Re: xfs I/O error

Rekrutacja119
2008-02-23T22:14:12Z

so i should use the list i got from badblocks with dd but with bs=1024? are
you sure? i'm not sure what is my block size, but xfs_info says this:

debian:/# xfs_info /dev/md0
meta-data=/dev/md0 isize=256 agcount=32, agsize=5723342
blks
= sectsz=512 attr=0
data = bsize=4096 blocks=183146912, imaxpct=25
= sunit=2 swidth=6 blks, unwritten=1
naming =version 2 bsize=4096
log =internal bsize=4096 blocks=32768, version=2
= sectsz=512 sunit=0 blks, lazy-count=0
realtime =none extsz=24576 blocks=0, rtextents=0

i think i made it with 4K stack size ... well anyways, i should use the list
i got earlier and just try dd but with bs=1024... ? don't want to erase more
than i have to. (i want to do it so i can smartctl -t offline /dev/sdb then,
so maybe it will somehow see that these blocks are broken and mark them)

2008/2/23, Iustin Pop <iusty@k1024.org>:
>
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:46:52PM +0100, Rekrutacja119 wrote:
> > hello, is there any way to force XFS to ignore I/O errors? it seems it
> is
> > shutting down the fs when it encounters any error.
> > The problem is that i can't mark badsectors, as XFS doesn't support bad
> > sector marking, but i also cannot access any correct data on partition,
> > because when i try to access damaged sector, the whole fs goes down.
> >
> > any idea why?
> >
> > i use xfsprogs 2.9.4, my xfs is array made from 3 HDs, RAID 0, and one
> of
> > them is getting some bad sectors. i cannot replace it currently.
> >
> > after i run xfs_repair on it, i was able to mount it and access the
> data,
> > but when somebody tries to access bad data, the whole XFS goes down. i
> don't
> > want that, i also dont have place to xfsmetadump the whole array to
> another
> > disks.
> >
> > i tried scaning whole disk with badblocks (badblocks -c 1 -s -v
> /dev/sdb),
> > and then running dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdb count=1 bs=1
> > seek=NUMBER_FROM_BADBLOCKOUTPUT
> >
> > but every block was written fine! (which is strange i guess), and it
> didnt
> > help.
>
> I'm not really sure, but the above seems wrong. badblocks has a default
> block size of 1024 (-c does something else, not set the block size), and
> you use that block number as an offset in bytes for dd (because you set
> bs=1).
>
> I would recommend to try the dd again, but with bs=1024. And afterwards,
> rerun badblocks and check you have no errors.
>
> As for xfs, I don't think if it can do what you want (ignore bad
> blocks), if the error is in the metadata sections.
>
> regards,
> iustin
>

[[HTML alternate version deleted]]