Re: Hard drive bad sector warning
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 13:17:14 +1000, yudi v wrote: Got a reply back from WD asking me to return the drive, I wiped the drive and tested the drive to see if it will throw up errors. Again, both the WD tool and the Debian disk utility do not report any bad sectors. Can anyone explain what's going on? Modern hard disk firmwares have the logic inside to automatically remap and hide bad sectors that have been discovered and mark them to be avoided in future read/write operations. I would not bother about this. Just let WD technicians analyze the disk and provide you with a new one. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.09.15.13.10...@gmail.com
Re: Hard drive bad sector warning
Got a reply back from WD asking me to return the drive, I wiped the drive and tested the drive to see if it will throw up errors. Again, both the WD tool and the Debian disk utility do not report any bad sectors. Can anyone explain what's going on? -- Kind regards, Yudi
Re: Hard drive bad sector warning
On 11/09/11 22:58, consul tores wrote: 2011/9/11 Scott Ferguson prettyfly.producti...@gmail.com: On 11/09/11 15:38, consul tores wrote: 2011/9/10 yudi vyudi@gmail.com: snipped -- Kind regards, Yudi I think that, it is a problem with Squeeze fdisk+GPT; please try cfdisk, it seems updated. Yudi is not using GPT. Ooops, it should says: Squeeze fdisk + LBA How is this an LBA issue? snipped Nop, i did a test to Squeeze fdisk, and cfdisk over similar conditions (windows 7, and Debian, it shows Disk /dev/sda: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x7221e240 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 1 153 12277767 HPFS/NTFS Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary. /dev/sda2 153 19370 1543577607 HPFS/NTFS /dev/sda3 59527 60802102389767 HPFS/NTFS /dev/sda4 19370 41291 176074880+ 5 Extended /dev/sda5 19370 19893 4198400 82 Linux swap / Solaris /dev/sda6 19893 35212 123045888 83 Linux /dev/sda7 35212 4129148829536 83 Linux Partition table entries are not in disk order I'm sorry Consul - but I'm very confused here - 1. you are referring to your system, where you have used MS to create partitions. Yes, MS uses fdisk, but it's not the same, and MS creates damaged partitions (that's why they're out of order). When Debian (or whatever GNU/Linux you used) created it's partitions it was lumbered with a DOS extended partition - and yes, they won't align on cylinders - but thats an MS issue - Debian (or whatever you used) can only work with the remaining space. 2. your drive has 512B sectors - the OP has 4K sectors 3. you are just listing partitions, not creating them (or did I miss something? Is this in reference to the OPs problem? Or are you also having a problem? NOTE: you are also using CHS - which is OK for MS, which works with both CHS and sectors (though I struggle to see the relevance to Debian) - but Debian *only* uses sectors. snipped I did not do it, but GNU-fdisk use libparted; I did another test using windows 7, and Slackware-13.37; both fdisk, and cfdisk work correctly, they do not say Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary., That's because MS created the partition then the problem could be that 4k-aware (as it is named by Seagate) is not present on Squeeze fdisk, man fdisk | grep 4096 1024, 2048 or 4096. (Recent kernels know the sector size. sfdisk, and cfdisk. I really do not know if the block errors are by the same cause. Without actually having a 4K sector hard drive, again, I struggle to understand the relevance... The partitioning tool doesn't have to be 4K-aware [sic] - but if partitions and sectors don't align (Byte multiples) then several reads are required, hence the performance loss. Maybe I'm just tired, or it's a language thing. My apologies if I've missed something here. Kind regards snipped Cheers -- They proved that if you quit smoking, it will prolong your life. What they haven’t proved is that a prolonged life is a good thing. I haven’t seen the stats on that yet. — Bill Hicks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e6df842.1050...@gmail.com
Re: Hard drive bad sector warning
On 11/09/11 23:27, consul tores wrote: Adding Slackware test information: bash-4.1# fdisk -l Disk /dev/sda: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 cylinders, total 976773168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x7221e240 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 *2048 2457599 12277767 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda2 2457600 311173119 1543577607 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda3 956293120 976771071102389767 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda4 311175166 663324926 176074880+ 5 Extended /dev/sda5 311175168 319571967 4198400 82 Linux swap /dev/sda6 319574016 565665791 123045888 83 Linux /dev/sda7 565665855 66332492648829536 83 Linux Partition table entries are not in disk order bash-4.1# sfdisk -l Disk /dev/sda: 60801 cylinders, 255 heads, 63 sectors/track Warning: extended partition does not start at a cylinder boundary. DOS and Linux will interpret the contents differently. Units = cylinders of 8225280 bytes, blocks of 1024 bytes, counting from 0 Device Boot Start End #cyls#blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 0+152-153- 12277767 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda2152+ 19369- 19217- 1543577607 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda3 59526+ 60801- 1275- 102389767 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda4 19369+ 41290- 21921- 176074880+ 5 Extended /dev/sda5 19369+ 19892-523- 4198400 82 Linux