m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Thanks a *lot* to those who suggested I try fsck -cc - that took six
> hours, and at the end, I was standing there, and it tells me that
> there's two back blocks, one was /dead/base.pp, and... (wait for it)
> bad blocks, in node 1.
>
> I said yes, fix t
On 11/4/2010 1:31 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
> I said yes, fix them, and rebooted, and I don't see complaints.
Good to hear it.
Minor nit: I called "fsck -cc" resilvering, but that's not in spirit of
the term. The name comes from the practice of taking an old mirror,
stripping off the o
Folks,
Thanks a *lot* to those who suggested I try fsck -cc - that took six
hours, and at the end, I was standing there, and it tells me that
there's two back blocks, one was /dead/base.pp, and... (wait for it)
bad blocks, in node 1.
I said yes, fix them, and rebooted, and I don't see compl
On Wednesday, November 03, 2010 02:25:17 pm Les Mikesell wrote:
> 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.
I had a 1.5TB SATA drive pop up an error in Fedora 13 the other day; S
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010, RedShift wrote:
> To: CentOS mailing list
> From: RedShift
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] was, PATA Hard Drive woes, is "SMART"
>
> On 11/03/10 19:04, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Warren Young wrote:
>>> On 11/3/2010 11:27 AM, m.r...@5-cent.
RedShift wrote:
> On 11/03/10 19:57, m.r...@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
On 11/03/10 19:57, m.r...@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
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 back
RedShift wrote:
> On 11/03/10 19:04, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Warren Young wrote:
>>> On 11/3/2010 11:27 AM, m.r...@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 n
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
On 11/03/10 19:04, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Warren Young wrote:
>> On 11/3/2010 11:27 AM, m.r...@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.
>>
>>>
On 11/3/2010 1:04 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Warren Young wrote:
>> On 11/3/2010 11:27 AM, m.r...@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.
>>
m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Warren Young wrote:
>> On 11/3/2010 11:27 AM, m.r...@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
Warren Young wrote:
> On 11/3/2010 11:27 AM, m.r...@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 r
14 matches
Mail list logo
