Talk about missing the email I wanted to reply too. Disregard...
>> On Mar 10, 2017, at 9:28 AM, Valeri Galtsev <galtsev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, March 10, 2017 9:52 am, Warren Young wrote:
>>>> On Mar 10, 2017, at 6:32 AM, James B. Byrne <byrnejb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, March 9, 2017 09:46, John Hodrien wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> fsck's not good at finding disk errors, it finds filesystem errors.
>>>>>
>>>>> If not fsck then what?
>>>>
>>>> badblocks(8).
>>>
>>> And I definitely will unmount relevant filesystem(s) before using
>>> badblocksâ?¦
>>
>> You donâ??t necessarily have to. The default mode of badblocks is a non-invasive read-only test
>> which is safe to run on a mounted filesystem.
>>
>> That said, a read-only badblocks pass can give a false â??no errorsâ?? report in cases where a
>> non-destructive read-then-write pass (-n) will show errors.
>>
>> Alternatively, a read-only pass may show an error that a read-then-write pass will silently bury
>> by forcing the drive to relocate the bad sector.
>>
>> In extreme cases, you could potentially fix a problem with a read-random-random-write pass (-n
>> -t
>> random -t random) because that will statistically flip all the bits at least twice, which may
>> rub
>> the driveâ??s nose in a bad sector, forcing a reallocation where a normal read-then-write pass
>> (-n
>> alone) may not.
>>
>> Hard drives are weird. It is only through the grace of ECC and such that they approximate
>> deterministic behavior as well as they do.
>> _______________________________________________
>> CentOS mailing list
>> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
>> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
