From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Robinson Subject: Re: RAID6 data-check took almost 2 hours, clicking sounds, system unresponsive Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 00:15:00 +0100 Message-ID: <4DA77FF4.7030007@anonymous.org.uk> References: <259379.79604.qm@web65105.mail.ac2.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: =?UTF-8?B?TWF0aGlhcyBCdXLDqW4=?= Cc: Gavin Flower , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 14/04/2011 22:19, Mathias Bur=C3=A9n wrote: > On 14 April 2011 22:14, Gavin Flower wrote: [...] >> Attaching OpenDocument file with full details of smart output and co= mparison table. [...] > sda has a value higher than 0 on reported uncorrected sectors. That's > enough for me to replace a drive. (heck, even if I see 1 reallocated > sector I'd RMA it ASAP). I've had a look at some of my drives' SMART output, and only my Samsung= =20 drives have it - one showing 57 (with zero reallocated, pending or=20 offline sectors) and one showing 331 (zero reallocated, one pending and= =20 zero offline sectors). Neither drive has ever given a read error, and I= =20 do run a weekly check on my arrays which has never reported any mismatc= hes. Googling for this field doesn't give any indication that it is relevant= =20 to determining whether a drive is failing, but if someone with more=20 SMART expertise can comment I'll be quite happy to be corrected... Having said that, all of Gavin's drives apart from sdc show non-zero=20 reallocated sector counts, and that field definitely is one to follow=20 when considering replacing drives. Cheers, John. (Just started long self-tests on all my local drives) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html