swap /dev/sda6 19892+ 35211- 15319- 123045888 83 Linux /dev/sda7 35211+ 41290- 6079- 48829536 83 Linux cfdisk (util-linux 2.19) Disk Drive: /dev/sda Size: 500107862016 bytes, 500.1 GB Heads: 255 Sectors per Track: 63 Cylinders: 60801 NameFlags Part Type FS Type [Label]Size (MB) -- Unusable 1.05* sda1BootPrimary ntfs[SYSTEM_DRV] 1257.25* sda2 Primary ntfs [Windows7_OS] 158062.35* Logical Free Space 1.05* sda5NC Logical swap 4299.17* sda6NC Logical ext4 [Debian] 126000.04* sda7 Logical reiserfs [Slackware] 50001.48* Logical Free Space 14.72* sda3 Primary ntfs [Lenovo_Recovery] 10484.72* Unusable 1.08* [ Help ] [ Print ] [ Quit ] [ Units ] [ Write ] Print help screen When you let MS have first bite at the partitioning, GNU/Linux can only work with the scraps. And fdisk/sfdisk,and, cfdisk can display sectors [*1] - which is what Debian sees *not* CHS. [*1] -u,-uS,and,-Ps respectively I'm unclear as to why display/list/print partitions (in CHS) of your hard drives has any bearing on the ability of those tools to align sectors and partitions (the OP already knows it's a manual process ie, look at sectors and divide by 8). NOTE: fdisk -b 4096 /dev/whatever will deal with 4K sectors. That shouldn't be necessary with post-Squeeze releases though. You may already know this, but I found it instructive, from man fdisk:- There are several *fdisk programs around. Each has its problems and strengths. Try them in the order cfdisk, fdisk, sfdisk. Indeed, cfdisk is a beautiful program that has strict requirements on the partition tables it accepts, and produces high quality partition tables. Use it if you can. fdisk is a buggy program that does fuzzy things - usually it happens to produce reasonable results. Its single advantage is that it has some support for BSD disk labels and other non-DOS partition tables. Avoid it if you can. sfdisk is for hackers only - the user interface is terrible, but it is more correct than fdisk and more powerful than both fdisk and cfdisk. Moreover, it can be used noninteractively.) These days there also is parted. The cfdisk interface is nicer, but parted does much more: it not only resizes partitions, but also the filesystems that live in them. Cheers -- They proved that if you quit smoking, it will prolong your life. What they haven’t proved is that a prolonged life is a good thing. I haven’t seen the stats on that yet. — Bill Hicks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of
Re: Hard drive bad sector warning
On 11/09/11 14:09, yudi v wrote: d-i uses parted (partman). snipped NOTE: neither fdisk or parted is the cause of your original problem... This is what I thought. I suspect it's got something to do with the kernel. I am just using the default Sqeeze kernel 2.6.32-5-686. I'm unable to advice as I don't currently have access to a non-512B drive :-( snipped NOTE: most Debian kernels do support the larger sectors, but you can check with:- cat /sys/block/drive_eg_sda/__queue/physical_block_size Here's the output /sys/block$ cat sda/queue/physical_block_size 4096 /sys/block$ cat dm-0/queue//physical_block_size 4096 /sys/block$ cat dm-1/queue//physical_block_size 4096 /sys/block$ cat dm-2/queue//physical_block_size 4096 $:/sys/block$ cat dm-3/queue//physical_block_size 4096 /sys/block$ cat dm-4/queue//physical_block_size 4096 So - doesn't appear to be a problem there ^ /sys/block$ cat sr1/queue//physical_block_size 2048 /sys/block$ cat sr0/queue//physical_block_size 512 ?? snipped If I wipe this disk, I will definitely use GPT. I also have win 7 on the disk, wiki says 64bit win7 can be booted from GPT disk. snipped What baffles me is when I run the WD data lifeguard tool from windows 7 partition, it comes back saying the following: Test Option: QUICK TEST Model Number: WDC WD7500BPKT-60PK4T0 Unit Serial Number: WD-WX31E1177192 Firmware Number: 01.01A01 Capacity: 750.16 GB SMART Status: PASS Test Result: FAIL Test Error Code: 06-Quick Test on drive 1 did not complete! Status code = 07 (Failed read test element), Failure Checkpoint = 97 (Unknown Test) SMART self-test did not complete on drive 1! Test Time: 02:52:40, September 11, 2011 Test Option: EXTENDED TEST Model Number: WDC WD7500BPKT-60PK4T0 Unit Serial Number: WD-WX31E1177192 Firmware Number: 01.01A01 Capacity: 750.16 GB SMART Status: PASS Test Result: FAIL Test Error Code: 08- Test Time: 13:23:34, September 11, 2011 Last time it did the same and after wiping the drive, it passed without any issue. I believe this is what is going to happen again. Also, if it's reporting bad sectors from Windows7, I don't think it's a Linux specific issue. Correct me if I am wrong. -- Kind regards, Yudi Looks like a hardware problem - I'd try another cable. Cheers -- It's really weird how your life changes. Tonight I'm drinking water. Four years ago? Opium. Night and day, you know? — Bill Hicks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e6c7f17.3030...@gmail.com
Re: Hard drive bad sector warning
On 10/09/11 15:51, consul tores wrote: 2011/9/9 yudi vyudi@gmail.com: I would simply request for a hard disk replacement, you will rest more relaxed after that :-) I will definitely ask for a replacement as it's still under warranty but I want to make sure it's not a software issue. -- Kind regards, Yudi Have you tried # parted -l, fdisk works with cylinders. Though I prefer parted, fdisk certainly does work with sectors (which is just as well, seeing as Linux doesn't work with CHS). Try -u Cheers -- It's really weird how your life changes. Tonight I'm drinking water. Four years ago? Opium. Night and day, you know? — Bill Hicks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e6c805a.8030...@gmail.com
