OP
Newcoppiceman
Active Member
Rodders53 was going to try using Facebook Messenger to send me his 1.03.12 .hdf so I could try that...Can you share it somewhere?
Rodders53 was going to try using Facebook Messenger to send me his 1.03.12 .hdf so I could try that...Can you share it somewhere?
I'm gratified I came up with the same hash! At least that means I have my method correct.dfc458b52c66754092a1bedbba57ab9385eb74c4 HDR_FOX_T2_1.03.12.hdf
I don't understand this at all. Why would there more than one .hdf claiming to be "1.03.12" out in the wild? Humax cock-up again? Different locales (in which case you would expect different version numbers)?I've used https://www.strerr.com/en/sha1_file.html to try to validate the two 1.03.12 downloads available at https://drivers.softpedia.com/get/F...igital-Recorder-Firmware-10312.shtml#download
One of the .hdf files is 22,307KB and yields 06217d41aabdb96f68e68db0515ab58a65b2e998
The other .hdf file is 22,327KB and yields 9dd3271e40c0170a7664f77a1781cb0f6444209e
Neither matches the dfc458b52c66754092a1bedbba57ab9385eb74c4 which BH advised (elsewhere) is the SHA1 hash for the 1.03.12 firmware.
Aren't they these?:I couldn't see another one on the link provided. So still keen to see the 9dd3 file.
Who knows. A .hdf file is just a container, a bit like .zip or .rar or any other container you care to think of.I don't understand this at all. Why would there more than one .hdf claiming to be "1.03.12" out in the wild? Humax cock-up again?
They both generate blank pages, so I guess they are time (or something else) sensitive.
You can uploadCan you share it somewhere?
'Tis done.You can upload here if you like.
Thermal issue?Seems to have settled down now
Current SMARTs 5, 197-199 exactly as reported in posts #4, #6.If it were my unit, I'll check the drive SMART again to see if attributes 5, 197-199 have increased.
Did you perform a SMART scan? Where the results ok?
Did you perform a file system check? What where the results?
A possibility.Thermal issue?
How else???!! Observe where it says "Local Time is". It's also polled from time to time inthe background, in order for WebIF to flag up warnings.Not sure how the Disk Information and Attributes tables get populated - is it each time you choose Disk Diagnostics?
Only if the file system was corrupt anyway, in which case your recordings are lost but you just don't know it yet! What makes you say "appears"? Where is your evidence?Fix-disk appears to have a very small - but finite - chance of losing recordings.
Evidence at post #8 (nobody else, I think, answered my question in post #4).What makes you say "appears"? Where is your evidence?
Get stuck in.
What... you meanEvidence at post #8
I didn't take issue with that because my interpretation of "very small" is not (unlike you) "finite" but "infinitesimal". So small as not to worry about it. Really. Just do it, you'll see how easy it is (and it could save you a heap of trouble).in my experience the chances of losing any recordings are very small.
I don't know. It depends whether the "clone" is of a file system or a raw disk - if Macrium Reflect relies on a Windows disk structure you're out of luck.Will it then work in the principal PVR?
You've probably got as much chance of losing recordings doing this as you have turning the box off and on (in our collective experience).I haven't tried tidying-up the file system - does this risk losing recordings or schedule?
You need to poll for the results after the advertised time. They won't suddenly appear out of the ether somehow. This involves either looking at the data in the Web Interface again or learning how to use the smartctl utility from the command line.I'm currently in Maintenance mode trying to run a short HDD test but results not forthcoming despite waiting >> "1 minutes".
If it understands Linux Ext3 filesystems then yes. But on a quick peruse it seems like a Windows tool using Windows methods, so who knows.can I use Macrium Reflect (8) to clone the HDD as insurance?
If it's a proper image copy then yes, and the disks need to be exactly the same size of course (or the target larger), unless whatever is doing the copy understands the filesystems and can do an intelligent copy.Will it then work in the principal PVR?