FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-03-2010, 05:04 PM
 
Default was, PATA Hard Drive woes, is "SMART"

Warren Young wrote:
> On 11/3/2010 11:27 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Yeah, but I have problems with smartmon:
>
> More likely, problems with SMART. S.M.A.R.T. is D.U.M.B.
>
> It's better than nothing, but sometimes not by a whole lot.
>
>> one server that's got two bad sectors, which SMART reports. I've
>> followed the instructions on how to make the log messages go away, and
fsck -c...
>> but on reboot, SMART seems to ignore what badblocks found, and the
>> irritating messages are back.
>
> It may be that SpinRite could fix that by forcing a remap.

Dunno if we have SpinRite around here.
>
> Another option -- which I didn't mention because it probably isn't an
> option for the original poster, but which may work with your servers --
> is that some high-end RAID systems can do something like SpinRite at
> level 4+, as can ZFS. They call it resilvering. I don't think these

No joy - it's a plain SATA drive, the root drive on a server we use for
backups. ext3, and no, I'm not going to change filesystem types.... The
real thing is why does SMART ignore the results of badblocks (for those
who aren't sure, that's invoked when you do fsck -c), and for that matter,
why the drive (Seagate ST3170811AS) doesn't automagically relocate those
blocks.

mark

mark


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-03-2010, 05:22 PM
Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
 
Default was, PATA Hard Drive woes, is "SMART"

m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
> Warren Young wrote:
>> On 11/3/2010 11:27 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
>>> Yeah, but I have problems with smartmon:
>>
>> More likely, problems with SMART. S.M.A.R.T. is D.U.M.B.
>>
>> It's better than nothing, but sometimes not by a whole lot.
>>
>>> one server that's got two bad sectors, which SMART reports. I've
>>> followed the instructions on how to make the log messages go away, and
> fsck -c...
>>> but on reboot, SMART seems to ignore what badblocks found, and the
>>> irritating messages are back.
>>
>> It may be that SpinRite could fix that by forcing a remap.
>
> Dunno if we have SpinRite around here.
>>
>> Another option -- which I didn't mention because it probably isn't an
>> option for the original poster, but which may work with your servers --
>> is that some high-end RAID systems can do something like SpinRite at
>> level 4+, as can ZFS. They call it resilvering. I don't think these
>
> No joy - it's a plain SATA drive, the root drive on a server we use for
> backups. ext3, and no, I'm not going to change filesystem types.... The
> real thing is why does SMART ignore the results of badblocks (for those
> who aren't sure, that's invoked when you do fsck -c), and for that matter,
> why the drive (Seagate ST3170811AS) doesn't automagically relocate those
> blocks.

AFAIK smart doesn't know or care about filesystems, it's at a lower
level than that.
fsck -c is a read-only scan, bad blocks are then added to the bad block
inode (which smart knows nothing about), and this might not be enough
for the disk to hide the blocks (which should satisfy smart).
Maybe try fsck -cc for a non-destructive read-write test.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-03-2010, 05:25 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default was, PATA Hard Drive woes, is "SMART"

On 11/3/2010 1:04 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
> Warren Young wrote:
>> On 11/3/2010 11:27 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
>>> Yeah, but I have problems with smartmon:
>>
>> More likely, problems with SMART. S.M.A.R.T. is D.U.M.B.
>>
>> It's better than nothing, but sometimes not by a whole lot.
>>
>>> one server that's got two bad sectors, which SMART reports. I've
>>> followed the instructions on how to make the log messages go away, and
> fsck -c...
>>> but on reboot, SMART seems to ignore what badblocks found, and the
>>> irritating messages are back.
>>
>> It may be that SpinRite could fix that by forcing a remap.
>
> Dunno if we have SpinRite around here.
>>
>> Another option -- which I didn't mention because it probably isn't an
>> option for the original poster, but which may work with your servers --
>> is that some high-end RAID systems can do something like SpinRite at
>> level 4+, as can ZFS. They call it resilvering. I don't think these
>
> No joy - it's a plain SATA drive, the root drive on a server we use for
> backups. ext3, and no, I'm not going to change filesystem types.... The
> real thing is why does SMART ignore the results of badblocks (for those
> who aren't sure, that's invoked when you do fsck -c), and for that matter,
> why the drive (Seagate ST3170811AS) doesn't automagically relocate those
> blocks.