Re: Hard drive bad sector warning
On 11/09/11 15:38, consul tores wrote: 2011/9/10 yudi vyudi@gmail.com: snipped -- Kind regards, Yudi I think that, it is a problem with Squeeze fdisk+GPT; please try cfdisk, it seems updated. Yudi is not using GPT. cfdisk and fdisk are both part of (upstream) util-linux-ng[*1], so both handle large sectors the same. In Squeeze they are both (currently) at 2.17.2-9. Essentially cfdisk is just fdisk with less features and capabilities, and, at least in Debian AFAIK, is only available as part of d-i (it's a udeb). Where did you get a version of cfdisk that is installable on normal Debian system? Kind regards [*1]just to confuse the issue, util-linux-ng (New Generation), originally a fork of util-linux, has recently been renamed util-linux I swear I'm not making that up! :-) Refs:- ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/util-linux-ng/v2.17/v2.17-ReleaseNotes http://karelzak.blogspot.com/2010/01/util-linux-ng-217.html http://userweb.kernel.org/~kzak/util-linux/ (currently down for maintenance) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Util-linux -- It's really weird how your life changes. Tonight I'm drinking water. Four years ago? Opium. Night and day, you know? — Bill Hicks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e6c842f.2080...@gmail.com
Re: Hard drive bad sector warning
cfdisk and fdisk are both part of (upstream) util-linux-ng[*1], so both handle large sectors the same. In Squeeze they are both (currently) at 2.17.2-9. I used gparted-live-0.8.1-3 (debian based with 2.6.38 kernel) to partition it, I believe util-linux version on this image is 2.19. Then I used the Debian installer to set-up LUKS and LVM. Looks like a hardware problem - I'd try another cable. I don't think it's a connector issue. It's laptop but it uses a SATA 1.5Gbps controller. Old drive works fine. I sent WD the error messages from Western Digital Data LifeGuard Diagnostics Extended test output. Wait and see what they have to say. I really don't think it's a linux specific issue. Running this software from the Windows partition, I guess it really does not matter what's on the other partitions. -- Kind regards, Yudi
Re: Hard drive bad sector warning
Scott Ferguson wrote: Where did you get a version of cfdisk that is installable on normal Debian system? Umm, it is on my old lenny box and it is on my new squeeze box. I didn't do anything special to install it. Most installs that I do are minimal base installs to start with. -- Kind Regards AndrewM Andrew McGlashan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e6c8b6e.6090...@affinityvision.com.au
Re: Hard drive bad sector warning
On 11/09/11 20:20, Andrew McGlashan wrote: Scott Ferguson wrote: Where did you get a version of cfdisk that is installable on normal Debian system? Umm, it is on my old lenny box and it is on my new squeeze box. I didn't do anything special to install it. Most installs that I do are minimal base installs to start with. Thanks for that. It's on my Lenny and Squeeze boxes too as part of util-linux My mistake - I just did a dpkg --get-selections, apt-cache search and:- http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=cfdisksearchon=namessuite=allsection=allsourceid=mozilla-search which is where I got the udeb bit from, and the link to the:- http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/cfdisk-udeb which gave the Warning: This package is intended for the use in building debian-installer images only. Do not install it on a normal Debian system. Does cfdisk do a better job of handling 4K sectors than fdisk - I was unable to find anything to that effect?? (again, my preference is parted) - the use cfdisk because fdisk + GPD = problem was not my post (and the OP was not using GPD) Cheers -- It's really weird how your life changes. Tonight I'm drinking water. Four years ago? Opium. Night and day, you know? — Bill Hicks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e6c9259.8090...@gmail.com
Re: Hard drive bad sector warning
2011/9/11 Scott Ferguson prettyfly.producti...@gmail.com: On 11/09/11 15:38, consul tores wrote: 2011/9/10 yudi vyudi@gmail.com: snipped -- Kind regards, Yudi I think that, it is a problem with Squeeze fdisk+GPT; please try cfdisk, it seems updated. Yudi is not using GPT. Ooops, it should says: Squeeze fdisk + LBA cfdisk and fdisk are both part of (upstream) util-linux-ng[*1], so both handle large sectors the same. In Squeeze they are both (currently) at 2.17.2-9. Essentially cfdisk is just fdisk with less features and capabilities, and, at least in Debian AFAIK, is only available as part of d-i (it's a udeb). Nop, i did a test to Squeeze fdisk, and cfdisk over similar conditions (windows 7, and Debian, it shows Disk /dev/sda: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x7221e240 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 1 153 12277767 HPFS/NTFS Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary. /dev/sda2 153 19370 1543577607 HPFS/NTFS /dev/sda3 59527 60802102389767 HPFS/NTFS /dev/sda4 19370 41291 176074880+ 5 Extended /dev/sda5 19370 19893 4198400 82 Linux swap / Solaris /dev/sda6 19893 35212 123045888 83 Linux /dev/sda7 35212 4129148829536 83 Linux Partition table entries are not in disk order Where did you get a version of cfdisk that is installable on normal Debian system? I did not do it, but GNU-fdisk use libparted; I did another test using windows 7, and Slackware-13.37; both fdisk, and cfdisk work correctly, they do not say Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary., then the problem could be that 4k-aware (as it is named by Seagate) is not present on Squeeze fdisk, sfdisk, and cfdisk. I really do not know if the block errors are by the same cause. Kind regards [*1]just to confuse the issue, util-linux-ng (New Generation), originally a fork of util-linux, has recently been renamed util-linux I swear I'm not making that up! :-) Refs:- ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/util-linux-ng/v2.17/v2.17-ReleaseNotes http://karelzak.blogspot.com/2010/01/util-linux-ng-217.html http://userweb.kernel.org/~kzak/util-linux/ (currently down for maintenance) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Util-linux -- It's really weird how your life changes. Tonight I'm drinking water. Four years ago? Opium. Night and day, you know? — Bill Hicks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e6c842f.2080...