Chris, Thanks for good comment/discussion.
On 29/09/13 03:06, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Sep 28, 2013, at 4:51 PM, Martin <m_bt...@ml1.co.uk> wrote: > > Stick with forced 3Gbps, but I think it's worth while to find out > what the actual problem is. One day you forget about this 3Gbps SATA > link, upgrade or regress to another kernel and you don't have the > 3Gbps forced speed on the parameter line, and poof - you've got more > problems again. The hardware shouldn't negotiate a 6Gbps link and > then do a backwards swan dive at 30,000' with your data as if it's an > after thought. I've got an engineer's curiosity so that one is very definitely marked for revisiting at some time... If only to blog that x-y-z combination is a tar pit for your data... >> In any case, for the existing HDD - motherboard combination, using >> sata2 rather than sata3 speeds shouldn't noticeably impact >> performance. (Other than sata2 works reliably and so is infinitely >> better for this case!) > > It's true. Well, the IO data rate for badblocks is exactly the same as before, limited by the speed of the physical rust spinning and data density... > I would also separately unmount the file system, note the latest > kernel message, then mount the file system and see if there are any > kernel messages that might indicate recognition of problems with the > fs. > > I would not use btrfsck --repair until someone says it's a good idea. > That person would not be me. It is sat unmounted until some informed opinion is gained... Thanks again for your notes, Regards, Martin -- 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
