On 2020-09-05 13:41, Hendrik Boom wrote: > This seems to say we now have two independent levels of bad block > checking. > > When the low-level one fails, the other takes over. I't expect the > file system to be unlikely to see bad blocks until the drive is hosed.
That is true if the drive is SMART capable _and_ you use SMART tools to check it. In this thread we saw that SMART over USB is not that reliable, and in fact I had very mixed results with it even over SATA. I admit that was in the early years of SATA. So now I rely completely on a regular 'e2fsck -c -c' to check my drives. Each has a handful of bad blocks but the count remains stable and the drives usable. Back when I was trying SMART, it would uselessly spam me in this situation, while it completely missed an approaching catastrophic failure. -- Ian _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
