UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY
Last night, I was starting to install Samba3, but wrong FreeBSD disc (2) in the CD-ROM drive (first package to install on disc 1). After placing the right disc in the drive, I accidentally pushed the POWER button instead of the CD-ROM door open/close button and turned the computer off. In my defense, the power button is right next to it AND has a hair trigger. :-( I turned the computer back on, and FreeBSD booted with no complaints, so I assumed all was well. I then proceeded to install Samba3 successfully, after which I shut down the system (halt). This morning when I booted FreeBSD to configure Samba, I got: -- ... /dev/da0s1f: UNALLOCATED I=5 OWNER=root MODE=0 /dev/da0s1f: SIZE=0 MTIME=Apr 22 17:28 2007 /dev/da0s1f: NAME=/lost+found UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY; RUN fsck MANUALLY. THE FOLLOWING FILE SYSTEM HAD AN UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY: ufs: /dev/da0s1f (/usr) Automatic file system check failed; help! /bin/sh on /etc/rc terminated abnormally, going to single user mode Enter full pathname of shell or RETURN for /bin/sh: -- I assume I'll have to run fsck on /usr, but have 2 questions: 1) Is this problem caused by yesterday's accidental power-off? 2) What prompts should I expect from fsck, and how should I reply to each in order to resolve this problem correctly? Here's where I'm at now: -- fsck -y /usr Start /usr wait fsck_ufs /dev/da0s1f ** /dev/da0s1f ** Last Mounted on /usr ** Phase 1 - Check Blocks and Sizes ** Phase 2 - Check Pathnames UNALLOCATED I=5 OWNER=root MODE=0 SIZE=0 MTIME=Apr 22 17:28 2007 NAME=/lost+found UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY REMOVE? [yn] -- - Ahhh...imagining that irresistible new car smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, L Goodwin wrote: [...] I assume I'll have to run fsck on /usr, but have 2 questions: 1) Is this problem caused by yesterday's accidental power-off? Yes, most likely. 2) What prompts should I expect from fsck, and how should I reply to each in order to resolve this problem correctly? Just say yes to all the prompts, but backup any important data first. Or if you're afraid of any issues, reinstall. If this problem persists (near every time you reboot), it's time to get a new drive because it got toasted during a write phase. I wouldn't say that though until you install from scratch though and verify that that is or is not the case. -Garrett ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY
Thanks, Garrett. Ran fsck -y /usr * FILE SYSTEM MARKED CLEAN * * FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED * Upon reboot, all is well EXCEPT for the following 2 warnings: --- Mounting local file systems: WARNING: /var was not properly dismounted WARNING: /sambavol was not properly dismounted --- Both /var and /sambavol are mounted (ufs, local, soft-updates). Rebooted again, and did not get these warnings. Thanks! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, L Goodwin wrote: [...] I assume I'll have to run fsck on /usr, but have 2 questions: 1) Is this problem caused by yesterday's accidental power-off? Yes, most likely. 2) What prompts should I expect from fsck, and how should I reply to each in order to resolve this problem correctly? Just say yes to all the prompts, but backup any important data first. Or if you're afraid of any issues, reinstall. If this problem persists (near every time you reboot), it's time to get a new drive because it got toasted during a write phase. I wouldn't say that though until you install from scratch though and verify that that is or is not the case. -Garrett ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Ahhh...imagining that irresistible new car smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:23:16 -0700 (PDT) L Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Last night, I was starting to install Samba3, but wrong FreeBSD disc (2) in the CD-ROM drive (first package to install on disc 1). After placing the right disc in the drive, I accidentally pushed the POWER button instead of the CD-ROM door open/close button and turned the computer off. In my defense, the power button is right next to it AND has a hair trigger. :-( This shouldn't be a problem unless your pc is very old (8 years or so), and it's a real power switch. On modern PCs the power switch is just a low-voltage control line. A light touch is a signal to the OS to shutdown cleanly - you have to hold the button down for several seconds to force it. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY
Yes, it's a hardware switch and a very bad design. It's flush with the surface of the faceplate and is right next to the CD-ROM button. Also sensitive to the lightest touch. Replacement would require buying a new case (not in budget). Think I'll make a clear plexi failsafe cover. Reminds me of the times my toddler son found the big red toggle switch on the side of my IBM RT-PC workstation within seconds of sitting in my chair... RW [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:23:16 -0700 (PDT) L Goodwin wrote: Last night, I was starting to install Samba3, but wrong FreeBSD disc (2) in the CD-ROM drive (first package to install on disc 1). After placing the right disc in the drive, I accidentally pushed the POWER button instead of the CD-ROM door open/close button and turned the computer off. In my defense, the power button is right next to it AND has a hair trigger. :-( This shouldn't be a problem unless your pc is very old (8 years or so), and it's a real power switch. On modern PCs the power switch is just a low-voltage control line. A light touch is a signal to the OS to shutdown cleanly - you have to hold the button down for several seconds to force it. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Ahhh...imagining that irresistible new car smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY
L Goodwin writes: I accidentally pushed the POWER button instead of the CD-ROM door open/close button and turned the computer off. In my defense, the power button is right next to it AND has a hair trigger. :-( I turned the computer back on, and FreeBSD booted with no complaints, so I assumed all was well. That was your second error. As I learned it: On anything other than a clean shutdown, you will need to fsck everything that was mounted at the time of the crash. (Remember to get the stuff that's noauto in fstab.) Run fsck on each partitions. Repeat until it reports no errors. (Not MARKED CLEAN but not errors. Robert Huff ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY
Thanks, Robert. Robert Huff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: L Goodwin writes: I accidentally pushed the POWER button instead of the CD-ROM door open/close button and turned the computer off. In my defense, the power button is right next to it AND has a hair trigger. :-( I turned the computer back on, and FreeBSD booted with no complaints, so I assumed all was well. That was your second error. As I learned it: On anything other than a clean shutdown, you will need to fsck everything that was mounted at the time of the crash. (Remember to get the stuff that's noauto in fstab.) Run fsck on each partitions. Repeat until it reports no errors. (Not MARKED CLEAN but not errors. Robert Huff ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Ahhh...imagining that irresistible new car smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fsck says UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 03:05:06PM +1000, Jerahmy Pocott wrote: Hello everyone, After a server lost power unexpectedly (read: someone pulled the plug out), on reboot the automatic fsck failed with UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY as the message. Running fsck interactively doesn't seem to be able to fix it.. Every time in phase one it says: CANNOT READ: BLK 66322496 UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY snip Any ideas on what I could try to fix this? You could have a look at tunefs(8) and turn soft updates off for fsck'ing. HTH Leon -- gnupg key ID: 9B820836 Fingerprint: 6081 8F41 8FEC 0D69 DB98 F014 0FD4 B47D 9B82 0836 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fsck says UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY
THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 66322510, Sounds like a HW issue to me. Anyway to confirm this? It is not a very old drive and the filesystem is still readable, I suppose it could have developed some bad sectors.. Is there a way to flag them as bad without formating the drive? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fsck says UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY
At 03:49 PM 8/11/2005, Jerahmy Pocott wrote: THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 66322510, Sounds like a HW issue to me. Anyway to confirm this? It is not a very old drive and the filesystem is still readable, I suppose it could have developed some bad sectors.. If you have another machine you can boot from, or another disk, you can install the smartmontools port (/usr/ports/sysutils/smartmontools) and use that to see what the status of the drive is. -Glenn Is there a way to flag them as bad without formating the drive? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
fsck says UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY
