Re: feature suggestion to handle read errors during re-sync of raid5

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, 31 Jan 2010, Roger Heflin wrote:

Bit errors seem more likely the longer a sector has set since being written. I would be not expect to see errors if you read the entire disk, and then reread it 1x a day for a year, but if you read the disk once, let it sit spinning for a year without any reads and read it again, this will almost certainly get a read error. When you keep rereading it, when the bits start to go bad the disk should move it long before data loss happens, but if you only read it 1x a year, it is likely that when you find the data bad there will be too many bad bits, beyond being able to correct it.

Are you sure that drives today remap like that (if it tries to read it and only succeeds on the 5th try, it'll reallocate the sector)?

Looking at "reallocated sectors" on my drives, I've never seen this happen. That SMART parameter has never increased unless I had a hard UNC and re-wrote the sector (and a lot of the times, not even that).

--
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@xxxxxxxxx
--
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID Wiki]     [ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux Block]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device Mapper]     [Device Mapper Cryptographics]     [Kernel]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Yosemite Forum]


  Powered by Linux