On 02/21/2013 05:20 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Feb 21, 2013, at 9:32 AM, Stone <stone@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >> This is my ouput from the badblocks >> 1073006628 >> 1073006629 >> 1073006630 >> 1073006631 >> 1073006632 >> 1073006633 >> 1073006634 >> 1073006635 >> 1073006636 >> 1073006637 >> 1073006638 >> 1073006639 > It's consistently reporting 12. This can't be LBA values if it's an > AF disk, or you'd get multiples of 8 (8*512=4096). I actually don't > recall off hand how to convert from ext block numbers to LBA. But dd > wants LBA. These are default 1k block addresses returned by badblocks. dd does not want LBA. It wants block addresses, with a default block size of 512. If you specify a different block size with bs=, you must use that scale for seek= or skip= or count=. > I haven't read this whole thread, is there a backup? I did see more > than one disk with non-zero current pending sector values. So in my > opinion, I'd ATA secure erase all of these drives and start from > scratch if you have a backup. Actually, I'd ATA Secure Erase them, > and then do an extended SMART test to confirm. Or if they're under > warranty, RMA them. You shouldn't have so much bad sectors on a > disk. No backup. > If you keep them, you need to keep an eye on them with an extended > smart test every week or two. It sounds like there may be loose > material bouncing around in the disks causing these bad sectors, and > if that's true, more will go bad. And if more do show up in an > extended smart test, and the drives are under warranty, I'd bail out > on them. Get them replaced. Read the whole thread. A followup smartctl report will be useful, but Stone's hands are full at the moment. Phil -- 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
