On 25 August 2011 18:54, Chris Rees utis...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 August 2011 16:14, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
When the specified or calculated rate exceeds 64KB/sec, the
required sleep interval between 64KB chunks is less than one
second. Since diskcheckd calculates the interval in
On 24 August 2011 16:14, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
When the specified or calculated rate exceeds 64KB/sec, the
required sleep interval between 64KB chunks is less than one
second. Since diskcheckd calculates the interval in whole seconds
-- because it calls sleep() rather than usleep() or
When the specified or calculated rate exceeds 64KB/sec, the
required sleep interval between 64KB chunks is less than one
second. Since diskcheckd calculates the interval in whole seconds
-- because it calls sleep() rather than usleep() or nanosleep()
-- an interval of less than one second is
On 2011-Aug-19 20:24:38 -0700, Jeremy Chadwick free...@jdc.parodius.com wrote:
The reallocated LBA cannot be dealt with aside from re-creating the
filesystem and telling it not to use the LBA. I see no flags in
newfs(8) that indicate a way to specify LBAs to avoid. And we don't
know what LBA it
Am 20.08.2011 19:34, schrieb Dan Langille:
This is an older system. I suspect insufficient ventilation. I'll look at
getting
a new case fan, if not some HDD fans.
The answer is quite simple, get new drives.
They have gone for some 24000 hours, IOW, at least 3 years (assuming
24x7), and at
Jeremy Chadwick free...@jdc.parodius.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 02:00:33AM -0700, per...@pluto.rain.com
wrote:
Jeremy Chadwick free...@jdc.parodius.com wrote:
... using dd to find the bad LBAs is the only choice he has.
or sysutils/diskcheckd ...
That software has a major problem
On Aug 20, 2011, at 06:24 , Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
You might also be wondering that dd command writes 512 bytes of zero to
that LBA; what about the old data that was there, in the case that the
drive remaps the LBA?
If you write zeros at OS level to an LBA, you will end up with zeros at that
On Aug 19, 2011, at 11:24 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 09:39:17PM -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
On Aug 19, 2011, at 7:21 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 04:50:01PM -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
System in question: FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE #3: Thu Mar 3
You can run long self-test in smartmontools (-t long). Then you can get
failed sector number from the smartmontools (-l selftest) and then you
can use DD to write zero to the specific sector. Also i am highly
recommending to setup smartd as daemon and to monitor number of
relocated sectors. If
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 01:34:41PM -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
On Aug 19, 2011, at 11:24 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 09:39:17PM -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
...
Information such as this?
http://beta.freebsddiary.org/smart-fixing-bad-sector.php
...
3) A very high
On Aug 20, 2011, at 1:54 PM, Alex Samorukov wrote:
[root@bast:~] # dd of=/dev/null if=/dev/ad2 bs=1m conv=noerror
dd: /dev/ad2: Input/output error
2717+0 records in
2717+0 records out
2848980992 bytes transferred in 127.128503 secs (22410246 bytes/sec)
dd: /dev/ad2: Input/output error
On Aug 20, 2011, at 2:04 PM, Diane Bruce wrote:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 01:34:41PM -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
On Aug 19, 2011, at 11:24 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 09:39:17PM -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
...
Information such as this?
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 07:54:30PM +0200, Alex Samorukov wrote:
You can run long self-test in smartmontools (-t long). Then you can
get failed sector number from the smartmontools (-l selftest) and
then you can use DD to write zero to the specific sector.
This is inaccurate advice. I covered
Dan, I will respond to your reply sometime tomorrow. I do not have time
to review the Email today (~7.7KBytes), but will have time tomorrow.
--
| Jeremy Chadwickjdc at parodius.com |
| Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ |
| UNIX
On Aug 20, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
Dan, I will respond to your reply sometime tomorrow. I do not have time
to review the Email today (~7.7KBytes), but will have time tomorrow.
No worries. Thank you.
--
Dan Langille - http://langille.org
The SMART tests you did didn't really amount to anything; no surprise.
short and long tests usually do not test the surface of the disk. There
are some drives which do it on a long test, but as I said before,
everything varies from drive to drive.
