On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, Eric Schrock wrote: > Your statement that it is "just fine" is false:
I didn't say it worked "perfectly", I said it worked "fine". Yes, it gave a *warning* that the "SMART Selective Self-Test Log Data Structure Revision Number" was 0 instead of 1, **however** other than that warning the data smartctl returned from the drive appeared correct. Results from the virgin drive: SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1 No self-tests have been logged. [To run self-tests, use: smartctl -t] Results after manually initiating self tests: SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1 Num Test_Description Status Remaining LifeTime(hours) LBA_of_first_error # 1 Extended offline Completed without error 00% 68 - # 2 Short offline Completed without error 00% 68 - The exact same drive in the x4500 running your test program to check self-test results: self-test-failure = (embedded nvlist) nvlist version: 0 result-code = 0x4 timestamp = 0x48a5 segment = 0x0 address = 0xa548a548a548 (end self-test-failure) There's definitely invalid data all right, but it's **not** originating from the drive. For that matter, the warning is about the "SMART Selective Self-Test Log Data Structure Revision Number", not the "SMART Self-test log structure revision number" -- which is correctly version 1. > Like I said, there are ways we could tighten up the FMA code to better > handle bad data before going off the rails - most likely smartctl gives > up when it sees this invalid record, while we (via SATL) keep going. > But any way you slice it, the drive is returning invalid data. The drive is not returning invalid data in a Linux box running smartctl. Other than a *warning* about the wrong revision of a data structure for a different self test, the drive seems to work just fine. I really appreciated the help you provided with figuring out what was going on with this drive in an x4500 under Solaris. I understand there's no obligation on anybody's part to make this unsupported drive work. However, given it does work correctly (at least in regards to returning smart self-test logs) under Linux, I don't see why it could not work correctly under Solaris. If it doesn't get fixed, it doesn't get fixed, but I don't understand why you're saying the drive is returning invalid data when the evidence does not support that conclusion. -- Paul B. Henson | (909) 979-6361 | http://www.csupomona.edu/~henson/ Operating Systems and Network Analyst | hen...@csupomona.edu California State Polytechnic University | Pomona CA 91768 _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss