From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Goswin von Brederlow Subject: Re: Question about raid robustness when disk fails Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:29:53 +0100 Message-ID: <87hbq9s4r2.fsf@frosties.localdomain> References: <1262972385.8962.159.camel@kije> <87hbqeyua9.fsf@frosties.localdomain> <1264436547.3015.24.camel@kije> <87636qqdia.fsf@frosties.localdomain> <1264443165.30742.73.camel@test.apertos.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1264443165.30742.73.camel@test.apertos.eu> (Micha's message of "Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:12:45 +0100") Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Micha Sawicz Cc: Goswin von Brederlow , Tim Bock , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Micha=C5=82 Sawicz writes: > Dnia 2010-01-25, pon o godzinie 18:51 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow pis= ze: >> 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 i= s >> 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= ? I usualy buy one or at most 2 new disks at a time so my drives are all different makes and models. Might verry well be a samsung drive that ha= s that behaviour. MfG Goswin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html