On 18 January 2012 06:54, Stefan /*St0fF*/ Hübner <stefan.huebner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi > > Am 17.01.2012 13:33, schrieb Mathias Burén: >> On 17 January 2012 12:02, Peter Grandi <pg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> [ ... ] >>> >>>>> Why is the system unresponsive, shouldn't it still be OK >>>>> after a drive failure? >>> >>> There is a bit of a difference between a "drive failure" and >>> some/several bad sectors on a drive. >>> >>> It is also to wonder whether the partially defective drive has >>> been "failed" and "removed" from the MD set and perhaps >>> "deleted" using '/sys/block/sdb/device/delete'. >>> >>>> Hm, I'm seeing this in dmesg, could it be related? (ioctl lock) >>> >>>> [425480.928740] md/raid:md0: read error corrected (8 sectors at >>>> 223617240 on sdb1) >>> >>> Note the "read error corrected" (*corrected*) and that is is "8 >>> sectors" may indicate it is one of the drives with 4096B sectors >>> that is configured as if it has 512B ones. >>> > > Right, that is how WD20EARS react. > >>> [ ... ] >>> >>> Overall it is likely that you have just implicitly discovered >>> how important short settings for Error Recovery Control are, and >>> to choose drives that allow you to set them: >>> >>> http://www.sabi.co.uk/blog/1103Mar.html#110331 >>> -- >>> 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 >> >> $ sudo smartctl -l scterc,20,20 /dev/sdb >> smartctl 5.42 2011-10-20 r3458 [x86_64-linux-3.2.0-2-ARCH] (local build) >> Copyright (C) 2002-11 by Bruce Allen, http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net >> >> Warning: device does not support SCT Error Recovery Control command >> >> :-/ and yes it's a "4KB" drive, a WD20EARS. It failed after almost >> 11000 hours. Thanks, now I know the reason for the system hang. > > Those are not very suited for RAID. They were the cheapest WD 2TB > drives in the consumer segment, they don't support TLER/ERC. And from > my experience the replacement drives won't last very long, either. At > least you have raid6 there... > I know. I picked them because they were cheap, I got 5 of them new for about 380 USD. > Is the drive that corrects its sectors still in the array (I'd guess > that)? If yes, just issue the next rma, error is "drive reacts very > slowly". I fear you have to wait for the first resync or do a ddrescue > with the disk that is still in the array while the array is taken > offline (that way you don't take the chance of another drive failing > while resyncing). > > All the best, > Stefan >> (cc Linux RAID) The drive is now out of the array. I had to pull the power to the system, physically pull the disk, then boot into single user mode. There I had to do a force assemble (because the array wouldn't assemble in a not-clean state automatically). That worked fine, so I did an fsck which turned out OK, and now it's "checking" the array. I should've probably checked the array before the fsck, but oh well. Check still in progress. Thanks, M -- 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
