> -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Shanahan [mailto:kmshanah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 11:23 PM > To: David Lethe > Cc: linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Read errors and SMART tests > > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 10:13:14PM -0600, David Lethe wrote: > > This shows nothing more than you having a single bad block. You have > a > > 1TB drive, for crying out loud, they can't all stay perfect ;) > > Heh, true. > > > This is no reason to assume the disk is bad, or that it has anything > to > > do with cabling. When you wrote you have > > read "errors" .. does that mean you have dozens, hundreds of > individual > > unreadable blocks, or > > could you just have just this one bad block. > > Sorry, I didn't provide a lot of detail there. The "bad" drive, > /dev/sdd was doing more than just failing the self test: > > Dec 20 06:55:20 hermes kernel: ata4.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x5 > SErr 0x0 action 0x0 > Dec 20 06:55:20 hermes kernel: ata4.00: irq_stat 0x40000008 > Dec 20 06:55:20 hermes kernel: ata4.00: cmd > 60/78:10:47:d5:fa/00:00:1e:00:00/40 tag 2 ncq 61440 in > Dec 20 06:55:20 hermes kernel: res > 51/40:00:b9:d5:fa/00:00:1e:00:00/40 Emask 0x409 (media error) <F> > Dec 20 06:55:20 hermes kernel: ata4.00: status: { DRDY ERR } > Dec 20 06:55:20 hermes kernel: ata4.00: error: { UNC } > Dec 20 06:55:20 hermes kernel: ata4.00: configured for UDMA/133 > Dec 20 06:55:20 hermes kernel: ata4: EH complete > Dec 20 06:55:20 hermes kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdd] 1953525168 512-byte > hardware sectors (1000205 MB) > Dec 20 06:55:20 hermes kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdd] Write Protect is off > Dec 20 06:55:20 hermes kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdd] Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 > 00 > Dec 20 06:55:20 hermes kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdd] Write cache: enabled, > read cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA > > (repeats several times) > > Dec 20 06:55:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 519755016 on sdd1) > Dec 20 06:55:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 519755024 on sdd1) > Dec 20 06:55:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 519755032 on sdd1) > Dec 20 06:55:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 519755040 on sdd1) > Dec 20 06:55:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 519755048 on sdd1) > Dec 20 06:55:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 519755056 on sdd1) > Dec 20 06:55:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 519755064 on sdd1) > Dec 20 06:55:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 519755072 on sdd1) > Dec 20 06:55:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 519755080 on sdd1) > Dec 20 06:55:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 519755088 on sdd1) > > ... > > Dec 20 07:04:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 613165696 on sdd1) > Dec 20 07:04:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 613165704 on sdd1) > Dec 20 07:04:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 613165712 on sdd1) > Dec 20 07:04:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 613165720 on sdd1) > Dec 20 07:04:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 613165728 on sdd1) > Dec 20 07:04:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 613165736 on sdd1) > Dec 20 07:04:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 613165744 on sdd1) > Dec 20 07:04:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 613165752 on sdd1) > Dec 20 07:04:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 613165760 on sdd1) > Dec 20 07:04:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 613165768 on sdd1) > > ... > > Dec 20 07:04:47 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 613181440 on sdd1) > Dec 20 07:04:47 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 613181448 on sdd1) > Dec 20 07:04:47 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 613181456 on sdd1) > Dec 20 07:04:47 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 613181464 on sdd1) > Dec 20 07:04:47 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 613181472 on sdd1) > Dec 20 07:04:47 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 613181480 on sdd1) > Dec 20 07:04:47 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 613181488 on sdd1) > Dec 20 07:04:47 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 613181496 on sdd1) > Dec 20 07:04:47 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 613181504 on sdd1) > Dec 20 07:04:47 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 613181512 on sdd1) > > ... > > Dec 20 08:10:09 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 613552584 on sdd1) > Dec 20 08:10:09 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 613552592 on sdd1) > Dec 20 08:10:09 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 613552600 on sdd1) > Dec 20 08:10:09 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 613552608 on sdd1) > Dec 20 08:10:09 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 613552616 on sdd1) > Dec 20 08:10:09 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 613552624 on sdd1) > Dec 20 08:10:09 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 613552632 on sdd1) > > ... > > Dec 20 08:16:19 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 > sectors at 613020008 on sdd1) > > That's just a sample from today - it's been doing similar things for > several days. So the drive was hanging in there in the array, thanks > to the error correction, but it was of course impacting performance. > > Anyway, when I put the replacement drive in I decided to do a self > test before adding it to the array and I guess I was a bit concerned > that it immediately failed the test. Since it was inserted into the > same slot in the drive cage, same cable, etc. I wondered if those > factors can affect a self test. My assumption was no, but I thought > I'd ask. > > Cheers, > Kevin. This particular test terminates when the FIRST bad block is found. It is not an indication of a drive in stress or immediate replacement. I don't have the desire or time to look up how many reserved blocks that disk has, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was well over 10,000. The count is certainly documented in the product manual, but not necessarily the data sheet, and certainly not on the outside of the box. (I'm curious, if you look it up, please post it). Time for you to run full consistency check/repairs. These errors could be Result of something relatively benign, like unexpected power loss. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
