From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4E0613877A for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:01:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AA8E8E09AD; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:00:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yk0-f175.google.com (mail-yk0-f175.google.com [209.85.160.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC7E7E09A7 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:00:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yk0-f175.google.com with SMTP id 9so1214977ykp.34 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 09:00:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dfC9eV/nLYH/00lhqLxkfcJkKS4qwN7LQYhaJNF6f4k=; b=XpUX4naF08D4zLIk1xRq9IVwpSW9OXA8Hg3ur3fOoanlBt3uU1KIdS+dOXb9OccSfg FrE57oECKGi66qSjKoQxJEIbXRq4jCtLlFl/3Tt8SSLsDqf/YiNCzY1ffCYyUBQTaKBY aAW6GtTIhdUOPFHSoF7RypUOAFdDDNFxcsSl71W1ktidOpLf79KBx0sPJ2d8XVZ10C1B tf6IukfcmxnwsSb5SNARVJK0YYHp4RrJoRKge7tU30uwrNx1sNQ7tiLKstyKBNrZgMHi FM8tNfC1s0BaSdStrKbwp0xG+ruUnRjNSFxz1I9iSI0zZzoHzkcz0Nkb7FmfSUqdl/Fq eg4A== X-Received: by 10.236.160.67 with SMTP id t43mr12709060yhk.11.1403711693279; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 08:54:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.5] (adsl-65-0-120-204.jan.bellsouth.net. [65.0.120.204]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id n68sm5670297yhe.23.2014.06.25.08.54.52 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 25 Jun 2014 08:54:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53AAF0CB.4060902@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:54:51 -0500 From: Dale User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/28.0 SeaMonkey/2.25 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] smartctrl drive error @60% References: <53AA050F.4070907@gmail.com> <49620f42-d9c3-43b1-9f01-1250e52eb950@email.android.com> <53AA587F.8090300@gmail.com> <53AA7D11.6070909@thegeezer.net> <53AA7EF5.2000903@gmail.com> <53AAA791.4050506@thegeezer.net> <53AACB8D.6010300@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 80191d31-2a53-4cb0-8cfd-e98aa7fff92a X-Archives-Hash: c40da1cb386b5fbc4b0a8ffc2d16b7bd Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Dale wrote: >> thegeezer wrote: >>> On 06/25/2014 08:49 AM, Dale wrote: >>>> thegeezer wrote: >>> this says there are 104 pending sectors i.e. bad blocks on the drive >>> that have not been reallocatd yet >> Wonder why it hasn't? Isn't it supposed to do that sort of thing itself? >> > It can't relocate the sectors until it successfully reads them, or > until something else writes over them. > > However, the last few drives I've had this happen to never really > relocated things. If I scrubbed the drives mdadm would overwrite the > unreadable sectors, which should trigger a relocation, but then a day > or two later the errors would show up again. So, the drive firmware > must be avoiding relocation or something. Either that or there is a > large region of the drive that is failing (which would make sense) and > I was just playing whack-a-mole with the bad sectors. In any case, if > the drive is under warranty I've yet to have a complaint returning it > with a copy of the smartctl output showing the failed test/etc. With > advance replacement I can keep the old drive until the new one > arrives. I'm going to bet this drive is out of warranty. I'm pretty sure it is over 2 years since I bought it. Once I replace that drive, I'll dd the thing and see what it does then. It'll either break it or give me a fresh start to play with and see how long it lasts. >> I usually just run the test manually but I sort of had family stuff >> going on for the past year, almost a year anyway. Sort of behind on >> things although I have been doing my normal updates. > rc-update add smartd default > > I don't know that I even had to configure it - it is set to email > root@localhost when there is a problem. I also run mdadm to monitor > raid. > > I don't think anybody makes a monitor for btrfs, though my boot is > mirrored across all my btrfs drives using mdadm so a drive failure > should be detected in any case. I need to check up on that, though - > I'd like an email if something goes wrong with btrfs storage. I'm using lvm here. I also don't have a mail server set up which is why I run them manually. I usually do it once a month or so but had some family issues to pop up. >> I ordered a drive. It should be here tomorrow. In the meantime, I >> shutdown and re-seated all the cables, power too. I got the test running >> again but results is a few hours off yet. It did pass the short test >> tho. I'm not sure that it means much. > Short test generally doesn't do much - you need the long ones. I'd be > shocked if it passed with offline uncorrectable sectors. > > And do check on your warranty. You can migrate all your data to the > new drive, and then replace the old one as a backup disk. Either use > it with raid, or as an offline backup. If you want to do raid you can > set up mdadm with a degraded raid1 so that you can copy your data over > from your old drive, and then when it is replaced you just partition > the new one, add it to the raid, and watch it rebuild automatically. > > Rich > > I figured the short test wouldn't say much. I am backing up some of the stuff tho. I do have a 750GB drive that was empty. It won't save it all but it is a start. Test should have been done by now but I guess the copy process is slowing it down. I'm getting this so far: # 1 Extended offline Self-test routine in progress 70% 16387 - < dale twiddles his thumbs > Thanks much. Dale :-) :-)