Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6.8 fsck report Maximal Count

On Mon, 2017-03-20 at 04:53 +, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 7:41 AM James B. Byrne wrote: > > > On Fri, March 10, 2017 11:57, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: > > > > > > > > Looks like only one sector's bad. Running badblocks should, > > > > You'll need to

Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6.8 fsck report Maximal Count

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 7:41 AM James B. Byrne wrote: > On Fri, March 10, 2017 11:57, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: > > > > > Looks like only one sector's bad. Running badblocks should, > > I think, mark that sector as bad, so the system doesn't try > > to read or write there.

Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6.8 fsck report Maximal Count

On Fri, March 10, 2017 11:57, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: > > Looks like only one sector's bad. Running badblocks should, > I think, mark that sector as bad, so the system doesn't try > to read or write there. I've got a user whose workstation has > had a bad sector running for over a year. However,

Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6.8 fsck report Maximal Count

Talk about missing the email I wanted to reply too. Disregard... >> On Mar 10, 2017, at 9:28 AM, Valeri Galtsev >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Fri, March 10, 2017 9:52 am, Warren Young wrote: On Mar 10, 2017, at 6:32 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:

Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6.8 fsck report Maximal Count

I get up around 0630, u can come anytime after that. I want to hit the range that morning but if I KNEW when you are arriving, I could plan around that... > On Mar 10, 2017, at 9:28 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, March 10, 2017 9:52 am, Warren Young wrote:

Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6.8 fsck report Maximal Count

On Mar 10, 2017, at 9:28 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > > On Fri, March 10, 2017 9:52 am, Warren Young wrote: >> On Mar 10, 2017, at 6:32 AM, James B. Byrne wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, March 9, 2017 09:46, John Hodrien wrote: fsck's not

Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6.8 fsck report Maximal Count

On Fri, March 10, 2017 9:52 am, Warren Young wrote: > On Mar 10, 2017, at 6:32 AM, James B. Byrne wrote: >> >> On Thu, March 9, 2017 09:46, John Hodrien wrote: >>> >>> fsck's not good at finding disk errors, it finds filesystem errors. >> >> If not fsck then what? > >

Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6.8 fsck report Maximal Count

James B. Byrne wrote: > > On Thu, March 9, 2017 09:46, John Hodrien wrote: >> On Thu, 9 Mar 2017, James B. Byrne wrote: >> >>> This indicated that a bad sector on the underlying disk system might >>> be the source of the problem. The guests were all shutdown, a >>> /forcefsck file was created on

Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6.8 fsck report Maximal Count

On Mar 10, 2017, at 6:32 AM, James B. Byrne wrote: > > On Thu, March 9, 2017 09:46, John Hodrien wrote: >> >> fsck's not good at finding disk errors, it finds filesystem errors. > > If not fsck then what? badblocks(8). ___

Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6.8 fsck report Maximal Count

On Thu, March 9, 2017 09:46, John Hodrien wrote: > On Thu, 9 Mar 2017, James B. Byrne wrote: > >> This indicated that a bad sector on the underlying disk system might >> be the source of the problem. The guests were all shutdown, a >> /forcefsck file was created on the host system, and the host

Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6.8 fsck report Maximal Count

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017, James B. Byrne wrote: This indicated that a bad sector on the underlying disk system might be the source of the problem. The guests were all shutdown, a /forcefsck file was created on the host system, and the host system remotely restarted. fsck's not good at finding disk

[CentOS] CentOS-6.8 fsck report Maximal Count

We have a remote warm standby system running CentOS-6.8 as a KVM system with multiple guests. One of the guests began reporting an error when running aide. Caught SIGBUS/SEGV while mmapping. File was truncated while aide was running? Caught SIGBUS/SEGV. Exiting The /var/log/messages file