flash card I use in my digital camera.
If you are doing digital photography and using Ubuntu or a Linux, take note that the photo import utility in gthumb is broken in Ubuntu 9.10. The gthumb version is 2.10.11 and the specific thing broken is photo import of jpeg images. Photo import fails if there are .avi movie files on the flash card.
I have had a series of flash card aggravations and here is my version of the preceding AskSlashdot comments:
1. Digital cameras format flash memory cards with minor variations or they store image data with minor variations. I work around potential glitches by keeping the card in the camera and connecting the camera to the Ubuntu computer.
2. Use gthumb (note bug above) or the graphical file tool Nautilus. The top level menu item "Places" in Ubuntu starts Nautilus. Copy the files from the camera to the computer.
3. Speaking about USB flash memory, I feel they have devolved into a Windows quality file transfer device = WQFTD That means, they work using the supplied file system. The success of the same devices using Ext2 and Ext3 file systems is problematic.
4. Measuring the read and write reliability of these WQFTDs at the bit level is a difficult problem. As I mention in my journal, I have a big name DVD drive that is a WQFTD. I know it fails when reading huge 8 bit data files. But, building a tool to prove when and where it fails is beyond my available time as an evening hacker.
5. So one answer is "simplify and work around your WQFTD" without challenging it's limits.