Re: badblocks -- how much time does it take?
On jan. 18, 21:40, Towncat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On jan. 12, 22:20, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 01/12/08 11:40, Towncat wrote: Hi, I did a /sbin/badblocks -c 10240 -w -t random -v /dev/sda2 Why? Don't you trust brand new disk drives? Well, you do have a point... But then, this is the only time I can do this safely. When there's data on it, it's not that obvious. Maybe I was a little paranoid. And of course, I was curious. Thank you all. I needed patience:) where sda2 is a 320 gb partition. The process has been running for approx 18 hours and is just over three thirds. Is this really supposed to be so slow, Yes. or is there something wrong? The machine is a Core Duo 1,6, 2GB memory. CPU speed helps, I guess, but always the important factor in disk activity is the disk itself. A 10K or 15K RPM FC drive connected to a 4GBps HBA will do the bad block scan *much* faster than an IDE or SATA drive. -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian because I hate vegetables! unknown -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] Now, it turns out I made a mistake here. I have SATA drives, but because of listing ide_generic in the modules file for initramfs, the drives ran as /dev/hd* instead of /dev/sd*, with the wrong driver. I realised this when I saw how slow RAID 1 resyncing was, too. So actually the process did take unnaturally long (however paranoid and thorough the method was). I hope this will help someone:) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: badblocks -- how much time does it take?
On jan. 12, 22:20, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 01/12/08 11:40, Towncat wrote: Hi, I did a /sbin/badblocks -c 10240 -w -t random -v /dev/sda2 Why? Don't you trust brand new disk drives? Well, you do have a point... But then, this is the only time I can do this safely. When there's data on it, it's not that obvious. Maybe I was a little paranoid. And of course, I was curious. Thank you all. I needed patience:) where sda2 is a 320 gb partition. The process has been running for approx 18 hours and is just over three thirds. Is this really supposed to be so slow, Yes. or is there something wrong? The machine is a Core Duo 1,6, 2GB memory. CPU speed helps, I guess, but always the important factor in disk activity is the disk itself. A 10K or 15K RPM FC drive connected to a 4GBps HBA will do the bad block scan *much* faster than an IDE or SATA drive. -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian because I hate vegetables! unknown -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
badblocks -- how much time does it take?
Hi, I did a /sbin/badblocks -c 10240 -w -t random -v /dev/sda2 where sda2 is a 320 gb partition. The process has been running for approx 18 hours and is just over three thirds. Is this really supposed to be so slow, or is there something wrong? The machine is a Core Duo 1,6, 2GB memory. Tc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: badblocks -- how much time does it take?
On 01/12/2008 11:40 AM, Towncat wrote: /sbin/badblocks -c 10240 -w -t random -v /dev/sda2 where sda2 is a 320 gb partition. The process has been running for approx 18 hours and is just over three thirds. Is this really supposed to be so slow, or is there something wrong? The machine is a Core Duo 1,6, 2GB memory. Yes, and no. badblocks -w is a full write-mode check - you could do a default read-only check, which would certainly be faster, but it all depends on how thorough you would like to be - you chose the most thorough check, so it will take a while, yeah. Just over 3/3's (= 1/1 = done)? ;) Kind Regards, Michael Shuler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: badblocks -- how much time does it take?
On jan. 12, 19:20, Michael Shuler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 01/12/2008 11:40 AM, Towncat wrote: /sbin/badblocks -c 10240 -w -t random -v /dev/sda2 where sda2 is a 320 gb partition. The process has been running for approx 18 hours and is just over three thirds. Is this really supposed to be so slow, or is there something wrong? The machine is a Core Duo 1,6, 2GB memory. Yes, and no. badblocks -w is a full write-mode check - you could do a default read-only check, which would certainly be faster, but it all depends on how thorough you would like to be - you chose the most thorough check, so it will take a while, yeah. Just over 3/3's (= 1/1 = done)? ;) Í Sorry, three quarters... :) I thought I'd be thorough, since I can only do this now when it's still empty. Thanks, I'll just wait then :-)
Re: badblocks -- how much time does it take?
