Re: Hammer recover question
Thanks, guys. Yes, I can see how it would slow down on the bad spots. I'm just happy it's working as well as it is and I'll try to be patient. Any way you can add a progress bar to this thing? :-) Tim On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Justin C. Sherrill < jus...@shiningsilence.com> wrote: > On Sun, February 20, 2011 4:28 pm, Tim Darby wrote: > > The good news is that it's recovering a ton of data! The > > bad news is that it's taking an incredible amount of time. So far it's > been > > running 24 hours. Is that to be expected? The bad disk had > approximately > > 50GB on it, as reported by the df utility, but I don't know how much of > > that is snapshots. > > I've had disks that go bad, and reading the raw data for recovery ends up > being very, very slow just when trying to read from the actual 'bad' > portions of disk. So this could take quite a while, just because of how > the physical disk is responding. > >
Re: Hammer recover question
On Sun, February 20, 2011 4:28 pm, Tim Darby wrote: > The good news is that it's recovering a ton of data! The > bad news is that it's taking an incredible amount of time. So far it's been > running 24 hours. Is that to be expected? The bad disk had approximately > 50GB on it, as reported by the df utility, but I don't know how much of > that is snapshots. I've had disks that go bad, and reading the raw data for recovery ends up being very, very slow just when trying to read from the actual 'bad' portions of disk. So this could take quite a while, just because of how the physical disk is responding.
Re: Hammer recover question
:This was a 1.8.2 system. Having a 1.9 system handy, I plugged the drive :(300GB IDE) into it and tried hammer recover for the first time to see what :I could save. The good news is that it's recovering a ton of data! The bad :news is that it's taking an incredible amount of time. So far it's been :running 24 hours. Is that to be expected? The bad disk had approximately :50GB on it, as reported by the df utility, but I don't know how much of that :is snapshots. : :Tim It scans the entire disk linearly, so however long that takes is how long recover takes to run. -Matt
Hammer recover question
I have a very old server that I was pretty sure was going to fail sometime soon, so I prudently started building a new one. Unfortunately, I wasn't quite fast enough and the boot drive failed this week. When it tries to mount root, it issues the usual successful hammer startup messages and then quickly fails with: *READ_DMA status*=*51* *error*=*40* This was a 1.8.2 system. Having a 1.9 system handy, I plugged the drive (300GB IDE) into it and tried hammer recover for the first time to see what I could save. The good news is that it's recovering a ton of data! The bad news is that it's taking an incredible amount of time. So far it's been running 24 hours. Is that to be expected? The bad disk had approximately 50GB on it, as reported by the df utility, but I don't know how much of that is snapshots. Tim