Hello everyone, After a server lost power unexpectedly (read: someone pulled the plug out), on reboot the automatic fsck failed with UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY as the message. Running fsck interactively doesn't seem to be able to fix it.. Every time in phase one it says: CANNOT READ: BLK 66322496 UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY CONTINUE? [yn] press y THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 66322510, and the file system is marked as dirty still.. It isn't the root partition or anything, so I can boot the system and mount it read only but I can't repair the damage.. Any ideas on what I could try to fix this? Thanks! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fsck says UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY
On Aug 10, 2005, at 11:05 PM, Jerahmy Pocott wrote: THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 66322510, Sounds like a HW issue to me. --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unexpected soft update inconsistency
Hi Everyone, A user is having a problem accessing their maildir. The problem arose when we tried to access it as well. When doing an ls in their directory the one file returns the following: ls -l 1104761413.M777698P25745V0400FF01I0239B49E_0.rmail4.enter.net\,S\=6806 ls: 1104761413.M777698P25745V0400FF01I0239B49E_0.rmail4.enter.net,S=6806: Bad file descriptor So our logical approach was to reboot the machine in the middle of the night and fsck it. However, that returned the following results and will not continue: unexpected soft update inconsitency cannot fix, first entry in dir contains . filename inumber -1012078592 out of range. missing '.' I=31407659 My thoughts are to delete the inode that is out of range, and re-fsck it one night. Is my thinking logical or does this filesystem need to be completely redone. System Stats: Freebsd 4.10-R 12 - 74GB Maxtor Raptors 3ware 9500 raid card - raid 10 -- Gavin Grabias Enter.Net, Inc. Phone: (610) 437-2221 The Road to the Internet Starts Here! (tm) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unexpected soft update inconsistency
Peter Schuller wrote: Hello, What's the deal with soft updates and guaranteed consistency? Every time journaling is brought up by someone, he/she is promptly told about how soft updates does the job at least as well. I never had a problem with this based on what I have read about soft updates. However: I *very* quickly ran into a case where I got an unexpected soft update inconsistency after crashing the machine by doing something naughty with Vinum while there was disk activity (note: the filesystem which exhibited the problem was not on a vinum volume). So my question is: Do soft updates, or do they not, algorithmically guarantee filesystem meta-data consistency in the event of a crash? The design goal for Soft Updates, apart from the performance gain, was to keep the disk image in a recoverable state at all times and to limit data loss to the last couple of seconds. This does not mean, however, that it guarantees that after a crash fsck(8) will never ask any questions. Normally, the right thing to do is to answer with 'yes' when it offers to remove the file, since that file can be expected to be incomplete. This way you are kind of turning back the clock by a couple of seconds, from the file system's point of view, until it gets into the time range again where all files were still consistent (payload and meta data). Uwe -- Uwe Doering | EscapeBox - Managed On-Demand UNIX Servers [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.escapebox.net ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unexpected soft update inconsistency
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 12:31:30AM +0100, Peter Schuller wrote: Do soft updates, or do they not, algorithmically guarantee filesystem meta-data consistency in the event of a crash? If you have a power failure or similar unclean shutdown, then SU guarantees consistency. If there is a kernel panic or hardware failure, all bets are off, because there is no way to be sure that the kernel was writing the correct bits to the hardware prior to the crash, or that the hardware was writing the correct bits to disk. Kris pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Unexpected soft update inconsistency
Hello, What's the deal with soft updates and guaranteed consistency? Every time journaling is brought up by someone, he/she is promptly told about how soft updates does the job at least as well. I never had a problem with this based on what I have read about soft updates. However: I *very* quickly ran into a case where I got an unexpected soft update inconsistency after crashing the machine by doing something naughty with Vinum while there was disk activity (note: the filesystem which exhibited the problem was not on a vinum volume). So my question is: Do soft updates, or do they not, algorithmically guarantee filesystem meta-data consistency in the event of a crash? or to put it another way: Was this an implementation bug or a fact of life with soft updates? Thanks, -- / Peter Schuller, InfiDyne Technologies HB PGP userID: 0xE9758B7D or 'Peter Schuller [EMAIL PROTECTED]' Key retrieval: Send an E-Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.scode.org ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