I think the point of SMART is to be aware of the physical conditions
regardless of the logical remapping. At some point you run out of
places to relocate.

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-03-2010, 05:47 PM
RedShift
 
Default was, PATA Hard Drive woes, is "SMART"

On 11/03/10 19:04, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
> Warren Young wrote:
>> On 11/3/2010 11:27 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
>>> Yeah, but I have problems with smartmon:
>>
>> More likely, problems with SMART. S.M.A.R.T. is D.U.M.B.
>>
>> It's better than nothing, but sometimes not by a whole lot.
>>
>>> one server that's got two bad sectors, which SMART reports. I've
>>> followed the instructions on how to make the log messages go away, and
> fsck -c...
>>> but on reboot, SMART seems to ignore what badblocks found, and the
>>> irritating messages are back.
>>
>> It may be that SpinRite could fix that by forcing a remap.
>
> Dunno if we have SpinRite around here.
>>
>> Another option -- which I didn't mention because it probably isn't an
>> option for the original poster, but which may work with your servers --
>> is that some high-end RAID systems can do something like SpinRite at
>> level 4+, as can ZFS. They call it resilvering. I don't think these
>
> No joy - it's a plain SATA drive, the root drive on a server we use for
> backups. ext3, and no, I'm not going to change filesystem types.... The
> real thing is why does SMART ignore the results of badblocks (for those
> who aren't sure, that's invoked when you do fsck -c), and for that matter,
> why the drive (Seagate ST3170811AS) doesn't automagically relocate those
> blocks.
>
> mark
>
> mark
>
>


Auto relocation happens ONLY when writing to foobar sectors. The drive WILL NOT relocate sectors that you are reading from because it cannot trust the content.

SMART reports the number of sectors that have been reallocated. That means, the drive was writing to a sector, found out it was unreliable and decided to remap that sector. It is not abnormal for drives to develop _a few_ bad sectors over the years.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-03-2010, 05:50 PM
Warren Young
 
Default was, PATA Hard Drive woes, is "SMART"

On 11/3/2010 12:22 PM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
> Maybe try fsck -cc for a non-destructive read-write test.

Good call. That's resilvering.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-03-2010, 05:57 PM
 
Default was, PATA Hard Drive woes, is "SMART"

RedShift wrote:
> On 11/03/10 19:04, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Warren Young wrote:
>>> On 11/3/2010 11:27 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
>>>> Yeah, but I have problems with smartmon:
>>>
>>> More likely, problems with SMART. S.M.A.R.T. is D.U.M.B.
>>>
>>> It's better than nothing, but sometimes not by a whole lot.
>>>
>>>> one server that's got two bad sectors, which SMART reports. I've
>>>> followed the instructions on how to make the log messages go away, and
<snip>
>> No joy - it's a plain SATA drive, the root drive on a server we use for
>> backups. ext3, and no, I'm not going to change filesystem types.... The
>> real thing is why does SMART ignore the results of badblocks (for those
>> who aren't sure, that's invoked when you do fsck -c), and for that
>> matter, why the drive (Seagate ST3170811AS) doesn't automagically
relocate those
>> blocks.
>
> Auto relocation happens ONLY when writing to foobar sectors. The drive
> WILL NOT relocate sectors that you are reading from because it cannot
> trust the content.
>
> SMART reports the number of sectors that have been reallocated. That
> means, the drive was writing to a sector, found out it was unreliable and
> decided to remap that sector. It is not abnormal for drives to develop _a
> few_ bad sectors over the years.

Agreed. And these two bad sectors developed many months ago, and the
number is not increasing, so I'm not really worried about them; all I want
is to make the irritating messages in the logfiles go, and stay, away.

mark

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-03-2010, 06:00 PM
 
Default was, PATA Hard Drive woes, is "SMART"

Warren Young wrote:
> On 11/3/2010 12:22 PM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
>> Maybe try fsck -cc for a non-destructive read-write test.
>
> Good call. That's resilvering.

