From: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
To: Kevin Shanahan <kmshanah@disenchant.net>
Cc: David Lethe <david@santools.com>, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Read errors and SMART tests
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:59:08 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <496E521C.10505@tmr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081220052244.GN1749@cubit>
Kevin Shanahan wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 10:13:14PM -0600, David Lethe wrote:
>
>> This shows nothing more than you having a single bad block. You have a
>> 1TB drive, for crying out loud, they can't all stay perfect ;)
>>
>
> Heh, true.
>
>
>> This is no reason to assume the disk is bad, or that it has anything to
>> do with cabling. When you wrote you have
>> read "errors" .. does that mean you have dozens, hundreds of individual
>> unreadable blocks, or
>> could you just have just this one bad block.
>>
>
> Sorry, I didn't provide a lot of detail there. The "bad" drive,
> /dev/sdd was doing more than just failing the self test:
>
> Dec 20 06:55:20 hermes kernel: ata4.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x5 SErr 0x0 action 0x0
> Dec 20 06:55:20 hermes kernel: ata4.00: irq_stat 0x40000008
> Dec 20 06:55:20 hermes kernel: ata4.00: cmd 60/78:10:47:d5:fa/00:00:1e:00:00/40 tag 2 ncq 61440 in
> Dec 20 06:55:20 hermes kernel: res 51/40:00:b9:d5:fa/00:00:1e:00:00/40 Emask 0x409 (media error) <F>
> Dec 20 06:55:20 hermes kernel: ata4.00: status: { DRDY ERR }
> Dec 20 06:55:20 hermes kernel: ata4.00: error: { UNC }
> Dec 20 06:55:20 hermes kernel: ata4.00: configured for UDMA/133
> Dec 20 06:55:20 hermes kernel: ata4: EH complete
> Dec 20 06:55:20 hermes kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdd] 1953525168 512-byte hardware sectors (1000205 MB)
> Dec 20 06:55:20 hermes kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdd] Write Protect is off
> Dec 20 06:55:20 hermes kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdd] Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00
> Dec 20 06:55:20 hermes kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdd] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA
>
> (repeats several times)
>
> Dec 20 06:55:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 519755016 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 06:55:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 519755024 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 06:55:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 519755032 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 06:55:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 519755040 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 06:55:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 519755048 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 06:55:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 519755056 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 06:55:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 519755064 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 06:55:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 519755072 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 06:55:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 519755080 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 06:55:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 519755088 on sdd1)
>
> ...
>
> Dec 20 07:04:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 613165696 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 07:04:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 613165704 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 07:04:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 613165712 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 07:04:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 613165720 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 07:04:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 613165728 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 07:04:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 613165736 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 07:04:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 613165744 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 07:04:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 613165752 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 07:04:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 613165760 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 07:04:30 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 613165768 on sdd1)
>
> ...
>
> Dec 20 07:04:47 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 613181440 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 07:04:47 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 613181448 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 07:04:47 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 613181456 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 07:04:47 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 613181464 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 07:04:47 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 613181472 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 07:04:47 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 613181480 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 07:04:47 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 613181488 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 07:04:47 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 613181496 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 07:04:47 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 613181504 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 07:04:47 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 613181512 on sdd1)
>
> ...
>
> Dec 20 08:10:09 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 613552584 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 08:10:09 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 613552592 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 08:10:09 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 613552600 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 08:10:09 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 613552608 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 08:10:09 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 613552616 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 08:10:09 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 613552624 on sdd1)
> Dec 20 08:10:09 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 613552632 on sdd1)
>
> ...
>
> Dec 20 08:16:19 hermes kernel: raid5:md5: read error corrected (8 sectors at 613020008 on sdd1)
>
> That's just a sample from today - it's been doing similar things for
> several days. So the drive was hanging in there in the array, thanks
> to the error correction, but it was of course impacting performance.
>
> Anyway, when I put the replacement drive in I decided to do a self
> test before adding it to the array and I guess I was a bit concerned
> that it immediately failed the test. Since it was inserted into the
> same slot in the drive cage, same cable, etc. I wondered if those
> factors can affect a self test. My assumption was no, but I thought
> I'd ask.
>
A bad cable, poor cooling, funky power, any external problem isn't going
away by replacing the drive. And I don't expect a new drive to have bad
sectors which haven't been relocated before the drive got to me...
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
"Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still
be valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-14 20:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-12-20 1:30 Read errors and SMART tests Kevin Shanahan
2008-12-20 4:13 ` David Lethe
2008-12-20 5:22 ` Kevin Shanahan
2008-12-20 6:54 ` David Lethe
2008-12-20 9:09 ` Kevin Shanahan
2008-12-20 21:46 ` David Greaves
2009-01-14 20:59 ` Bill Davidsen [this message]
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=496E521C.10505@tmr.com \
--to=davidsen@tmr.com \
--cc=david@santools.com \
--cc=kmshanah@disenchant.net \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.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).