unexpected soft update inconsistency
Hi there, I am seeking an explanation of the following fsck(8) behavior. This box is originally (IIRC) a 4.5-RELEASE install, gradually cvsupped to a relatively recent 4.8-STABLE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ 1007:0 uname -a FreeBSD freepuppy.bellavista.cz 4.8-STABLE FreeBSD 4.8-STABLE #2: Thu Jun 5 12:57:47 CEST 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/FREEPUPPY2_5 i386 The system was dump/restored to a new disk last summer. Some time ago I switched from mbox files to maildirs as my mail store because maildrop(1) was EX_TEMPFAILing on the larger mboxes. Maildirs have fixed this problem, but entering e. g. my postfix-users@ maildir (162MB, ~34500 messages) takes way too much time: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ 1002:0 time mutt -nF .mail/mutt/muttrc -e 'exec quit' -f ~/Mail/lists/postfix 34458 kept, 0 deleted. mutt -nF .mail/mutt/muttrc -e 'exec quit' -f ~/Mail/lists/postfix 4.94s user 3.89s system 10% cpu 1:21.75 total [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ 1003:0 find ~/Mail/lists/postfix -type f|wc -l 34458 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ 1004:0 du -hs ~/Mail/lists/postfix 162M/home/roman/Mail/lists/postfix (mutt-1.5.1i with patch-1.5.1.cd.edit_threads.9.2) Yesterday I thought: hmm, maybe there's something wrong with the filesystem, went to singleuser with `shutdown now`, ran fsck(8), and got some unexpected soft update inconsistency messages in my ~/Mail. The filesystem is always ok during the normal boot-time fsck run, so I'm wondering whether this is normal, or if the fs is screwed. Attached is the output of fsck(8) run in multiuser (postfix was running). [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ 1005:0 df -h FilesystemSize Used Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/ad0s1a 504M49M 415M10%/ /dev/ad0s1e72G36G30G55%/usr procfs4.0K 4.0K 0B 100%/proc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ 1006:0 ls -l /var lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 8 Sep 16 2002 /var - /usr/var -- If you cc me or remove the list(s) completely I'll most likely ignore your message.see http://www.eyrie.org./~eagle/faqs/questions.html ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: unexpected soft update inconsistency
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-06-14 12:58:34 +0200: Attached is the output of fsck(8) run in multiuser (postfix was running). Aaargh, I keep doing this. This time, it's really attached. -- If you cc me or remove the list(s) completely I'll most likely ignore your message.see http://www.eyrie.org./~eagle/faqs/questions.html 2141 files, 24867 used, 233164 free UNALLOCATED FILE=/var/spool/postfix/incoming/0/2/0236D2FDAB2 UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY SUMMARY INFORMATION BADBLK(S) MISSING IN BIT MAPSFREE BLK COUNT(S) WRONG IN SUPERBLKALLOCATED FRAG 12580728 MARKED FREE ALLOCATED FRAG 12580729 MARKED FREE ALLOCATED FRAG 12580730 MARKED FREE ALLOCATED FRAG 12580731 MARKED FREE ALLOCATED FRAG 12580732 MARKED FREE ALLOCATED FRAG 12580733 MARKED FREE ALLOCATED FRAG 12580734 MARKED FREE ALLOCATED FRAG 12580735 MARKED FREE ALLOCATED FRAG 12580736 MARKED FREE ALLOCATED FRAG 12580737 MARKED FREE ALLOCATED FRAG 12580738 MARKED FREE ALLOCATED FRAG 12580739 MARKED FREE ALLOCATED FRAG 12580740 MARKED FREE ALLOCATED FRAG 12580741 MARKED FREE ALLOCATED FRAG 12580742 MARKED FREE ALLOCATED FRAG 12580743 MARKED FREE ALLOCATED FRAG 12616672 MARKED FREE ALLOCATED FRAG 12616673 MARKED FREE ALLOCATED FRAG 12616674 MARKED FREE ALLOCATED FRAG 12616675 MARKED FREE 783682 files, 18972610 used, 18718867 free ** /dev/ad0s1a (NO WRITE) ** Last Mounted on / ** Root file system ** Phase 1 - Check Blocks and Sizes ** Phase 2 - Check Pathnames ** Phase 3 - Check Connectivity ** Phase 4 - Check Reference Counts ** Phase 5 - Check Cyl groups (1020 frags, 29018 blocks, 0.4% fragmentation) ** /dev/ad0s1e (NO WRITE) ** Last Mounted on /usr ** Phase 1 - Check Blocks and Sizes ** Phase 2 - Check Pathnames I=3136178 OWNER=postfix MODE=100700 SIZE=3654 MTIME=Jun 13 19:27 2003 REMOVE? no ** Phase 3 - Check Connectivity ** Phase 4 - Check Reference Counts ** Phase 5 - Check Cyl groups SALVAGE? no SALVAGE? no SALVAGE? no (314411 frags, 2300557 blocks, 0.8% fragmentation) ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: unexpected soft update inconsistency
