linux-raid.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alexander Shenkin <al@shenkin.org>
To: Brad Campbell <lists2009@fnarfbargle.com>,
	Reindl Harald <h.reindl@thelounge.net>,
	Phil Turmel <philip@turmel.org>,
	Edward Kuns <eddie.kuns@gmail.com>,
	Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com>
Cc: Wols Lists <antlists@youngman.org.uk>,
	Carsten Aulbert <carsten.aulbert@aei.mpg.de>,
	Linux-RAID <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: SMART detects pending sectors; take offline?
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 13:50:04 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <07170cf8-d951-013b-7e67-eee54aa60c65@shenkin.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <14f1fce1-2959-e051-f7c8-1d98951d744a@fnarfbargle.com>

On 1/3/2018 1:26 PM, Brad Campbell wrote:
> 
> 
> On 03/01/18 20:44, Alexander Shenkin wrote:
>> On 12/23/2017 3:14 AM, Brad Campbell wrote:
>>> On 21/12/17 19:38, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 21.12.2017 um 12:28 schrieb Alexander Shenkin:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Reporting back after changing the hangcheck timer to 180 secs and 
>>>>> re-running checkarray.  I got a number of rebuild events (see 
>>>>> syslog excerpts below and attached), and I see no signs of the 
>>>>> hangcheck issue in dmesg like I did last time.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm still getting the SMART OfflineUncorrectableSector and 
>>>>> CurrentPendingSector errors, however.  Should those go away if the 
>>>>> rewrites were correctly carried out by the drive? Any thoughts on 
>>>>> next steps to verify everything is ok?
>>>>
>>>> OfflineUncorrectableSector unlikely can go away
>>>>
>>>> CurrentPendingSector
>>>> https://kb.acronis.com/content/9133
>>>
>>> If they've been re-written (so are no longer pending) then a SMART 
>>> long or possibly offline test will make them go away. I use SMART 
>>> long myself.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks Brad.  I'm running a long test now, but I believe I have the 
>> system set up to run long tests regularly, and the issue hasn't been 
>> fixed.  Furthermore, strangely, the reallocated sector count still 
>> sits at 0 (see below).  If these errors had been properly handled by 
>> the drive, shouldn't Reallocated_Sector_Ct sit at least at 8?
> 
> Nope. Your pending is still at 8, so you've got bad sectors in an area 
> of the drive that hasn't been dealt with. What is "interesting" is that 
> your SMART test results don't list the LBA of the first failure. 
> Disappointing behaviour on the part of the disk. They are within the 1st 
> 10% of the drive however, so it wouldn't surprise me if they were in an 
> unused portion of the RAID superblock area.

Thanks Brad.  So, to theoretically get these sectors remapped so I don't 
keep getting errors, I would have to somehow try to write to those 
sectors.  That's tough given that the LBA's aren't reported as you 
mention.  Perhaps my best course of action then is to:

1) re-run sudo /usr/share/mdadm/checkarray --idle --all
2) add my previously-purchased drive to convert the RAID5 to RAID6 
(using 
http://www.ewams.net/?date=2013/05/02&view=Converting_RAID5_to_RAID6_in_mdadm 
as a guide)
3) after that, fail and remove /dev/sda from the RAID6
4) write 0's on /dev/sda (dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=1M)
5) re-add /dev/sda to the RAID6

This should get those bad sectors remapped...  thoughts?

thanks,
allie

  reply	other threads:[~2018-01-03 13:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-10-07  7:48 SMART detects pending sectors; take offline? Alexander Shenkin
2017-10-07  8:21 ` Carsten Aulbert
2017-10-07 10:05   ` Alexander Shenkin
2017-10-07 17:29     ` Wols Lists
2017-10-08  9:19       ` Alexander Shenkin
2017-10-08  9:49         ` Wols Lists
2017-10-09 20:16   ` Phil Turmel
2017-10-10  9:00     ` Alexander Shenkin
2017-10-10  9:11       ` Reindl Harald
2017-10-10  9:56         ` Alexander Shenkin
2017-10-10 12:55           ` Phil Turmel
2017-10-11 10:31             ` Alexander Shenkin
2017-10-11 17:10               ` Phil Turmel
2017-10-12  9:50                 ` Alexander Shenkin
2017-10-12 11:01                   ` Wols Lists
2017-10-12 13:04                     ` Phil Turmel
2017-10-12 13:16                       ` Alexander Shenkin
2017-10-12 13:21                         ` Mark Knecht
2017-10-12 15:16                           ` Edward Kuns
2017-10-12 15:52                             ` Edward Kuns
2017-10-15 14:41                               ` Alexander Shenkin
2017-12-18 15:51                               ` Alexander Shenkin
2017-12-18 16:09                                 ` Phil Turmel
2017-12-19 10:35                                   ` Alexander Shenkin
2017-12-19 12:02                                     ` Phil Turmel
2017-12-21 11:28                                       ` Alexander Shenkin
2017-12-21 11:38                                         ` Reindl Harald
2017-12-23  3:14                                           ` Brad Campbell
2018-01-03 12:44                                             ` Alexander Shenkin
2018-01-03 13:26                                               ` Brad Campbell
2018-01-03 13:50                                                 ` Alexander Shenkin [this message]
2018-01-03 15:53                                                   ` Phil Turmel
2018-01-03 15:59                                                     ` Alexander Shenkin
2018-01-03 16:02                                                       ` Phil Turmel
2018-01-04 10:37                                                         ` Alexander Shenkin
2018-01-04 12:28                                                           ` Alexander Shenkin
2018-01-04 13:16                                                             ` Brad Campbell
2018-01-04 13:39                                                               ` Alexander Shenkin
2018-01-05  5:20                                                                 ` Brad Campbell
2018-01-05  5:25                                                                   ` Brad Campbell
2018-01-05 10:10                                                                     ` Alexander Shenkin
2018-01-05 10:32                                                                       ` Brad Campbell
2018-01-05 13:50                                                                       ` Phil Turmel
2018-01-05 14:01                                                                         ` Alexander Shenkin
2018-01-05 15:59                                                                         ` Wols Lists
2017-10-12 15:19                   ` Kai Stian Olstad
2017-10-10 22:23           ` josh
2017-10-11  6:23             ` Alexander Shenkin
2017-10-10  9:21       ` Wols Lists

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=07170cf8-d951-013b-7e67-eee54aa60c65@shenkin.org \
    --to=al@shenkin.org \
    --cc=antlists@youngman.org.uk \
    --cc=carsten.aulbert@aei.mpg.de \
    --cc=eddie.kuns@gmail.com \
    --cc=h.reindl@thelounge.net \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lists2009@fnarfbargle.com \
    --cc=markknecht@gmail.com \
    --cc=philip@turmel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).