@gmail.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAFxkjq=xa0mr+gb+nmjchtkod14cukmrjcbjne5oi4slde_...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Hard drive bad sector warning
Adding Slackware test information: bash-4.1# fdisk -l Disk /dev/sda: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 cylinders, total 976773168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x7221e240 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 *2048 2457599 12277767 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda2 2457600 311173119 1543577607 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda3 956293120 976771071102389767 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda4 311175166 663324926 176074880+ 5 Extended /dev/sda5 311175168 319571967 4198400 82 Linux swap /dev/sda6 319574016 565665791 123045888 83 Linux /dev/sda7 565665855 66332492648829536 83 Linux Partition table entries are not in disk order bash-4.1# sfdisk -l Disk /dev/sda: 60801 cylinders, 255 heads, 63 sectors/track Warning: extended partition does not start at a cylinder boundary. DOS and Linux will interpret the contents differently. Units = cylinders of 8225280 bytes, blocks of 1024 bytes, counting from 0 Device Boot Start End #cyls#blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 0+152-153- 12277767 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda2152+ 19369- 19217- 1543577607 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda3 59526+ 60801- 1275- 102389767 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda4 19369+ 41290- 21921- 176074880+ 5 Extended /dev/sda5 19369+ 19892-523- 4198400 82 Linux swap /dev/sda6 19892+ 35211- 15319- 123045888 83 Linux /dev/sda7 35211+ 41290- 6079- 48829536 83 Linux cfdisk (util-linux 2.19) Disk Drive: /dev/sda Size: 500107862016 bytes, 500.1 GB Heads: 255 Sectors per Track: 63 Cylinders: 60801 NameFlags Part Type FS Type [Label]Size (MB) -- Unusable 1.05* sda1BootPrimary ntfs[SYSTEM_DRV] 1257.25* sda2 Primary ntfs [Windows7_OS] 158062.35* Logical Free Space 1.05* sda5NC Logical swap 4299.17* sda6NC Logical ext4 [Debian] 126000.04* sda7 Logical reiserfs [Slackware] 50001.48* Logical Free Space 14.72* sda3 Primary ntfs [Lenovo_Recovery] 10484.72* Unusable 1.08* [ Help ] [ Print ] [ Quit ] [ Units ] [ Write ] Print help screen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAFxkjqmy6H7Tbth5DcunAraJ7aiDb75k45gGrPN0b1Ga=yk...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Hard drive bad sector warning
Have you tried # parted -l, fdisk works with cylinders. here's the parted output: Model: ATA WDC WD7500BPKT-6 (scsi) Disk /dev/sda: 750GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/4096B Partition Table: msdos Number Start End SizeType File system Flags 1 1049kB 53.7GB 53.7GB primary ntfs boot 2 53.7GB 54.8GB 1074MB primary ext4 3 54.8GB 592GB 537GB primary 4 592GB 750GB 159GB extended 5 592GB 750GB 159GB logical ntfs Model: Linux device-mapper (linear) (dm) Disk /dev/mapper/vg_hostname-lv_vm: 107GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/4096B Partition Table: loop Number Start EndSize File system Flags 1 0.00B 107GB 107GB ext4 Model: Linux device-mapper (linear) (dm) Disk /dev/mapper/vg_hostname-lv_swap: 4094MB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/4096B Partition Table: loop Number Start End SizeFile system Flags 1 0.00B 4094MB 4094MB linux-swap(v1) Model: Linux device-mapper (linear) (dm) Disk /dev/mapper/vg_hostname-lv_home: 51.2GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/4096B Partition Table: loop Number Start End SizeFile system Flags 1 0.00B 51.2GB 51.2GB ext4 Model: Linux device-mapper (linear) (dm) Disk /dev/mapper/vg_hostname-lv_root: 20.5GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/4096B Partition Table: loop Number Start End SizeFile system Flags 1 0.00B 20.5GB 20.5GB ext4 Error: /dev/mapper/sda3_crypt: unrecognised disk label Warning: Unable to open /dev/sr1 read-write (Read-only file system). /dev/sr1 has been opened read-only. Warning: The driver descriptor says the physical block size is 512 bytes, but Linux says it is 2048 bytes. Ignore/Cancel? -- not sure what that error means. I am guessing it's got something to do with the LUKS partition. If I type Ignore, It says Error: Can't have a partition outside the disk! ??? -- Kind regards, Yudi
Re: Hard drive bad sector warning
On 10/09/11 16:39, yudi v wrote: Have you tried # parted -l, fdisk works with cylinders. here's the parted output: Model: ATA WDC WD7500BPKT-6 (scsi) Disk /dev/sda: 750GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/4096B snipped -- Kind regards, Yudi fdisk can't deal with non-4096B sectors. It sees only 512, 1024, and 2048 as valid sizes. Use GPD instead of DOS partition types, *and* use parted instead of fdisk. The good news it that there's most likely nothing wrong with your drive. Cheers -- It's really weird how your life changes. Tonight I'm drinking water. Four years ago? Opium. Night and day, you know? — Bill Hicks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e6b0d89.30...@gmail.com