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 12:58:34PM +0200, Roman Neuhauser wrote: The filesystem is always ok during the normal boot-time fsck run, so I'm wondering whether this is normal, or if the fs is screwed. Attached is the output of fsck(8) run in multiuser (postfix was running). [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ 1005:0 df -h FilesystemSize Used Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/ad0s1a 504M49M 415M10%/ /dev/ad0s1e72G36G30G55%/usr procfs4.0K 4.0K 0B 100%/proc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ 1006:0 ls -l /var lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 8 Sep 16 2002 /var - /usr/var What happens if you turn off soft updates on those mounts? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unexpected Soft Update Inconsistency / Cannot Read: Blk
Unfortunately the answer presented itself very soon after posting the message. I pulled the hard drive out of the box, and tried to format it in a Windows machine. It occurred to me that the drive had not been formated and therefore had not had data written to all parts of the disk. Half way through the format I got an 'Unsafe removal of device' message, and upon reboot the drive was TOTALLY dead. It would be nice if FreeBSD had a SMARTY utility - it would have allowed me to possibly detect this failure. I've been told that work is underway to write one and it might be ready for 5.0. Cheers, Andrew On Mon, 2002-12-09 at 09:10, philipp wrote: hey, i just browsed through the freebsd-questions archive and found your mail (see below). i am just wondering if you found out what the problem was and/or how to solve it since i am in the same situation on Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 12:11:48AM +1100, Andrew Cutler wrote: I recently built a FreeBSD 4.7 Release file server that has a brand new 80GB Wester Digital 7200RPM drive in it. Yesterday the box suffered two power outages and a possible powersurge. Today I decided that it would be a good idea to check on the state of the file system and the result is attached below. I was unable to clean the file system. I've got just two questions that hopefully someone can help with: 1) What does the result below mean? (Is my drive failing? Why can't I clean the FS?) 2) Are there any BSD tools for reading the SMART data off the Hard Disk so that I can see whether it is about to fail or currently experiencing HW failure. TIA Andrew Cutler - START SCREEN SNIPPET mojo# fsck /dev/ad2s1e ** /dev/ad2s1e ** Last Mounted on /data ** Phase 1 - Check Blocks and Sizes CANNOT READ: BLK 152744928 UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY CONTINUE? [yn] y THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 152744946, CANNOT READ: BLK 152745312 UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY CONTINUE? [yn] y THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 152745393, CANNOT READ: BLK 152746208 UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY CONTINUE? [yn] y THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 152746289, CANNOT READ: BLK 152747104 UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY CONTINUE? [yn] y THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 152747184, CANNOT READ: BLK 152748128 UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY CONTINUE? [yn] y THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 152748173, CANNOT READ: BLK 152748512 UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY CONTINUE? [yn] y THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 152748621, CANNOT READ: BLK 152749024 UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY CONTINUE? [yn] y THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 152749068, CANNOT READ: BLK 152749408 UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY CONTINUE? [yn] y THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 152749516, ** Phase 2 - Check Pathnames ** Phase 3 - Check Connectivity ** Phase 4 - Check Reference Counts ** Phase 5 - Check Cyl groups 33755 files, 16020305 used, 22442867 free (12539 frags, 2803791 blocks, 0.0% fragmentation) * FILE SYSTEM MARKED DIRTY * * PLEASE RERUN FSCK * To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message regards -- Andrew Cutler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Unexpected Soft Update Inconsistency / Cannot Read: Blk
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 10:21:39AM +1100, Andrew Cutler wrote: Unfortunately the answer presented itself very soon after posting the message. I pulled the hard drive out of the box, and tried to format it in a Windows machine. It occurred to me that the drive had not been formated and therefore had not had data written to all parts of the disk. Half way through the format I got an 'Unsafe removal of device' message, and upon reboot the drive was TOTALLY dead. It would be nice if FreeBSD had a SMARTY utility - it would have allowed me to possibly detect this failure. I've been told that work is underway to write one and it might be ready for 5.0. Mmm. Well to pass on something I do with every new disk I buy. If I do not have it already I get the diagnostics