From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82?= Sawicz Subject: Re: Question about raid robustness when disk fails Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:12:45 +0100 Message-ID: <1264443165.30742.73.camel@test.apertos.eu> References: <1262972385.8962.159.camel@kije> <87hbqeyua9.fsf@frosties.localdomain> <1264436547.3015.24.camel@kije> <87636qqdia.fsf@frosties.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-FqvXRUUWmAY4C7FJQ4AR" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87636qqdia.fsf@frosties.localdomain> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Goswin von Brederlow Cc: Tim Bock , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids --=-FqvXRUUWmAY4C7FJQ4AR Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dnia 2010-01-25, pon o godzinie 18:51 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow pisze: > The only values I would keep a close eye on is remapped sectors and > pending sectors. Anything else gives nice graphs but I always feel is > totaly useless. And even the pending sectors are !=3D 0 on one drive > while > badblocks reports no errors on repeated passes. The drive just doesn't > seem to reduce the count when it successfully remaps a sector.=20 I read today that Samsungs show that behavior. Maybe this is the case? --=20 Cheers Micha=C5=82 (Saviq) Sawicz --=-FqvXRUUWmAY4C7FJQ4AR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: To jest =?UTF-8?Q?cz=C4=99=C5=9B=C4=87?= =?UTF-8?Q?_wiadomo=C5=9Bci?= podpisana cyfrowo -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAktd3xwACgkQzQlUjpZYlbftkQCgoz+V2onsvqv4ln3Q0w3xzCZA SZEAn2hQcZ6WR0u3Sd3g4qon595Nblq4 =OTf0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-FqvXRUUWmAY4C7FJQ4AR--