On 01/12/08 11:40, Towncat wrote: Hi, I did a /sbin/badblocks -c 10240 -w -t random -v /dev/sda2 Why? Don't you trust brand new disk drives? where sda2 is a 320 gb partition. The process has been running for approx 18 hours and is just over three thirds. Is this really supposed to be so slow, Yes. or is there something wrong? The machine is a Core Duo 1,6, 2GB memory. CPU speed helps, I guess, but always the important factor in disk activity is the disk itself. A 10K or 15K RPM FC drive connected to a 4GBps HBA will do the bad block scan *much* faster than an IDE or SATA drive. -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian because I hate vegetables! unknown -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: badblocks -- how much time does it take?
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 03:11:57PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: On 01/12/08 11:40, Towncat wrote: Hi, I did a /sbin/badblocks -c 10240 -w -t random -v /dev/sda2 Why? Don't you trust brand new disk drives? where sda2 is a 320 gb partition. The process has been running for approx 18 hours and is just over three thirds. Is this really supposed to be so slow, Yes. or is there something wrong? The machine is a Core Duo 1,6, 2GB memory. CPU speed helps, I guess, but always the important factor in disk activity is the disk itself. A 10K or 15K RPM FC drive connected to a 4GBps HBA will do the bad block scan *much* faster than an IDE or SATA drive. thats a bit unfair comparing a 7K to 10K or 15K. personal note I don't think the fc has much to do with it (if its only a bad block scan and there is nothing else happening ) -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian because I hate vegetables! unknown -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- I cut the taxes on everybody. I didn't cut them. The Congress cut them. I asked them to cut them. - George W. Bush 08/06/2004 Washington, DC signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: badblocks -- how much time does it take?
On 01/12/08 15:29, Alex Samad wrote: On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 03:11:57PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: On 01/12/08 11:40, Towncat wrote: Hi, I did a /sbin/badblocks -c 10240 -w -t random -v /dev/sda2 Why? Don't you trust brand new disk drives? where sda2 is a 320 gb partition. The process has been running for approx 18 hours and is just over three thirds. Is this really supposed to be so slow, Yes. or is there something wrong? The machine is a Core Duo 1,6, 2GB memory. CPU speed helps, I guess, but always the important factor in disk activity is the disk itself. A 10K or 15K RPM FC drive connected to a 4GBps HBA will do the bad block scan *much* faster than an IDE or SATA drive. thats a bit unfair comparing a 7K to 10K or 15K. But that's the point. The bottleneck isn't RAM or CPU, it's the disk drive itself. Faster drive, faster badblocks. personal note I don't think the fc has much to do with it (if its only a bad block scan and there is nothing else happening ) Faster transfer rates than IDE/SATA. -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian because I hate vegetables! unknown -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: badblocks -- how much time does it take?
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 09:40:36AM -0800, Towncat wrote: I did a /sbin/badblocks -c 10240 -w -t random -v /dev/sda2 where sda2 is a 320 gb partition. The process has been running for approx 18 hours and is just over three thirds. Is this really supposed to be so slow, or is there something wrong? The machine is a Core Duo 1,6, 2GB memory. The limiting factor will be the disk bandwidth. Assuming that you're not trying to run a normal system while you do a badblocks check (the drive will end up doing a lot of seeking which slows down the check). If the drive light is on continuously, then the drive isn't sitting idle. So the processor and memory are of little importance. If its a fast drive, it will be fast... Have patience. This is one of the limitations of having One Big Drive. You only have one spindle to work with. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: badblocks -- how much time does it take?
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 11:14:13AM -0800, Towncat wrote: On jan. 12, 19:20, Michael Shuler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 01/12/2008 11:40 AM, Towncat wrote: /sbin/badblocks -c 10240 -w -t random -v /dev/sda2 where sda2 is a 320 gb partition. The process has been running for approx 18 hours and is just over three thirds. Is this really supposed to be so slow, or is there something wrong? The machine is a Core Duo 1,6, 2GB memory. Yes, and no. badblocks -w is a full write-mode check - you could do a default read-only check, which would certainly be faster, but it all depends on how thorough you would like to be - you chose the most thorough check, so it will take a while, yeah. Just over 3/3's (= 1/1 = done)? ;) ? Sorry, three quarters... :) I thought I'd be thorough, since I can only do this now when it's still empty. Why? e2fsck -c -c will do a read/write/read. OK, not random, but does random matter or are you trying to wipe the drive at the same time? Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
