For a number of weeks now I've been getting this notification (only when
in Fedora 11 & running GNOME) that "one or more disks are failing".
I first saw this a few months back. Since that time, I've reformatted the
Linux partitions and installed other distros (includ
Scott Beamer spake thusly:
> For a number of weeks now I've been getting this notification (only when
> in Fedora 11 & running GNOME) that "one or more disks are failing".
Sorry about that. The URL for the screenshot didn't wrap properly.
This is it:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 07:57:46 + (UTC), Scott wrote:
> For a number of weeks now I've been getting this notification (only when
> in Fedora 11 & running GNOME) that "one or more disks are failing".
What do you get for "smartctl --all /dev/sda"? Perha
On 07/04/2009 02:41 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 07:57:46 + (UTC), Scott wrote:
>
>> For a number of weeks now I've been getting this notification (only when
>> in Fedora 11 & running GNOME) that "one or more disks are failing".
>
edora 11 & running GNOME) that "one or more disks are failing".
> >
> > What do you get for "smartctl --all /dev/sda"? Perhaps a non-zero and
> > growing number of reallocated sectors?
>
> Uhhh
>
> Actually, I got (106 lines of) all this:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:42:16 +0300, Jussi wrote:
> > 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 100 100 010Pre-fail Always
> > - 4
>
> This means your disk is breaking down, and should be replaced soon.
In other words, you're playing Russian roulette as you cannot know
how long th
On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 13:42:16 +0300,
Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 02:57 -0700, Scott Beamer wrote:
>
> > 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 100 100 010Pre-fail Always
> > - 4
>
> This means your disk is breaking down, and should be replaced soon.
It m
On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 11:41:39 +0200,
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 07:57:46 + (UTC), Scott wrote:
>
> Filesystems (see "man badblocks") and the hard-disk itself protect against
> a first bunch of errors that can only be worked around by
> reallocating/ignoring
> sectors.
On 09-07-04 06:42:16, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 02:57 -0700, Scott Beamer wrote:
...
> > 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 100 100 010Pre-fail
> > Always - 4
>
> This means your disk is breaking down, and should be replaced soon.
Nonsense. He has a disk
Tony Nelson spake thusly:
[]
> He has an unrecoverable sector. If that sector was in use, it's data
> was lost. If that sector was not in use, no data was lost. If the
> number of uncorrectable sectors rises, that is a problem.
I've been getting these warning messages popping up for
On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 08:30:52 -0700,
Scott Beamer wrote:
>
> Thanks. I just started that. Does it run indefinitely? Do I stop it at
> some point?
If you have smartmontools installed you can use the smartd service to
monitor your drives. /etc/smartd.conf has the config setup.
--
fedora-lis
> > Filesystems (see "man badblocks") and the hard-disk
> itself protect against
> > a first bunch of errors that can only be worked around
> by reallocating/ignoring
> > sectors. Until the hardware failures become fatal all
> of a sudden. Hence
> > an early warning can be helpful.
>
> Well that
On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 13:38:12 +0200,
Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> In other words, you're playing Russian roulette as you cannot know
> how long the drive will continue to run even with a growing number of
> reallocated sectors. If you decide to keep this drive running, watch
> above value car
Scott Beamer wrote:
On 07/04/2009 02:41 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 07:57:46 + (UTC), Scott wrote:
For a number of weeks now I've been getting this notification (only when
in Fedora 11 & running GNOME) that "one or more disks are failing".
What do yo
On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:01:30 -0400, Bill wrote:
> > 9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 099 099 000Old_age Always
> > - 6202
> I don't totally trust POH (#9) as it
> is sometimes lower than my uptime. I suspect Seagate is reporting in days,
> yours
> looks right if the d
On 07/04/2009 10:25 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>
> Drives typcially won't reallocate bad sectors if they can't get a good read
> or the operation is a write. This is to give you a chance to recover the data
> if you want to try. And if you want to spend some effort, you can figure out
> what files
Michael Schwendt spake thusly:
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:01:30 -0400, Bill wrote:
>
>>> 9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 099 099 000Old_age Always
>>> - 6202
>
>> I don't totally trust POH (#9) as it
>> is sometimes lower than my uptime. I suspect Seagate is reporting in
Bill Davidsen spake thusly:
> Scott Beamer wrote:
[..]
>
> To avoid munging by mailer, this would have been a nice attach. Just a
> thought.
Attachments are "no-nos" on lists such as this. What I should have done
is use a Pastebin. I'll remember that in the future.
Sorry for the mess.
[...
On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 16:07:18 -0700,
Scott Beamer wrote:
> On 07/04/2009 10:25 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> >
> > Drives typcially won't reallocate bad sectors if they can't get a good read
> > or the operation is a write. This is to give you a chance to recover the
> > data
> > if you want
On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 16:23 -0700, Scott Beamer wrote:
> Attachments are "no-nos" on lists such as this.
Some are fine. The list automatically stops disallowed ones. They may
be manually moderated back in though, but after a delay.
--
[...@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686
Don
On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:07:18 -0700
Scott Beamer wrote:
> On 07/04/2009 10:25 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> >
> > Drives typcially won't reallocate bad sectors if they can't get a good read
> > or the operation is a write. This is to give you a chance to recover the
> > data
> > if you want to tr
On 09-07-04 11:30:52, Scott Beamer wrote:
> Tony Nelson spake thusly:
...