for it from the disk manafacturers website, which they all have for free. I then run all the tests on the disk and format it. These are almost always standalone boot images that fit on a DOS floppy. Later on it is always handy if you suspect disk problems -- then you can run the non-destructive drive tests as well. I do as many other kinds of test as possible on new hardware before I start using the machine (usually one I am buiding) -- on the fairly well-known principle that anything electronic or electro-mechanical usually fails early in it's life if it is borderline. [ As an aside this is harder with memory, the famous Memtest86 program gives false positives on certain hardware combinations and on certain tests. ] -- Regards Cliff Sarginson The Netherlands [ This mail has been checked as virus-free ] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Unexpected Soft Update Inconsistency / Cannot Read: Blk
I recently built a FreeBSD 4.7 Release file server that has a brand new 80GB Wester Digital 7200RPM drive in it. Yesterday the box suffered two power outages and a possible powersurge. Today I decided that it would be a good idea to check on the state of the file system and the result is attached below. I was unable to clean the file system. I've got just two questions that hopefully someone can help with: 1) What does the result below mean? (Is my drive failing? Why can't I clean the FS?) 2) Are there any BSD tools for reading the SMART data off the Hard Disk so that I can see whether it is about to fail or currently experiencing HW failure. Any other ways to check for bad sectors? TIA - START SCREEN SNIPPET mojo# fsck /dev/ad2s1e ** /dev/ad2s1e ** Last Mounted on /data ** Phase 1 - Check Blocks and Sizes CANNOT READ: BLK 152744928 UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY CONTINUE? [yn] y THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 152744946, CANNOT READ: BLK 152745312 UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY CONTINUE? [yn] y THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 152745393, CANNOT READ: BLK 152746208 UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY CONTINUE? [yn] y THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 152746289, CANNOT READ: BLK 152747104 UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY CONTINUE? [yn] y THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 152747184, CANNOT READ: BLK 152748128 UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY CONTINUE? [yn] y THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 152748173, CANNOT READ: BLK 152748512 UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY CONTINUE? [yn] y THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 152748621, CANNOT READ: BLK 152749024 UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY CONTINUE? [yn] y THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 152749068, CANNOT READ: BLK 152749408 UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY CONTINUE? [yn] y THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 152749516, ** Phase 2 - Check Pathnames ** Phase 3 - Check Connectivity ** Phase 4 - Check Reference Counts ** Phase 5 - Check Cyl groups 33755 files, 16020305 used, 22442867 free (12539 frags, 2803791 blocks, 0.0% fragmentation) * FILE SYSTEM MARKED DIRTY * * PLEASE RERUN FSCK * _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Unexpected Soft Update Inconsistency / Cannot Read: Blk
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Vinco Maldini wrote: 1) What does the result below mean? (Is my drive failing? Why can't I clean the FS?) [ ... snip ... ] CANNOT READ: BLK 152744928 UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY [ ... snip ... ] THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 152744946, [ ... etc, etc, snip ... ] Were there any kernel messages displayed on the consoles (the bright white text)? If you don't have console access, run the /sbin/dmesg command. If you see any ad2 read errors from the console, then you likely have a bad drive. On the other hand, if you don't see any errors being reported by the kernel, then the CANNOT READ errors are probably just caused by incompleted meta-data writes to the drive. However, THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ makes me think it is a hardware problem. 2) Are there any BSD tools for reading the SMART data off the Hard Disk so that I can see whether it is about to fail or currently experiencing HW failure. Any other ways to check for bad sectors? I thought that someone asked this same questions a few days ago, but I can't find it in the archives. I'm honestly not sure if anything like that is available. Searching the FreeBSD site did not yield any results. My best suggestions is to check google. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Unexpected Soft Update Inconsistency / Cannot Read: Blk