Re: Hard drive bad sector warning
On 10/09/11 16:39, yudi v wrote: Have you tried # parted -l, fdisk works with cylinders. here's the parted output: Model: ATA WDC WD7500BPKT-6 (scsi) Disk /dev/sda: 750GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/4096B Partition Table: msdos Sorry:- fdisk can't deal with *non-*4096B sectors. Should have read:- fdisk can't deal with *4096B* sectors. snipped -- Kind regards, Yudi -- It's really weird how your life changes. Tonight I'm drinking water. Four years ago? Opium. Night and day, you know? — Bill Hicks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e6b0df5.10...@gmail.com
Re: Hard drive bad sector warning
Use GPD instead of DOS partition types, *and* use parted instead of fdisk. I used fdisk to partition the disk before installing the OS. Just to make sure all the partitions started on the physical sector boundaries. The fdisk output posted above looks fine, doesn't it? I followed this article http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-4kb-sector-disks/ Except for the sda4 all the other partitions start on sector that's a multiple of 8. I don't see any problem there. could you please elaborate on your preference for parted over fdisk. Is it GPT? If it's GPT, I cannot use it as my 5yr old laptop does not support it. Isn't EFI/UEFI needed to use GPT? The good news it that there's most likely nothing wrong with your drive. Hope so. -- Kind regards, Yudi
Re: Hard drive bad sector warning
On 10/09/11 18:22, yudi v wrote:
Use GPD instead of DOS partition types, *and* use parted instead of
fdisk.
I used fdisk to partition the disk before installing the OS.
d-i uses parted (partman).
I know the first release of Squeeze failed to properly align 4K sectors
with partitions - but using the udeb from Wheezy fixed that for me - it
could be fixed in a previous point release, and, it could be just a DOS
partition table issue (what I used in that instance). I could have
manually aligned partitions but I'm lazy.
NOTE: neither fdisk or parted is the cause of your original problem...
Just to
make sure all the partitions started on the physical sector boundaries.
The fdisk output posted above looks fine, doesn't it? I followed this
article http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-4kb-sector-disks/
Roderick W. Smith writes very much like an Ubuntu poster called srs5694...
Note that the author doesn't say you *must* use fdisk (it's just his
preference) or that you should use it prior to installing to the same
drive - he's just writing (re-phrasing) information on why failing to
align partitions to sectors on newer, larger sector, hard drives stops
performance loss. His article is *not* wrong, except that he compares an
old version of parted with a new version of fdisk [*1]
The Debian installer does *not* suffer from these failing. Note also
that while he says to use u (CLI -u) option with fdisk[*2],
[quote]you can, however, align partitions properly with any version of
fdisk. To do this, you should change the default units from cylinders to
sectors by typing u at the main menu.[/quote]
he then makes using a similar option with parted sound like a parted
failing...
[quote]Through version 2.1[*1], the text-mode GNU Parted program
(command name parted) provides little support for aligning on anything
but cylinder boundaries. The best approach may be to type unit s to
change the default unit to sectors
[/quote]
The article is mostly about performance, it's dated as few 4096B drives
had been released at the time, and support was patchy:-
http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0699.html is when more support
began upstream.
[*1]relevant only to Lenny and earlier
[*2]you *should also use the c flag, *unless* you want to actually
install DOS.
Except for the sda4 all the other partitions start on sector that's a
multiple of 8. I don't see any problem there.
That's a partition alignment issue (performance and redundant given that
d-i automagically does the same thing).
Sector size is a separate issue, hence your error message:-
[quote]
Warning: The driver descriptor says the physical block size is 512
bytes, but Linux says it is 2048 bytes.
[/quote]
Which seems to indicate a problem with the driver - and the kernel.
Check that your kernel supports larger sectors - see further in this
post - if it does, file a bug report on the driver.
Also see http://lwn.net/Articles/377895/ for an overview of the problems.
could you please elaborate on your preference for parted over fdisk.
It'd be easier if you asked me for reasons to use fdisk over parted (eg.
support for brain-damaged partitions, DOS, etc).
Current version of fdisk (man fdisk):-
-b sectorsize
Specify the sector size of the disk. Valid values are 512, 1024, or
2048. (Recent kernels know the sector size. Use this only on old kernels
or to override the kernel's ideas.)
No work-a-round for that... (unless thunk type layers are considered
valid work-a-rounds, which tends to lead to the sort of performance
losses you get from not aligning 4K sectors with partitions).
parted supports scripting better than fdisk, and much of GNU linux is
built around parted libraries. parted recieves more development.
NOTE: most Debian kernels do support the larger sectors, but you can
check with:-
cat /sys/block/drive_eg_sda/queue/physical_block_size
parted is very strict about partitions, fdisk is far more tolerant.
Opinions vary as to which is better (sloppy or strict).