Hmmm... maybe I'll try that first thing in the morning. I don't have to
worry about users, since, as I said, it's an online backup server. With
luck, it'll be done before I have to leave; in that case, I'd have to kill
it.

mark

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-03-2010, 06:06 PM
RedShift
 
Default was, PATA Hard Drive woes, is "SMART"

On 11/03/10 19:57, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:

>> SMART reports the number of sectors that have been reallocated. That
>> means, the drive was writing to a sector, found out it was unreliable and
>> decided to remap that sector. It is not abnormal for drives to develop _a
>> few_ bad sectors over the years.
>
> Agreed. And these two bad sectors developed many months ago, and the
> number is not increasing, so I'm not really worried about them; all I want
> is to make the irritating messages in the logfiles go, and stay, away.
>
> mark
>

smartd is supposed to do that. The number of reallocated sectors is a prefailure SMART attribute. If it goes up in a short time your disk is failing. You can use the -I option in smartd.conf to ignore certain attributes. See man smartd.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-03-2010, 06:15 PM
 
Default was, PATA Hard Drive woes, is "SMART"

RedShift wrote:
> On 11/03/10 19:57, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
>
>>> SMART reports the number of sectors that have been reallocated. That
>>> means, the drive was writing to a sector, found out it was unreliable
>>> and decided to remap that sector. It is not abnormal for drives to
develop
>>> _a few_ bad sectors over the years.
>>
>> Agreed. And these two bad sectors developed many months ago, and the
>> number is not increasing, so I'm not really worried about them; all I
>> want is to make the irritating messages in the logfiles go, and stay,
away.
>
> smartd is supposed to do that. The number of reallocated sectors is a
> prefailure SMART attribute. If it goes up in a short time your disk is
> failing. You can use the -I option in smartd.conf to ignore certain
> attributes. See man smartd.

But I *want* it to tell me if more appear; I just want it to stop telling
me about those two, persistantly (through reboots).

mark

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-03-2010, 06:57 PM
Keith Roberts
 
Default was, PATA Hard Drive woes, is "SMART"

On Wed, 3 Nov 2010, RedShift wrote:

> To: CentOS mailing list <centos@centos.org>
> From: RedShift <redshift@pandora.be>
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] was, PATA Hard Drive woes, is "SMART"
>
> On 11/03/10 19:04, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Warren Young wrote:
>>> On 11/3/2010 11:27 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
>>>> Yeah, but I have problems with smartmon:
>>>
>>> More likely, problems with SMART. S.M.A.R.T. is D.U.M.B.
>>>
>>> It's better than nothing, but sometimes not by a whole lot.
>>>
>>>> one server that's got two bad sectors, which SMART reports. I've
>>>> followed the instructions on how to make the log messages go away, and
>> fsck -c...
>>>> but on reboot, SMART seems to ignore what badblocks found, and the
>>>> irritating messages are back.
>>>
>>> It may be that SpinRite could fix that by forcing a remap.
>>
>> Dunno if we have SpinRite around here.
>>>
>>> Another option -- which I didn't mention because it probably isn't an
>>> option for the original poster, but which may work with your servers --
>>> is that some high-end RAID systems can do something like SpinRite at
>>> level 4+, as can ZFS. They call it resilvering. I don't think these
>>
>> No joy - it's a plain SATA drive, the root drive on a server we use for
>> backups. ext3, and no, I'm not going to change filesystem types.... The
>> real thing is why does SMART ignore the results of badblocks (for those
>> who aren't sure, that's invoked when you do fsck -c), and for that matter,
>> why the drive (Seagate ST3170811AS) doesn't automagically relocate those
>> blocks.
>>
>> mark
>>
>> mark
>>
>>
>
>
> Auto relocation happens ONLY when writing to foobar
> sectors. The drive WILL NOT relocate sectors that you are
> reading from because it cannot trust the content.
>
> SMART reports the number of sectors that have been
> reallocated. That means, the drive was writing to a
> sector, found out it was unreliable and decided to remap
> that sector. It is not abnormal for drives to develop _a
> few_ bad sectors over the years.

Is there _any_ way to tell how many reserved sectors have
been used for remapping, and how many are still available.
Just to give some idea of how long to carry on using a
disk, before it runs out of spare sectors?

Regards,

Keith

Re: Original post. I've removed the 3 memory modules, and am
now checking each DDR2 DIMM in turn, (and the DIMM slots
as well) for any errors.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:22 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org