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Vinco Maldini wrote: 1) What does the result below mean? (Is my drive failing? Why can't I clean the FS?) [ ... snip ... ] CANNOT READ: BLK 152744928 UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY [ ... snip ... ] THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 152744946, [ ... etc, etc, snip ... ] Were there any kernel messages displayed on the consoles (the bright white text)? If you don't have console access, run the /sbin/dmesg command. If you see any ad2 read errors from the console, then you likely have a bad drive. On the other hand, if you don't see any errors being reported by the kernel, then the CANNOT READ errors are probably just caused by incompleted meta-data writes to the drive. However, THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ makes me think it is a hardware problem. 2) Are there any BSD tools for reading the SMART data off the Hard Disk so that I can see whether it is about to fail or currently experiencing HW failure. Any other ways to check for bad sectors? I thought that someone asked this same questions a few days ago, but I can't find it in the archives. I'm honestly not sure if anything like that is available. Searching the FreeBSD site did not yield any results. My best suggestions is to check google. Or check with [EMAIL PROTECTED] If there was something like this out there, he'd know :) -- Matt Emmerton To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Unexpected Soft Update Inconsistency / Cannot Read: Blk
2) Are there any BSD tools for reading the SMART data off the Hard Disk so that I can see whether it is about to fail or currently experiencing HW failure. Any other ways to check for bad sectors? JH I thought that someone asked this same questions a few days ago, but I JH can't find it in the archives. I'm honestly not sure if anything like JH that is available. Searching the FreeBSD site did not yield any results. JH My best suggestions is to check google. FYI, from -stable, Eduard Martinescu is in the process of porting the Smartmon tools (http://sourceforge.net/projects/smartmontools/) to FreeBSD. He's waiting for Soren Schmidt to commit some changes to the ATA driver to support the SMART ATAPI commands before he can finish the port. -Neill To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Unexpected Soft Update Inconsistency / Cannot Read: Blk
I recently built a FreeBSD 4.7 Release file server that has a brand new 80GB Wester Digital 7200RPM drive in it. Yesterday the box suffered two power outages and a possible powersurge. Today I decided that it would be a good idea to check on the state of the file system and the result is attached below. I was unable to clean the file system. I've got just two questions that hopefully someone can help with: 1) What does the result below mean? (Is my drive failing? Why can't I clean the FS?) 2) Are there any BSD tools for reading the SMART data off the Hard Disk so that I can see whether it is about to fail or currently experiencing HW failure. TIA Andrew Cutler - START SCREEN SNIPPET mojo# fsck /dev/ad2s1e ** /dev/ad2s1e ** Last Mounted on /data ** Phase 1 - Check Blocks and Sizes CANNOT READ: BLK 152744928 UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY CONTINUE? [yn] y THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 152744946, CANNOT READ: BLK 152745312 UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY CONTINUE? [yn] y THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 152745393, CANNOT READ: BLK 152746208 UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY CONTINUE? [yn] y THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 152746289, CANNOT READ: BLK 152747104 UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY CONTINUE? [yn] y THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 152747184, CANNOT READ: BLK 152748128 UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY CONTINUE? [yn] y THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 152748173, CANNOT READ: BLK 152748512 UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY CONTINUE? [yn] y THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 152748621, CANNOT READ: BLK 152749024 UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY CONTINUE? [yn] y THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 152749068, CANNOT READ: BLK 152749408 UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY CONTINUE? [yn] y THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 152749516, ** Phase 2 - Check Pathnames ** Phase 3 - Check Connectivity ** Phase 4 - Check Reference Counts ** Phase 5 - Check Cyl groups 33755 files, 16020305 used, 22442867 free (12539 frags, 2803791 blocks, 0.0% fragmentation) * FILE SYSTEM MARKED DIRTY * * PLEASE RERUN FSCK * To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
