On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 12:53:32 +1000
Craig Sanders <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:38:29PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The scrub has completed and I now get the following output. It
> > seems that the status has been cleared so if it wasn't for the
> > kernel messages I wouldn't know which disk had the problem.
>
> that suggests to me that there is nothing wrong with the drive - if
> anything is going to stress a drive with problems, a 10+ hour 'zfs
> scrub' will do it.
>
> the drive was probably in standby mode and took too long to wake up
> and respond, causing the kernel to complain. or possibly a dodgy power
> connector or an underpowered PSU or similar.
Entries such as the following from the kernel message log seem to
clearly indicate a drive problem. Also smartctl reports a history of
errors.
[1515513.068668] ata4.00: status: { DRDY ERR }
[1515513.068669] ata4.00: error: { UNC }
[1515513.103259] ata4.00: configured for UDMA/133
[1515513.103294] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdd] Unhandled sense code
[1515513.103296] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdd] Result: hostbyte=DID_OK
driverbyte=DRIVER_SENSE [1515513.103298] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdd] Sense Key :
Medium Error [current] [descriptor] [1515513.103301] Descriptor sense
data with sense descriptors (in hex): [1515513.103303] 72 03 11
04 00 00 00 0c 00 0a 80 00 00 00 00 00 [1515513.103307] 2f 08
4a d0 [1515513.103310] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdd] Add. Sense: Unrecovered read
error - auto reallocate failed [1515513.103313] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdd] CDB:
Read(10): 28 00 2f 08 4a 80 00 01 00 00 [1515513.103318] end_request:
I/O error, dev sdd, sector 789072592 [1515513.103333] ata4: EH complete
> i've seen the standby/sleep phantom problem happen with several drives
> over the years - even replaced a few until i figured out what was
> going on (i've since re-used those drives with no problems).
>
> > I haven't run any "clear" command, so zfs decided by itself to
> > remove the data.
>
> no, zfs didn't SEE any problem. when it accessed the drive, there were
> no errors. I interpret this as very strong evidence that there is
> nothing wrong with the drive.
It reported 1.4MB of data that needed to be regenerated from parity, it
definitely saw problems.
> if it had seen any errors, they'd be in the error counts in the zfs
> status report.
The status report got it wrong.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
_______________________________________________
luv-main mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
