From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Phil Turmel Subject: Re: Brocken Raid & LUKS Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 17:26:27 -0500 Message-ID: <51269F13.1020807@turmel.org> References: <5123A1CC.2000003@heisl.org> <5123BD1F.4060200@turmel.org> <5123E4E9.3020609@heisl.org> <5123EB92.5090505@turmel.org> <5123EF45.6080405@heisl.org> <5123F7C7.7000406@turmel.org> <5123FB71.3060509@heisl.org> <5124196F.6090000@turmel.org> <512516C2.3010105@heisl.org> <5125184A.6040707@turmel.org> <5125C6E9.4050802@heisl.org> <5125EBFD.3050802@heisl.org> <51262137.3040609@turmel.org> <51262CE0.3000809@heisl.org> <51263785.2010001@turmel.org> <51263D9D.1080002@heisl.org> <51263F7E.7040207@turmel.org> <5126421E.3040702@turmel.org> <51264C18.8000201@heisl.org> <7C887473-22AB-426D-999E-8F12971B3E6D@colorremedies.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <7C887473-22AB-426D-999E-8F12971B3E6D@colorremedies.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Chris Murphy Cc: Stone , linux-raid List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 02/21/2013 05:20 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Feb 21, 2013, at 9:32 AM, Stone wrote: >>>> >> This is my ouput from the badblocks >> 1073006628 >> 1073006629 >> 1073006630 >> 1073006631 >> 1073006632 >> 1073006633 >> 1073006634 >> 1073006635 >> 1073006636 >> 1073006637 >> 1073006638 >> 1073006639 > It's consistently reporting 12. This can't be LBA values if it's an > AF disk, or you'd get multiples of 8 (8*512=4096). I actually don't > recall off hand how to convert from ext block numbers to LBA. But dd > wants LBA. These are default 1k block addresses returned by badblocks. dd does not want LBA. It wants block addresses, with a default block size of 512. If you specify a different block size with bs=, you must use that scale for seek= or skip= or count=. > I haven't read this whole thread, is there a backup? I did see more > than one disk with non-zero current pending sector values. So in my > opinion, I'd ATA secure erase all of these drives and start from > scratch if you have a backup. Actually, I'd ATA Secure Erase them, > and then do an extended SMART test to confirm. Or if they're under > warranty, RMA them. You shouldn't have so much bad sectors on a > disk. No backup. > If you keep them, you need to keep an eye on them with an extended > smart test every week or two. It sounds like there may be loose > material bouncing around in the disks causing these bad sectors, and > if that's true, more will go bad. And if more do show up in an > extended smart test, and the drives are under warranty, I'd bail out > on them. Get them replaced. Read the whole thread. A followup smartctl report will be useful, but Stone's hands are full at the moment. Phil