From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Freitas Subject: Re: btrfs volume mounts and dies (was Re: Segfault in btrfsck) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:59:55 -0800 Message-ID: <1262793595.6214.5.camel@phat> References: <1262476565.17096.20.camel@phat> <1262559421.17096.50.camel@phat> <1262565474.17096.68.camel@phat> <1262732153.4509.1.camel@phat> <20100106075253.GA5665@cumulus> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100106075253.GA5665@cumulus> List-ID: Hi Sander, On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 08:52 +0100, Sander wrote: > I don't have your original mail, but I think I remember you mentioned a > lot of bad sectors on that disk reported by SMART. > > If that is indeed the case it might be dificult for the people who might > be able to help you, to help you. Thanks for your response. You're correct about the bad sector warning. So please correct me if I have some mistaken assumptions. I thought btrfs would be tolerant of that -- if a block failed the checksum test, it would reconstruct and remap it. (Also, I assumed that if a drive hadn't filled its bad sector remapping table, it could handle it at the hardware level, and SMART's warning was just that -- a warning, not a dire pronouncement of utter unsuitability -- but that's something else.) Steve