It is not correct statement, sorry. Long test
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 08:43:09PM +0200, Alex Samorukov wrote:
The SMART tests you did didn't really amount to anything; no surprise.
short and long tests usually do not test the surface of the disk. There
are some drives which do it on a long test, but as I said before,
everything varies
Dan, sorry for the previous mail. Seems my schedule today has just
unexpected changed; I had social events to deal with but as I found out
a few minutes ago those events are cancelled, which means I have time
today to look at your mail.
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 01:34:41PM -0400, Dan Langille
On Aug 20, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
I still suggest you replace the drive, although given its age I doubt
you'll be able to find a suitable replacement. I tend to keep disks
like this around for testing/experimental purposes and not for actual
use.
I have several unused
A follow-up given that I just viewed the SMART attribute data at the
very bottom of this page as of this writing (Sat Aug 20 13:00:09 PDT
2011):
http://beta.freebsddiary.org/smart-fixing-bad-sector.php
And I see this:
ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED
Jeremy Chadwick free...@jdc.parodius.com wrote:
... using dd to find the bad LBAs is the only choice he has.
or sysutils/diskcheckd. It uses a 64KB blocksize, falling back to
512 -- to identify the bad LBA(s) -- after getting a failure when
reading a large block, and IME it runs something like
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 02:00:33AM -0700, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
Jeremy Chadwick free...@jdc.parodius.com wrote:
... using dd to find the bad LBAs is the only choice he has.
or sysutils/diskcheckd. It uses a 64KB blocksize, falling back to
512 -- to identify the bad LBA(s) -- after
System in question: FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE #3: Thu Mar 3 04:52:04 GMT 2011
After a recent power failure, I'm seeing this in my logs:
Aug 19 20:36:34 bast smartd[1575]: Device: /dev/ad2, 2 Currently unreadable
(pending) sectors
And gmirror reports:
# gmirror status
NameStatus
On Aug 19, 2011, at 1:50 PM, Dan Langille wrote:
Searching on that error message, I was led to believe that identifying the
bad sector and
running dd to read it would cause the HDD to reallocate that bad block.
http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/badblockhowto.html
However, since ad2
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 04:50:01PM -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
System in question: FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE #3: Thu Mar 3 04:52:04 GMT 2011
After a recent power failure, I'm seeing this in my logs:
Aug 19 20:36:34 bast smartd[1575]: Device: /dev/ad2, 2 Currently unreadable
(pending) sectors
I
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 04:50:01PM -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
System in question: FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE #3: Thu Mar 3 04:52:04 GMT 2011
After a recent power failure, I'm seeing this in my logs:
Aug 19 20:36:34 bast smartd[1575]: Device: /dev/ad2, 2 Currently unreadable
(pending) sectors
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Diane Bruce d...@db.net wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 04:50:01PM -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
System in question: FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE #3: Thu Mar 3 04:52:04 GMT 2011
After a recent power failure, I'm seeing this in my logs:
Aug 19 20:36:34 bast smartd[1575]:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 05:51:02PM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Diane Bruce d...@db.net wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 04:50:01PM -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
System in question: FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE #3: Thu Mar ?3 04:52:04 GMT 2011
After a recent power
On Aug 19, 2011, at 7:21 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 04:50:01PM -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
System in question: FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE #3: Thu Mar 3 04:52:04 GMT 2011
After a recent power failure, I'm seeing this in my logs:
Aug 19 20:36:34 bast smartd[1575]: Device:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 09:39:17PM -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
On Aug 19, 2011, at 7:21 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 04:50:01PM -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
System in question: FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE #3: Thu Mar 3 04:52:04 GMT 2011
After a recent power failure, I'm
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011, Chuck Swiger wrote:
Reading the underlying failing drive with dd will help identify any
other questionable sectors. However, your drive temps are too high--
many vendors call out either 50C or 55C as the point where drive
reliability becomes significantly degraded.
The
31 matches
Mail list logo
