From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brad Campbell Subject: Re: Maximizing failed disk replacement on a RAID5 array Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 15:57:13 +0800 Message-ID: <4DEF2B59.7090408@fnarfbargle.com> References: <4DECF025.9040006@fnarfbargle.com> <4DECF841.1060906@fnarfbargle.com> <4DEDB8B7.2070708@fnarfbargle.com> <4DEF258A.8090600@fnarfbargle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Durval Menezes Cc: Brad Campbell , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, Drew List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 08/06/11 15:47, Durval Menezes wrote: > I'm sorry if I did not make myself clear; I've already run both a > "repair" on the RAID (see above) and a "smart -t long" on the > particular disk... I had about 40 bad sectors before, and now have > just 4, but these 4 sectors persist as being marked in error... I > think the "RAID repair" didn't touch them. Apologies, I obviously missed that fact. I think your best course of action in this case is to test both the other drives with SMART long checks and fail/replace the faulty one. I've never had md not report a repaired sector when performing a repair operation. I'll just re-iterate, if you take the bad sectors away without a good copy of the data on them, md won't know it is supposed to reconstruct those missing sectors. Hrm.. *or*, and this is a big *or* you could use hdparm to create correctable bad sectors on the copy at the appropriate LBA's, and md should do the right thing as it will get read errors from those, which will go away when they are re-written. I'd not thought of that before, but it should do the trick.