From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Lord Subject: Re: Need help understanding SATA error message. Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:53:07 -0400 Message-ID: <47F0FAD3.9060001@rtr.ca> References: <47ED136F.9010501@rtr.ca> <47ED15D2.3080403@rtr.ca> <47EDBC87.8090109@rtr.ca> <47F0376F.2090000@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from rtr.ca ([76.10.145.34]:2157 "EHLO mail.rtr.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755186AbYCaOxI (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:53:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: <47F0376F.2090000@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: Tomas Lund , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org > XXXXX wrote (by private email): > On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Mark Lord wrote: >> > Duh.. actually, we were just discussing this very error in another thread. >> > The drive is really telling us that it hit an unrecoverable WRITE error >> > at sector 0a:24:f9 on the drive. Bad sector. >> > >> > There are patches queued up for 2.6.26 to automatically resume the cache >> > flush after the failed sector, but you'll still lose data at that sector. >> > >> > Time for a low-level reformat, if the manufacturer has a utility for that. >> > Otherwise, RMA it. > > The response to an unrecoverable sector shouldn't be 51/04 if the > flush fails, it should be 51/10 or 51/40. > > 51/04 would be the response if the FLUSH CACHE command was issued when > there were still outstanding NCQ commands active. .. Tejun: I see we have another thread as well with FLUSH errors. I really doubt that these are bad drives. There's very likely a bug in libata / LLD there someplace. -ml