Re: Btrfs on a failing drive
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Again, please stop taking this conversation private; keep the mailing list on the Cc. On 11/19/2014 11:37 AM, Fennec Fox wrote: well ive used spinrite and its found a few sectors and they never move so obviously the drives firmware isnt dealing with bad blocks on the drive anyways ive got a new drive on order but what can i do to prevent the drive from killing any more data? The drive will only remap bad blocks when you try to write to them, so if you haven't written to them then it is no surprise that they aren't going anywhere. If the drive is actually returning bad data rather than failing the read outright, then the only thing you can do is to have btrfs duplicate all data so if the checksum on one copy is bad it can try the other. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUbN8VAAoJEI5FoCIzSKrwGjkIAKxXbBcMaItyBe08yC/bipUH 2crWLj5MKej1sn1HEo1WqgJM1hCEZuHCBa8I6ZIECcZmzs4rvKhzU4WWIQ7J/tMN 8OYUzdsWboxbKHY5hrNEVsi8QcUTbz7HT3doaaYDhI7qERu1Ib/4FH+m5yFYEIu8 tx5+N2PzyXctDlNnjY/pcFg+I2+QyA5Rb9X+fLpvVoZCEW7TTMhejfKSQpMEfzHW JsYyKwDpQO6cGIWi19P7pgHc2bsCzShPtFo9UQJh5TtuxjsqP01ju1UfQBX0+Y25 B2LDAjyGE71pY68tBuS7EC9XSB9Iks5yEJotmwYTv3/L7bgDeAGPrj5cFOKG9Tc= =8JoK -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Btrfs on a failing drive
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Please get in the habit of using your mail client's reply-to-all button instead of reply; there is no need for us to take this conversation private. On 11/17/2014 10:15 PM, Fennec Fox wrote: snip big smartctl output i know the drive is dying and needs replacing but i need to keep this drive arround for some time longer as i cant run from a 32 gb usbfar too slow If it were just a few bad sectors, then you could deal with that by writing to them, which would force the drive to reallocate them from the spare pool. I'd suggest you dd /dev/zero all over the drive so everything is written to, then check the smart stats again. If there were no write errors, and the smart stats show zero pending sectors, then everything has been reallocated and you should be ok to reformat the drive and use it. As I said before though, the errors you posted from dmesg don't indicate that the drive failed to read sectors, but rather that it returned incorrect data, and this is *NEVER* supposed to happen. I'd suggest running a few passes of badblocks over the drive, testing writing different patterns and verifying that they read back correctly. If it can't do that, then there's nothing for it but to junk the drive. badblocks -b 4096 -c 256 -s -t 00 /dev/sda That will read the drive and verify that it is full of zeros. If that passes, write a different pattern to the disk and verify that reads back correctly: badblocks -b 4096 -c 256 -s -w /dev/sda -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUa2duAAoJEI5FoCIzSKrw+0AIAJNAqF1rY2m5Oalehr3dz+G4 O6h9XERRiTl8GVMgcj7ZybeP3sFroItgiki5UdhRsjNoPEPRQpv3hApY7p2cEUtk yNn8jAeRBjA0kli+5HMHY3eHL4RmLO3mrLmNoAu5HShvWBE4zj/18vvk15m/u5rj SnrxBUSQ91V0D6p/CFkjAX9iBZBoWx4+J7Wz8EOhqnFJbqXaCEOdj7NKrjQ/7r+Q 5gxQWD4x54NQSGPfexERtRRaL9drE3JoLTbOEC+xdt7a9MwHw5Z50DTfMRzibpFP kdKlRCLMzcNGXSVt/187MMbpvROXBWhfmAAFOCz5rGtrGjX3V6+/7hpPBn5ft3E= =L5No -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Btrfs on a failing drive
Phillip Susi posted on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:36:14 -0500 as excerpted: As I said before though, the errors you posted from dmesg don't indicate that the drive failed to read sectors, but rather that it returned incorrect data, and this is *NEVER* supposed to happen. I'd suggest running a few passes of badblocks over the drive, testing writing different patterns and verifying that they read back correctly. +1 for badblocks! =:^) Tho a hint if you decide to test multiple drives as I did some years ago. Doing a multiple passes (I'd suggest at least two) on a full drive can take QUITE some time (days), due to the shear volume of data to be written to the drive, then