From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stone Subject: Re: Brocken Raid & LUKS Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 17:32:24 +0100 Message-ID: <51264C18.8000201@heisl.org> References: <5123A1CC.2000003@heisl.org> <5123BD1F.4060200@turmel.org> <5123E4E9.3020609@heisl.org> <5123EB92.5090505@turmel.org> <5123EF45.6080405@heisl.org> <5123F7C7.7000406@turmel.org> <5123FB71.3060509@heisl.org> <5124196F.6090000@turmel.org> <512516C2.3010105@heisl.org> <5125184A.6040707@turmel.org> <5125C6E9.4050802@heisl.org> <5125EBFD.3050802@heisl.org> <51262137.3040609@turmel.org> <51262CE0.3000809@heisl.org> <51263785.2010001@turmel.org> <51263D9D.1080002@heisl.org> <51263F7E.7040207@turmel.org> <5126421E.3040702@turmel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5126421E.3040702@turmel.org> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Phil Turmel Cc: linux-raid List-Id: linux-raid.ids Am 21.02.2013 16:49, schrieb Phil Turmel: > On 02/21/2013 10:38 AM, Phil Turmel wrote: >> On 02/21/2013 10:30 AM, stone@heisl.org wrote: >> >>> dd if=/dev/zero bs=4096 count=1 seek=1073006628 of=/dev/sdc1 >>> dd: `/dev/sdc1': cannot seek: Invalid argument >>> 0+0 records in >>> 0+0 records out >>> 0 bytes (0 B) copied, 0,000493485 s, 0,0 kB/s >>> >>> is there a problem with the bs parameter? >>> shoud i try dd if=/dev/zero bs=512 count=8 seek=1073006628 of=/dev/sdc1 >>> ? >> How did you get 1073006628? That is around the 4T mark? >> >> Please show the badblocks output file. This is my ouput from the badblocks 1073006628 1073006629 1073006630 1073006631 1073006632 1073006633 1073006634 1073006635 1073006636 1073006637 1073006638 1073006639 1073101016 1073101017 1073101018 1073101019 1073101020 1073101021 1073101022 1073101023 1073101024 1073101025 1073101026 1073101027 1335739456 1335739457 1335739458 1335739459 1335739460 1335739461 1335739462 1335739463 1346771164 1346771165 1346771166 1346771167 1346771168 1346771169 1346771170 1346771171 1348581732 1348581733 1348581734 1348581735 1348581736 1348581737 1348581738 1348581739 > I'm going to guess you didn't specify the block size when you used > badblocks. It defaults to 1024. If so, dd needs "bs=1024" > > It is likely that your 48 errors are really 12 errors, four sequential > "blocks" for each. Your drives are advanced format, so they really have > 4k sectors, and that should have been specified to badblocks. > > If so, you need to fix the sequential blocks together, or the drive will > fail to perform read-modify-write. > > You probably need: > > dd if=/dev/zero bs=1024 count=4 seek=1073006628 of=/dev/sdc1 > > But recheck everything carefully. You can't undo whatever dd does. > > Phil I will do this carefully. This is the reason why i will check with you a command befor i press the destroying return key. Yes i think i have 4k sectors. This means the only 12 blocks are damaged and i do the dd only for each fourth block for example dd if=/dev/zero bs=1024 count=4 seek=1073006628 of=/dev/sdc1 dd if=/dev/zero bs=1024 count=4 seek=1073006632 of=/dev/sdc1 dd if=/dev/zero bs=1024 count=4 seek=1073006636 of=/dev/sdc1 i think this must work but what shall i do when i get the same error? try the next block in the seek? thx