Re: Fault tolerance with badblocks

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

 



On 06/05/17 02:20, Anthony Youngman wrote:
> Bear in mind I'm speculating slightly here ... but how are you going to
> know when the drive has run out of its spare-pool? Bear in mind that
> most SSDs, it seems, will commit suicide at this point ...

Intel and Samsung SSDs support S.M.A.R.T. (but not my personal laptop).

> Bear in mind also, that any *within* *spec* drive can have an "accident"
> every 10TB and still be considered perfectly okay. Which means that if
> you do what you are supposed to do (rewrite the block) you're risking
> the drive remapping the block - and getting closer to the drive bricking
> itself. But if you trap the error yourself and add it to the badblocks
> list, you are risking throwing away perfectly decent blocks that just
> hiccuped.

For hiccups, having a bad-read-count for each suspected-bad block could
be sensible. If that number goes above <small-threshold> it's very
likely that the block is indeed bad and should be avoided in future.

-- 
Tom Hale
--
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