read back to verify, then written as a new pattern and read back again. But unlike IDE, the bottleneck on at least spinning rust SATA (well, unless you go heavy port-multiplier) tends to be the platters themselves, not the buses as they're point-to-point now days, or the controllers. Generally you can process four or more drives in parallel without slowing down the individual results significantly at all. Thus, while it takes days to test a single drive, it normally takes the same time to process four drives in parallel! So if you have 4+ devices to badblocks-test, definitely setup four (perhaps more, depending on hardware layout) instances of badblocks running at once, one to each of the devices. Cut your time for all four done serially to say 8 days, to only two days when done in parallel! =:^) Of course good SSDs tend to be both many times faster and several times smaller in capacity, so a badblocks run on them should be MUCH faster, perhaps a couple hours vs a couple days, and much less parallelizable without slowing all of them down, since they tend to saturate the bus or close to it (the reason fast SATA-based SSDs all tend to rate similarly speed-wise, the SATA bus is the bottleneck and the PCI-E bus isn't /that/ far behind!, tho the PCIE bus can be /enough/ faster to give direct PCIE- interface SSDs a definite speed boost over top-of-the-line SATA interface devices... for those that can afford their accordingly higher prices). -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Btrfs on a failing drive
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 11/17/2014 05:55 PM, Fennec Fox wrote: well i am an arch linux user and machine owner using a failing drive its still relyable enough for me but btrfs seems not to mark bad blocks as unusable and continues to try to write to them. /bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1476540#p1476540 this forum post has a few more details regarding the problem i really need a bit of help thank you If indeed writes are failing then the drive is only suitable for a door stop. Drives remap bad sectors to a spare pool on write so if it is now failing writes, it has already exhausted its spare pool and you should have replaced it long ago. Have a look at its SMART stats and it will probably confirm the drive is fubar. [ 83.050733] BTRFS info (device sda1): csum failed ino 3048916 off 33030144 csum 1217419445 expected csum 510562246 [ 83.052317] BTRFS info (device sda1): csum failed ino 3048916 off 33030144 csum 1217419445 expected csum 510562246 That's not saying writes are failing; it is saying that your data has been silently corrupted, which means the drive is the worst kind of broken and should be thrown in a fire at once. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUap4OAAoJENRVrw2cjl5RwBAH/1ceBd4i7WD7679x3bshYYTi Lv63xLRMjbo+T0md3ptcndyxFbZlRdWQiJbIKT40yn9xnqOWeXWTkSmODqGyEOdC M9HSlfZg8fOAha4kb7k1tzzqxdR1J3iAj03/G0B4+YKY0I7AaGdzhGLRAY8EVtRW UVG99451wwRyUpg3YLk+n12MMSlq8Sy9XSjMU5/ECDzemH5GF6pPNi39nCy6JFti oaTOwnAROfb7L3Y9ZBiIJ52Y7p4UIdS1jaSkLw0U2g0Gz+5V1/fb1hOhK5J/loYy bC4JyoJsxn9GyJGwM93s64aWE5X+N+i7RzmysQVBI/3wepGXpG0Tsq37NnKB3iU= =BctV -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Btrfs on a failing drive
On Nov 17, 2014, at 3:55 PM, Fennec Fox fennect...@gmail.com wrote: well i am an arch linux user and machine owner using a failing drive its still relyable enough for me but btrfs seems not to mark bad blocks as unusable and continues to try to write to them. It’s supposed to do try to write to them. If there is actual persistent write failure it’s the job of the firmware to reassign the affected LBA to a reserve physical sector. If it can’t do this, the drive is no longer normally operating, it should return a write error and ideally Btrfs would refuse to use the drive at all. I don’t know if that device rejection code exists yet. It hasn’t been the job of the filesystem to keep track of bad physical sectors since ancient times. Chris Murphy-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
