From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030226AbWBCTNI (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Feb 2006 14:13:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030223AbWBCTNI (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Feb 2006 14:13:08 -0500 Received: from kepler.fjfi.cvut.cz ([147.32.6.11]:16015 "EHLO kepler.fjfi.cvut.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030226AbWBCTNG (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Feb 2006 14:13:06 -0500 Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 20:12:57 +0100 (CET) From: Martin Drab To: Roger Heflin cc: "'Phillip Susi'" , "'Bill Davidsen'" , "'Cynbe ru Taren'" , "'Linux Kernel Mailing List'" , "'Salyzyn, Mark'" Subject: RE: FYI: RAID5 unusably unstable through 2.6.14 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Roger Heflin wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org > > [mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Martin Drab > > Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 11:51 AM > > To: Phillip Susi > > Cc: Bill Davidsen; Cynbe ru Taren; Linux Kernel Mailing List; > > Salyzyn, Mark > > Subject: Re: FYI: RAID5 unusably unstable through 2.6.14 > > > > On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Martin Drab wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Phillip Susi wrote: > > > > > > > Usually drives will fail reads to bad sectors but when > > you write to > > > > that sector, it will write and read that sector to see if > > it is fine > > > > after being written again, or if the media is bad in > > which case it > > > > will remap the sector to a spare. > > > > > > No, I don't think this was the case of a physically bad sectors. I > > > think it was just an inconsistency of the RAID controllers metadata > > > (or something simillar) related to that particular array. > > > > Or is such a situation not possible at all? Are bad sectors > > the only reason that might have caused this? That sounds a > > little strange to me, that would have been a very unlikely > > concentration of conincidences, IMO. > > That's why I still think there are no bad sectors at all (at > > least not because of this). Is there any way to actually find out? > > > Some of the drive manufacturers have tools that will read out > "log" files from the disks, and these log files include stuff > such as how many bad block errors where returned to the host > over the life of the disk. S.M.A.R.T. should be able to do this. But last time I've checked it wasn't working with Linux and SCSI/SATA. Is this working now? > You would need a decent contatct with the disk manufacturer, and > you might be able to get them to tell you, maybe. Well it's a WD 1600SD. Martin