On 2020-09-09 15:53, Brad Campbell via Dng wrote: > On 5/9/20 10:38 pm, Simon Walter wrote: >> On 9/5/20 12:50 PM, Gregory Nowak wrote: >>> On Sat, Sep 05, 2020 at 12:26:21PM +0900, Simon Walter wrote: >>>> Reallocation, to my knowledge, should happen in the background. It's >>>> *possible* that the reallocation event and the FS corruption are >>>> unrelated. >>> >>> My understanding is that the drive won't attempt to reallocate a >>> sector until that sector is written to. So, if the e2fsck -f did try >>> to write to that sector, the drive did reallocate it in the >>> background. I do stand to be corrected as always. >>> >> >> Interesting. I think reallocation also happens as part of SMART self >> checks and reads. > > It really doesn't. It'll mark a sector as "pending" (as in, I can't read > from it so I'll mark it for later).
What does the OS get at this point? Is that a short read error? ... > > I have drives that have > 70,000h on them with one or two reallocated > sectors. I've also had drives grow them at a rapid rate. SMART isn't all > that good at actually predicting pending failure. I hope I didn't make it sound like that. SMART does not include prediction. It's just data, and it needs be interpreted. I should have probably said that I have never had a drive fail without being warned by my monitoring system (which includes logging SMART data). Best regards, Simon _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
