On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 01/20/2016 01:43 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 7:17 AM Lamar Owen wrote:
>>
>>> The standard Unix way of refreshing the disk contents is with badblocks'
>>> non-destructive read-write test (badblocks -n or as the -cc op
On 01/20/2016 01:43 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 7:17 AM Lamar Owen wrote:
The standard Unix way of refreshing the disk contents is with
badblocks' non-destructive read-write test (badblocks -n or as the
-cc option to e2fsck, for ext2/3/4 filesystems).
This isn't applicabl
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 7:17 AM Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 01/19/2016 06:46 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > Hence, bad sectors accumulate. And the consequence of this often
> > doesn't get figured out until a user looks at kernel messages and sees
> > a bunch of hard link resets
>
> The standard Unix w
On 01/19/2016 06:29 PM, J Martin Rushton wrote:
(Off topic) I also
remember seeing engineers determine which memory chip was at fault and
replacing the chip using a soldering iron. Try that on a DIMM!
As long as the DIMM isn't populated with BGA packages it's about a
ten-minute job with a hot
On 01/19/2016 06:46 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Hence, bad sectors accumulate. And the consequence of this often
doesn't get figured out until a user looks at kernel messages and sees
a bunch of hard link resets
The standard Unix way of refreshing the disk contents is with badblocks'
non-destr
On Tue, January 19, 2016 18:36, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 1/19/2016 3:29 PM, J Martin Rushton wrote:
>> I suspect that the gold layer on edge connectors 30-odd years ago
>> was
>> a lot thicker than on modern cards. We are talking contacts on 0.1"
>> spacing not some modern 1/10 of a knat's whisk
On Tue, January 19, 2016 5:29 pm, J Martin Rushton wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I suspect that the gold layer on edge connectors 30-odd years ago was
> a lot thicker than on modern cards.
I remember a long time ago - that actually was in the country "Far -Far
Away"
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Warren Young wrote:
> On a modern hard disk, you should *never* see bad sectors, because the drive
> is busy hiding all the bad sectors it does find, then telling you everything
> is fine.
This is not a given. Misconfiguration can make persistent bad sectors
ve
On Tue, January 19, 2016 4:48 pm, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 1/19/2016 2:24 PM, Warren Young wrote:
>> Itâs dying. Replace it now.
>
> agreed
>
>> On a modern hard disk, you should*never* see bad sectors, because the
>> drive is busy hiding all the bad sectors it does find, then telling you
>>
On 1/19/2016 3:29 PM, J Martin Rushton wrote:
I suspect that the gold layer on edge connectors 30-odd years ago was
a lot thicker than on modern cards. We are talking contacts on 0.1"
spacing not some modern 1/10 of a knat's whisker. (Off topic) I also
remember seeing engineers determine which
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I suspect that the gold layer on edge connectors 30-odd years ago was
a lot thicker than on modern cards. We are talking contacts on 0.1"
spacing not some modern 1/10 of a knat's whisker. (Off topic) I also
remember seeing engineers determine which m
On 1/19/2016 2:24 PM, Warren Young wrote:
It’s dying. Replace it now.
agreed
On a modern hard disk, you should*never* see bad sectors, because the drive is
busy hiding all the bad sectors it does find, then telling you everything is
fine.
thats not actually true.the drive will repor
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016, 3:30 PM wrote:
> Chris Murphy wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016, 4:39 AM Alessandro Baggi
> >
> > wrote:
> >> Il 18/01/2016 12:09, Chris Murphy ha scritto:
> >> > What is the result for each drive?
> >> >
> >> > smartctl -l scterc
> >> >
> >> SCT Error Recovery Control comm
Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016, 4:39 AM Alessandro Baggi
>
> wrote:
>> Il 18/01/2016 12:09, Chris Murphy ha scritto:
>> > What is the result for each drive?
>> >
>> > smartctl -l scterc
>> >
>> SCT Error Recovery Control command not supported
>>
> The drive is disqualified unless your
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016, 4:39 AM Alessandro Baggi
wrote:
> Il 18/01/2016 12:09, Chris Murphy ha scritto:
> > What is the result for each drive?
> >
> > smartctl -l scterc
> >
> >
> > Chris Murphy
> > ___
> > CentOS mailing list
> > CentOS@centos.org
> > h
On Jan 17, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Alessandro Baggi
wrote:
>
> On sdb there are not problem but with sda:
>
> 1) First run badblocks reports 28 badblocks on disk
> 2) Second run badblocks reports 32 badblocks
> 3) Third reports 102 badblocks
> 4) Last run reports 92 badblocks.
It’s dying. Replace i
Il 18/01/2016 16:47, Matt Garman ha scritto:
That's strange, I expected the SMART test to show some issues.
Personally, I'm still not confident in that drive. Can you check
cabling? Another possibility is that there is a cable that has
vibrated into a marginal state. Probably a long shot, but
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 19/01/16 12:34, J Martin Rushton wrote:
> Not new: I can remember seeing DEC engineers cleaning up the
> contacts on memory boards for a VAX 11/782 with a pencil eraser
> c.1985. It's still a pretty standard first fix to reseat a card or
> connecto
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Not new: I can remember seeing DEC engineers cleaning up the contacts
on memory boards for a VAX 11/782 with a pencil eraser c.1985. It's
still a pretty standard first fix to reseat a card or connector.
On 18/01/16 15:47, Matt Garman wrote:
> That's
On 01/18/2016 07:47 AM, Matt Garman wrote:
Another possibility is that there is a cable that has
vibrated into a marginal state.
That wouldn't explain the SMART data reporting pending sectors.
According to spec, a drive may not reallocate sectors after a read error
if it's later able to read
That's strange, I expected the SMART test to show some issues.
Personally, I'm still not confident in that drive. Can you check
cabling? Another possibility is that there is a cable that has
vibrated into a marginal state. Probably a long shot, but if it's
easy to get physical access to the mach
Il 18/01/2016 12:09, Chris Murphy ha scritto:
What is the result for each drive?
smartctl -l scterc
Chris Murphy
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
.
SCT Error Recovery Control command not su
Also useful, complete dmesg posted somewhere (unless your MUA can be set to
not wrap lines)
Chris Murphy
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
What is the result for each drive?
smartctl -l scterc
Chris Murphy
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Il 17/01/2016 19:36, Alessandro Baggi ha scritto:
Il 17/01/2016 18:46, Brandon Vincent ha scritto:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Matt Garman
wrote:
I'm not sure what's going on with your drive. But if it were mine,
I'd want
to replace it. If there are issues, that long smart check ought to
Il 17/01/2016 18:46, Brandon Vincent ha scritto:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Matt Garman wrote:
I'm not sure what's going on with your drive. But if it were mine, I'd want
to replace it. If there are issues, that long smart check ought to turn up
something, and in my experience, that's e
On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Matt Garman wrote:
> I'm not sure what's going on with your drive. But if it were mine, I'd want
> to replace it. If there are issues, that long smart check ought to turn up
> something, and in my experience, that's enough for a manufacturer to do a
> warranty re
Have you ran a "long" smart test on the drive? Smartctl -t long device
I'm not sure what's going on with your drive. But if it were mine, I'd want
to replace it. If there are issues, that long smart check ought to turn up
something, and in my experience, that's enough for a manufacturer to do a
28 matches
Mail list logo