> I've been getting these warning messages popping up for 2-3 weeks now
> (see original post for details), but I've otherwise not had any
> problems with losing data or the drive's performance.
>
> I'm not sure how to tell
On 09-07-04 19:07:18, Scott Beamer wrote:
> On 07/04/2009 10:25 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> >
> > Drives typcially won't reallocate bad sectors if they can't get
> > good read or the operation is a write. This is to give you a chance
> > to recover the data if you want to try. And if you want to
Alan Cox wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:07:18 -0700
Scott Beamer wrote:
On 07/04/2009 10:25 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
Drives typcially won't reallocate bad sectors if they can't get a good read
or the operation is a write. This is to give you a chance to recover the data
if you want to try. A
Scott Beamer wrote:
Bill Davidsen spake thusly:
Scott Beamer wrote:
[..]
To avoid munging by mailer, this would have been a nice attach. Just a
thought.
Attachments are "no-nos" on lists such as this. What I should have done
is use a Pastebin. I'll remember that in the future.
AFAIK a
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:01:30 -0400, Bill wrote:
9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 099 099 000Old_age Always
- 6202
I don't totally trust POH (#9) as it
is sometimes lower than my uptime. I suspect Seagate is reporting in days, yours
looks rig
On 07/04/2009 10:12 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 16:23 -0700, Scott Beamer wrote:
Attachments are "no-nos" on lists such as this.
Some are fine. The list automatically stops disallowed ones. They may
be manually moderated back in though, but after a delay.
Personally I'd be annoyed
On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 23:43 -0700, Scott Beamer wrote:
> On 07/04/2009 10:12 PM, Tim wrote:
> > On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 16:23 -0700, Scott Beamer wrote:
> >> Attachments are "no-nos" on lists such as this.
> >
> > Some are fine. The list automatically stops disallowed ones. They may
> > be manually
On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 23:43:35 -0700,
Scott Beamer wrote:
> On 07/04/2009 10:12 PM, Tim wrote:
>> On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 16:23 -0700, Scott Beamer wrote:
>>> Attachments are "no-nos" on lists such as this.
>>
>> Some are fine. The list automatically stops disallowed ones. They may
>> be manua
On 07/06/2009 06:58 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 23:43 -0700, Scott Beamer wrote:
On 07/04/2009 10:12 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 16:23 -0700, Scott Beamer wrote:
Attachments are "no-nos" on lists such as this.
Some are fine. The list automatically stops disa
I am also seeing this on drives that are only a few months old. I was
having system crashes so I wouldn't be surprised about the need to
re-allocate blocks.
Now the question that I pose is, how do get these blocks allocated/moved
that is safe for data on the drives? What is the best method t
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:12:47 -0600
Robin Laing wrote:
> I am also seeing this on drives that are only a few months old. I
> was having system crashes so I wouldn't be surprised about the need
> to re-allocate blocks.
>
> Now the question that I pose is, how do get these blocks
> allocated/moved
Robin Laing wrote:
I am also seeing this on drives that are only a few months old. I was
having system crashes so I wouldn't be surprised about the need to
re-allocate blocks.
Now the question that I pose is, how do get these blocks allocated/moved
that is safe for data on the drives? What
| From: Bill Davidsen
| Scott Beamer wrote:
| > SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 16
| > Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds:
| > ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE
| > UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
| > 195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered 0x001a
So last night I booted into Windows. And I got my hand on a program (GUI
based) that gives you all the SMART stats in slightly better plain
English. There were no warnings of demise of any type (I'm back in Linux
now and the program name escapes me, but it's not really important).
In any event
On 06/07/09 07:57, Scott Beamer wrote:
> So last night I booted into Windows. And I got my hand on a program (GUI
> based) that gives you all the SMART stats in slightly better plain
> English. There were no warnings of demise of any type (I'm back in Linux
> now and the program name escapes me, bu
On 07/06/2009 12:05 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
On 06/07/09 07:57, Scott Beamer wrote:
So last night I booted into Windows. And I got my hand on a program (GUI
based) that gives you all the SMART stats in slightly better plain
English. There were no warnings of demise of any type (I'm back in Linux
On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:25:02 -0700, Scott wrote:
> On 07/06/2009 12:05 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> > On 06/07/09 07:57, Scott Beamer wrote:
> >> So last night I booted into Windows. And I got my hand on a program (GUI
> >> based) that gives you all the SMART stats in slightly better plain
> >> Engli
2009/7/6 Scott Beamer :
> So last night I booted into Windows. And I got my hand on a program (GUI
> based) that gives you all the SMART stats in slightly better plain English.
> There were no warnings of demise of any type (I'm back in Linux now and the
> program name escapes me, but it's not real
Michael Schwendt spake thusly:
Funnily, you posted a SMART report that shows the same values as before.
It does? The other one had much more output (didn't it?).
A self-test that ended with a read failure. One sector that the drive has
failed to reallocate/replace. Two sectors that have not
On 07/06/2009 03:55 AM, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
[...]
I think you need to reassess this conclusion, and also consider not
referring to people who are trying to help you in their own free time
(be it mailing list people or the people who wrote smartmontools,
smartctl etc) as "propeller-heads" t
On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:58:13 -0700, Scott wrote:
> Michael Schwendt spake thusly:
>
> >
> > Funnily, you posted a SMART report that shows the same values as before.
>
> It does? The other one had much more output (didn't it?).
It's the same version of smartctl even. If there's anything you'd
li
42 matches
Mail list logo
