On Thu, 27 Jan 2011, Gordon Ferris wrote:
2. What utilities will show which sectors are occupied by specific
files? Ideally I could specify a range of sectors and a list of files
using those sectors would be provided. It would also be nice to specify
files and be shown which sectors they oc
Thank you for the interest so far in my post.
I never meant to imply "someone fix this now". If that's how it came across,
then I do apologize - that's not what I intended.
I am looking for more than the standard "disks break, live with it" answer.
I am surprised that the disk retry code doe
Thank you for the interest so far in my post.
I never meant to imply "someone fix this now". If that's how it came across,
then I do apologize - that's not what I intended.
I am looking for more than the standard "disks break, live with it" answer.
I am surprised that the disk retry code doe
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Gordon Ferris
wrote:
> 1. Is it normal for the operating system to freeze when accessing damaged
sectors - even if the only access is via a raw, unmounted partition? This
seems like a hardware problem to me, except that errors are logged to
/var/log/messages as I
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011, Gordon Ferris wrote:
> We waited too long to replace the failed drive, so there were errors on
> both drives in the mirror, so the data was not completely restored.
> Backups were not as recent as we would have liked. Since the drive
> didn't completely fail, it seemed worth
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:28 AM, Benny Lofgren wrote:
> It's a matter of uptime.
>
> The indicated behaviour, that the system more or less freezes when
> encountering a simple sector read error is indeed disturbing. For
> example, my own reasons for using mirroring are exclusively so that a
> syst
On 2011-01-27 14.11, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:28 AM, Benny Lofgren wrote:
>> It's a matter of uptime.
>>
>> The indicated behaviour, that the system more or less freezes when
>> encountering a simple sector read error is indeed disturbing. For
>> example, my own reasons for u
On 2011-01-27 06.02, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Amit Kulkarni wrote:
>> pardon my ignorance but if you restored your data already, why bother
>> investigating disk failure?
> Unless they are all the same person, there seems to be a sudden rash
> of people who want to b
We waited too long to replace the failed drive, so there were errors on both
drives in the mirror, so the data was not completely restored. Backups were
not as recent as we would have liked. Since the drive didn't completely fail,
it seemed worth trying to retrieve some data where possible fro
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Amit Kulkarni wrote:
> pardon my ignorance but if you restored your data already, why bother
> investigating disk failure?
Unless they are all the same person, there seems to be a sudden rash
of people who want to bring a disk back from the dead because they are
pardon my ignorance but if you restored your data already, why bother
investigating disk failure?
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Gordon Ferris
wrote:
>I have a disk that has failed; there seem to be damaged areas that
cause errors when specific files are accessed. This disk was one of
I have a disk that has failed; there seem to be damaged areas that
cause errors when specific files are accessed. This disk was one of a two-disk
mirror running raidframe. The disk has been replaced and the original machine
is back up and running again.
However as I use a secon
12 matches
Mail list logo