From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Goswin von Brederlow Subject: Re: Question about raid robustness when disk fails Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:51:25 +0100 Message-ID: <87636qqdia.fsf@frosties.localdomain> References: <1262972385.8962.159.camel@kije> <87hbqeyua9.fsf@frosties.localdomain> <1264436547.3015.24.camel@kije> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1264436547.3015.24.camel@kije> (Tim Bock's message of "Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:22:27 -0700") Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Tim Bock Cc: Goswin von Brederlow , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Tim Bock writes: > Thank you for the response. Through the smartctl tests, I noticed that > the "seek error rate" value for the misbehaving disk was at 42, with the > threshold at 30. For other disks in the same array, the "seek error > rate" values were up around 75 (same threshold of 30). As it seems the > values decrement to the threshold, I took that as a further sign that > the disk was in trouble and replaced it. Any likely correlation between > the described problem and the "seek error rate" value? Always keep in mind that smart values are often random, fictional or garbage. I have disks that have an airflow temperature (outside) of 80+ and temperature (inside) of 50+. Both going down as the disk heats up from use. 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 != 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. MfG Goswin