If you are going to use fdisk:-
don't use DOS-compatible mode (for backward compatibility this mode is
enable by default, you have to use command 'c' or '-c' command line
option to disable DOS mode. Note that for the next major release the DOS
mode will be disable by default.)
use sectors as display units (command 'u' or '-u' command line option)
all default sizes/offsets are aligned to the physical block boundary
(e.g. First sector dialog always provides aligned default)
use +size{M,G} convention to specify Last sector (e.g. +5G to create
5GiB partition) then fdiskl aligns the size to physical block boundary
don't forget that fdisk(8) always follows your wishes -- it means that
if you explicitly define first/last sector number then the partition
could be misaligned
GPT and parted are like UTF and HTML tables - people will stick with
what they know in a changed environment simply because it's what they
Re: Hard drive bad sector warning
d-i uses parted (partman). I know the first release of Squeeze failed to properly align 4K sectors with partitions - but using the udeb from Wheezy fixed that for me - it could be fixed in a previous point release, and, it could be just a DOS partition table issue (what I used in that instance). I could have manually aligned partitions but I'm lazy. NOTE: neither fdisk or parted is the cause of your original problem... This is what I thought. I suspect it's got something to do with the kernel. I am just using the default Sqeeze kernel 2.6.32-5-686. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0699.html is when more support began upstream. Sector size is a separate issue, hence your error message:- [quote] Warning: The driver descriptor says the physical block size is 512 bytes, but Linux says it is 2048 bytes. [/quote] Which seems to indicate a problem with the driver - and the kernel. Check that your kernel supports larger sectors - see further in this post - if it does, file a bug report on the driver. Also see http://lwn.net/Articles/**377895/http://lwn.net/Articles/377895/for an overview of the problems. NOTE: most Debian kernels do support the larger sectors, but you can check with:- cat /sys/block/drive_eg_sda/**queue/physical_block_size Here's the output /sys/block$ cat sda/queue/physical_block_size 4096 /sys/block$ cat dm-0/queue//physical_block_size 4096 /sys/block$ cat dm-1/queue//physical_block_size 4096 /sys/block$ cat dm-2/queue//physical_block_size 4096 $:/sys/block$ cat dm-3/queue//physical_block_size 4096 /sys/block$ cat dm-4/queue//physical_block_size 4096 /sys/block$ cat sr1/queue//physical_block_size 2048 /sys/block$ cat sr0/queue//physical_block_size 512 Isn't� EFI/UEFI needed to use GPT? No. It's part of Intel's EFI specs, which I presume is where that conclusion comes from (EFI is *not* needed to support GPD). If I wipe this disk, I will definitely use GPT. I also have win 7 on the disk, wiki says 64bit win7 can be booted from GPT disk. Cheers Refs:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**GUID_Partition_Tablehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID_Partition_Table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Advanced_formathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_format http://wdc.custhelp.com/app/**answers/detail/a_id/5655/~/** how-to-install-a-wd-advanced-**format-drive-on-a-non-windows-** operating-systemhttp://wdc.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5655/%7E/how-to-install-a-wd-advanced-format-drive-on-a-non-windows-operating-system http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/**library/whitepapers/eng/2579-**771430.pdfhttp://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/whitepapers/eng/2579-771430.pdf http://people.redhat.com/**msnitzer/docs/io-limits.txthttp://people.redhat.com/msnitzer/docs/io-limits.txt What baffles me is when I run the WD data lifeguard tool from windows 7 partition, it comes back saying the following: Test Option: QUICK TEST Model Number: WDC WD7500BPKT-60PK4T0 Unit Serial Number: WD-WX31E1177192 Firmware Number: 01.01A01 Capacity: 750.16 GB SMART Status: PASS Test Result: FAIL Test Error Code: 06-Quick Test on drive 1 did not complete! Status code = 07 (Failed read test element), Failure Checkpoint = 97 (Unknown Test) SMART self-test did not complete on drive 1! Test Time: 02:52:40, September 11, 2011 Test Option: EXTENDED TEST Model Number: WDC WD7500BPKT-60PK4T0 Unit Serial Number: WD-WX31E1177192 Firmware Number: 01.01A01 Capacity: 750.16 GB SMART Status: PASS Test Result: FAIL Test Error Code: 08- Test Time: 13:23:34, September 11, 2011 Last time it did the same and after wiping the drive, it passed without any issue. I believe this is what is going to happen again. Also, if it's reporting bad sectors from Windows7, I don't think it's a Linux specific issue. Correct me if I am wrong. -- Kind regards, Yudi
Re: Hard drive bad sector warning
2011/9/10 yudi v yudi@gmail.com: d-i uses parted (partman). I know the first release of Squeeze failed to properly align 4K sectors with partitions - but using the udeb from Wheezy fixed that for me - it could be fixed in a previous point release, and, it could be just a DOS partition table issue (what I used in that instance). I could have manually aligned partitions but I'm lazy. NOTE: neither fdisk or parted is the cause of your original problem... This is what I thought. I suspect it's got something to do with the kernel. I am just using the default Sqeeze kernel 2.6.32-5-686. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0699.html is when more support began upstream. Sector size is a separate issue, hence your error message:- [quote] Warning: The driver descriptor says the physical block size is 512 bytes, but Linux says it is 2048 bytes. [/quote] Which seems to indicate a problem with the driver - and the kernel. Check that your kernel supports larger sectors - see further in this post - if it does, file a bug report on the driver. Also see http://lwn.net/Articles/377895/ for an overview of the problems. NOTE: most Debian kernels do support the larger sectors, but you can check with:- cat /sys/block/drive_eg_sda/queue/physical_block_size Here's the output /sys/block$ cat sda/queue/physical_block_size 4096 /sys/block$ cat dm-0/queue//physical_block_size 4096 /sys/block$ cat dm-1/queue//physical_block_size 4096 /sys/block$ cat dm-2/queue//physical_block_size 4096 $:/sys/block$ cat dm-3/queue//physical_block_size 4096 /sys/block$ cat dm-4/queue//physical_block_size 4096 /sys/block$ cat sr1/queue//physical_block_size 2048 /sys/block$ cat sr0/queue//physical_block_size 512 Isn't� EFI/UEFI needed to use GPT? No. It's part of Intel's EFI specs, which I presume is where that conclusion comes from (EFI is *not* needed to support GPD). If I wipe this disk, I will definitely use GPT. I also have win 7 on the disk, wiki says 64bit win7 can be booted from GPT disk. Cheers Last time it did the same and after wiping the drive, it passed without any issue. I believe this is what is going to happen again. Also, if it's reporting bad sectors from Windows7, I don't think it's a Linux specific issue. Correct me if I am wrong. -- Kind regards, Yudi I think that, it is a problem with Squeeze fdisk+GPT; please try cfdisk, it seems updated. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAFxkjqkJ7mvmouOSODj9fTwgpipgA6+yiRqUJwW_mBGdxi5=_...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Hard drive bad sector warning
2011/9/9 yudi v yudi@gmail.com: I would simply request for a hard disk replacement, you will rest more relaxed after that :-) I will definitely ask for a replacement as it's still under warranty but I want to make sure it's not a software issue. -- Kind regards, Yudi Have you tried # parted -l? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-spanish-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAFxkjqn0Fcfq7Y1aA1EN=wjuiavybna1v0g6q7np94clupe...@mail.gmail.com
Hard drive bad sector warning
Disk utility tells that there are bad sectors on the new hard drive. I had the same issue before and I was about to send it back to get it replaced. I wrote random data to the drive and then checked once more to make sure it had bad sectors. This time Disk utility came back saying that the drive is fine, no bad sectors. So I reinstalled Debian and Win 7 with the same configuration. After installing again I checked the drive and Disk utility reported no bad sectors. I have been using it for over a month and now I have the same problem. Disk utility reports that there are bad sectors. I am not sure what's going on. How can I conclusively confirm that this disk has bad sectors? fdisk output Disk /dev/sda: 750.2 GB, 750156374016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 91201 cylinders, total 1465149168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Disk identifier: 0x2307 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 *2048 104859647524288007 HPFS/NTFS /dev/sda2 104859648 106956799 1048576 83 Linux /dev/sda3 106956800 1155532799 524288000 83 Linux - LUKS/LVM /dev/sda4 1155534846 1465149167 1548071615 Extended Partition 4 does not start on physical sector boundary. /dev/sda5 1155534848 1465149167 1548071607 HPFS/NTFS here's the output of # smartctl -l selftest /dev/sda === START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION === SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1 Num Test_DescriptionStatus Remaining LifeTime(hours) LBA_of_first_error # 1 Short offline Completed without error 00% 102 - # 2 Short offline Completed without error 00% 100 - # 3 Extended offlineCompleted without error 00%83 - # 4 Short offline Completed without error 00%81 - # 5 Short offline Completed: read failure 90%70 229181752 # 6 Short offline Completed: read failure 90%67 229181752 # 7 Short offline Completed: read failure 90%67 229181752 -- Kind regards, Yudi
Re: Hard drive bad sector warning
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 22:50:39 +1000, yudi v wrote: Disk utility tells that there are bad sectors on the new hard drive. New driver with bad sectors? What is the output of smartctl -a /dev/sda I had the same issue before and I was about to send it back to get it replaced. I wrote random data to the drive and then checked once more to make sure it had bad sectors. This time Disk utility came back saying that the drive is fine, no bad sectors. So I reinstalled Debian and Win 7 with the same configuration. After installing again I checked the drive and Disk utility reported no bad sectors. I have been using it for over a month and now I have the same problem. Disk utility reports that there are bad sectors. I am not sure what's going on. How can I conclusively confirm that this disk has bad sectors? (...) I'd use the manufacturer's disk utility to run a deep offline SMART test. But to be sincere, I would simply request for a hard disk replacement, you will rest more relaxed after that :-) Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.09.09.14.06...@gmail.com
Re: Hard drive bad sector warning
I would simply request for a hard disk replacement, you will rest more relaxed after that :-) I will definitely ask for a replacement as it's still under warranty but I want to make sure it's not a software issue. -- Kind regards, Yudi
Re: Hard drive bad sector warning
