Re: OT - Offline uncorrectable sectors

[Nifty Cluster Mitch <niftycluster@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 03:43:18PM -0400, William L. Maltby wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 12:03 -0700, Nifty Cluster Mitch wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 07:24:24AM -0400, William L. Maltby wrote:
> > > 
> > ><snip>
> 
> > > (potentially) lost on an existing file system. It's best utility is at
> > > FS creation and check time. It also has use if you can un-mount the FS
> > > (ignoring the "force" capability provided) but cannot take the system
> > > down to run manufacturer-specific diagnostic and repair software.
> > 
> > It might be interesting to add a "catch 22" story.
> > 
> > I once added -c  flags to /fsckoptions and "touch"ed /forcefsck.
> > I had to take the disk to the lab and fix it on a bench system. 
> 
> YOIKS! Any explanation why such a reliable process would cause such a
> result? Was it a long time ago with a buggy e2fsck maybe? Did you mean
> to say you added the "-f" flag and the FS was mounted and active at the
> time? Is it just one of those "Mysteries of the Universe"? I hate those!

The removal of /forcefsck would never happen when badblocks was run.
Something wonkey perhaps because I did have a disk with defects..

Might be worth a retry next time I need to clean and reload a machine
but I do not know how to reproduct the disk hardware issue.

Gone are the days where disk controllers gave you the ability
to 'expose' defects.






-- 
	T o m  M i t c h e l l 
	Got a great hat... now what.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos