On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 04:02:22PM +0200, Lorenzo Quatrini wrote:
> William L. Maltby ha scritto:
> >From "man badblocks":
> >
> > -n Use non-destructive read-write mode. By default only a non-
> >destructive read-only test is done. This option must not be
> >combined
William L. Maltby ha scritto:
>From "man badblocks":
>
> -n Use non-destructive read-write mode. By default only a non-
>destructive read-only test is done. This option must not be
>combined with the -w option, as they are mutually exclusive.
>
> Note the phrase begi
On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 10:38 +0200, Lorenzo Quatrini wrote:
>
> Also I finally noticed that badblocs has a non-distructive read-write mode
> (the
> man page is outdated and doesn't mention that) which can be used routinely
> (say
> once at month) to force a check of the whole disk.
>From "man
Nifty Cluster Mitch ha scritto:
>
> Bottom line... use vendor tools
> Vendors like error reports from their tools for RMA processing and warranty...
>
> BTW: smartd is a good thing. For me any disk that smartd had made noise
> about has failed... often with weeks or months of warning...
>
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 15:36 -0700, Nifty Cluster Mitch wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 03:43:18PM -0400, William L. Maltby wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 12:03 -0700, Nifty Cluster Mitch wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 07:24:24AM -0400, William L. Maltby wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > >
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 03:43:18PM -0400, William L. Maltby wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 12:03 -0700, Nifty Cluster Mitch wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 07:24:24AM -0400, William L. Maltby wrote:
> > >
> > >
>
> > > (potentially) lost on an existing file system. It's best utility is at
> >
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 12:03 -0700, Nifty Cluster Mitch wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 07:24:24AM -0400, William L. Maltby wrote:
> >
> >
> > (potentially) lost on an existing file system. It's best utility is at
> > FS creation and check time. It also has use if you can un-mount the FS
> > (ig
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 07:24:24AM -0400, William L. Maltby wrote:
>
> "Badblocks" (which really should be invoked via mke2fs or e2fsck rather
> than manually) has useful, but limited, utility in ensuring reliability.
> And it does require some small storage space in the file system. And it
> does
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 10:43:01AM +0200, Lorenzo Quatrini wrote:
> William L. Maltby ha scritto:
> >
> > Yep. Only a few copies of the superblock and the i-node tables are
> > written by the file system make process. That's why it's important for
> > files systems in critical applications to be c
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 06:36 -0400, Stephen Harris wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 10:43:01AM +0200, Lorenzo Quatrini wrote:
> > So again my question is:
> > can I use dd to "test" the disk? what about
> >
> > dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/sda bs=512
> >
> > Is this safe on a full running system? Has t
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 10:43 +0200, Lorenzo Quatrini wrote:
> William L. Maltby ha scritto:
> >
> > Yep. Only a few copies of the superblock and the i-node tables are
> > written by the file system make process. That's why it's important for
> > files systems in critical applications to be created
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 10:43:01AM +0200, Lorenzo Quatrini wrote:
> So again my question is:
> can I use dd to "test" the disk? what about
>
> dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/sda bs=512
>
> Is this safe on a full running system? Has to be done at runlevel 1 or with a
> live cd?
Do not do this on a mounte
William L. Maltby ha scritto:
>
> Yep. Only a few copies of the superblock and the i-node tables are
> written by the file system make process. That's why it's important for
> files systems in critical applications to be created with the check
> forced. Folks should also keep in mind that the defa
On Fri, 2008-08-22 at 09:33 -0700, nate wrote:
> William L. Maltby wrote:
>
> > ?? Uncertain about "spares has been exhausted".
>
> I don't recall where I read it, and I suppose it may be
> misinformation, but it made sense at the time. The idea is
> the disks are not made to hold EXACTLY the am
William L. Maltby wrote:
> ?? Uncertain about "spares has been exhausted".
I don't recall where I read it, and I suppose it may be
misinformation, but it made sense at the time. The idea is
the disks are not made to hold EXACTLY the amount of blocks
that the specs are for. There are some extra bl
On Fri, 2008-08-22 at 18:07 +0200, Lorenzo Quatrini wrote:
> nate ha scritto:
> >
> For what I understand Offline uncorrectable means that the sector would be
> relocated the next time it is accessed for writing... so it is on a "wait for
> relocation" status.
If my memory is still good (I don't
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 9:26 AM, nate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lorenzo Quatrini wrote:
> Not sure myself but the manufacturer's testing tools have
> non destructive ways of detecting and re-mapping bad sectors.
> Of course a downside to the manufacturer's tools is they often
> only support a l
Lorenzo Quatrini wrote:
> For what I understand Offline uncorrectable means that the sector would be
> relocated the next time it is accessed for writing... so it is on a "wait
> for
> relocation" status.
> I don't know of any other way to force this relocation other tha actually
> writing over th
On Fri, 2008-08-22 at 08:59 -0700, nate wrote:
> Lorenzo Quatrini wrote:
> > I have few disk that have offline uncorrectables sectors;
>
> Ideally it should be done using the manufacturer's tools,
Second that!
> and really any disk that has even one bad sector that the OS
> can see should not b
nate ha scritto:
> Lorenzo Quatrini wrote:
>> I have few disk that have offline uncorrectables sectors;
>
> Ideally it should be done using the manufacturer's tools,
> and really any disk that has even one bad sector that the OS
> can see should not be relied upon, it should be considered a
> fail
Lorenzo Quatrini wrote:
> I have few disk that have offline uncorrectables sectors;
Ideally it should be done using the manufacturer's tools,
and really any disk that has even one bad sector that the OS
can see should not be relied upon, it should be considered a
failed disk. Disks automatically k
I have few disk that have offline uncorrectables sectors;
I found on this page how to identify the sectors and force a write on them to
trigger the relocation of bad sectors on the disk:
http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/BadBlockHowTo.txt
My question is:
since I'm too lazy to follow all the
22 matches
Mail list logo