smartctl -a /dev/sda output smartctl 5.40 2010-07-12 r3124 [i686-pc-linux-gnu] (local build) Copyright (C) 2002-10 by Bruce Allen, http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net === START OF INFORMATION SECTION === Device Model: WDC WD7500BPKT-60PK4T0 Serial Number:WD-WX31E1177192 Firmware Version: 01.01A01 User Capacity:750,156,374,016 bytes Device is:Not in smartctl database [for details use: -P showall] ATA Version is: 8 ATA Standard is: Exact ATA specification draft version not indicated Local Time is:Sat Sep 10 00:46:56 2011 EST SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability. SMART support is: Enabled === START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION === SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED General SMART Values: Offline data collection status: (0x00)Offline data collection activity was never started. Auto Offline Data Collection: Disabled. Self-test execution status: ( 0)The previous self-test routine completed without error or no self-test has ever been run. Total time to complete Offline data collection: (12960) seconds. Offline data collection capabilities: (0x51) SMART execute Offline immediate. No Auto Offline data collection support. Suspend Offline collection upon new command. No Offline surface scan supported. Self-test supported. No Conveyance Self-test supported. Selective Self-test supported. SMART capabilities:(0x0003)Saves SMART data before entering power-saving mode. Supports SMART auto save timer. Error logging capability:(0x01)Error logging supported. General Purpose Logging supported. Short self-test routine recommended polling time: ( 2) minutes. Extended self-test routine recommended polling time: ( 129) minutes. SCT capabilities:(0x703d)SCT Status supported. SCT Error Recovery Control supported. SCT Feature Control supported. SCT Data Table supported. SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 16 Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds: ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x002f 199 172 051Pre-fail Always - 751 3 Spin_Up_Time0x0027 190 177 021Pre-fail Always - 1500 4 Start_Stop_Count0x0032 100 100 000Old_age Always - 137 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 200 200 140Pre-fail Always - 0 7 Seek_Error_Rate 0x002f 200 200 051Pre-fail Always - 0 9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 100 100 000Old_age Always - 315 10 Spin_Retry_Count0x0033 100 100 051Pre-fail Always - 0 11 Calibration_Retry_Count 0x0032 100 100 000Old_age Always - 0 12 Power_Cycle_Count 0x0032 100 100 000Old_age Always - 126 183 Runtime_Bad_Block 0x0032 100 100 000Old_age Always - 0 184 End-to-End_Error0x0033 100 100 097Pre-fail Always - 0 187 Reported_Uncorrect 0x0032 001 001 000Old_age Always - 913 188 Command_Timeout 0x0032 100 100 000Old_age Always - 0 190 Airflow_Temperature_Cel 0x0022 059 045 040Old_age Always - 41 (Lifetime Min/Max 22/43) 191 G-Sense_Error_Rate 0x0032 001 001 000Old_age Always - 127 192 Power-Off_Retract_Count 0x0032 200 200 000Old_age Always - 2 193 Load_Cycle_Count0x0032 200 200 000Old_age Always - 2187 194 Temperature_Celsius 0x0022 106 092 000Old_age Always - 41 196 Reallocated_Event_Count 0x0032 200 200 000Old_age Always - 0 197 Current_Pending_Sector 0x0032 200 200 000Old_age Always - 1 198 Offline_Uncorrectable 0x0030 100 253 000Old_age Offline - 0 199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count0x0032 200 200 000Old_age Always - 0 200 Multi_Zone_Error_Rate 0x0009 200 200 051Pre-fail Offline - 0 SMART Error Log Version: 1 ATA Error Count: 669 (device log contains only the most recent five errors) CR = Command Register [HEX] FR = Features Register [HEX] SC = Sector Count Register [HEX] SN = Sector Number Register [HEX] CL = Cylinder Low Register [HEX] CH = Cylinder High Register [HEX] DH = Device/Head Register [HEX] DC = Device Command Register [HEX] ER = Error register [HEX] ST = Status register [HEX]
Re: Hard drive bad sector warning
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 00:47:58 +1000, yudi v wrote: smartctl -a /dev/sda output Device Model: WDC WD7500BPKT-60PK4T0 (...) Fiuu!... it's a WD :-P Error 669 occurred at disk power-on lifetime: 312 hours (13 days + 0 hours) When the command that caused the error occurred, the device was active or idle. After command completion occurred, registers were: ER ST SC SN CL CH DH -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 40 51 08 d0 93 71 e8 Error: UNC 8 sectors at LBA = 0x087193d0 = 141661136 (...) And there you have the mentioned error. I would just return-back the unit. It is clearly new (less than 400 hours of use!) and should not throw any error nor message about its SMART health. This does not have to mean a bad drive per se, of course, but better safe than sorry. If a new unit still fails, I would recheck the cable and/or disk connectors. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.09.09.15.31...@gmail.com
Re: Hard drive bad sector warning
I would just return-back the unit. It is clearly new (less than 400 hours of use!) and should not throw any error nor message about its SMART health. This does not have to mean a bad drive per se, of course, but better safe than sorry. If a new unit still fails, I would recheck the cable and/or disk connectors. I am not sure how the warranties on hard drives work. I spoke to the retailer and he reckons it has to go back to the manufacturer. There is a wait of 2 weeks. As I mentioned earlier, last time I got this error I wrote random data to the drive and just before taking it back I ran the tests again using the WD tool. It came back with no errors. This is what is confusing. I expected it to register bad sectors after wiping the whole drive as well. -- Kind regards, Yudi
Re: Hard drive bad sector warning
2011/9/9 yudi v yudi@gmail.com: I would simply request for a hard disk replacement, you will rest more relaxed after that :-) I will definitely ask for a replacement as it's still under warranty but I want to make sure it's not a software issue. -- Kind regards, Yudi Have you tried # parted -l, fdisk works with cylinders. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAFxkjqmiA1Ko8vUwLSkqGQh-W4irLfihJ=ifgwueoknmvk8...@mail.gmail.com
