xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Recover a XFS on raid -1 (linear) when one disk is broken

To: Jan Banan <b@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Recover a XFS on raid -1 (linear) when one disk is broken
From: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 11:33:12 -0700
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <410BE0A9.3030904@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <40F6DBC1.6050909@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040715205910.GA9948@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <40F9321C.7060403@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040717203943.GL20260@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <410ADC0A.6060100@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040731054924.GA4748@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <410B4BC3.8000404@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040731091220.GA6158@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <410BE0A9.3030904@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 08:10:49PM +0200, Jan Banan wrote:

> I suppose the value of Reallocated_Sector_Ct (1459) is not a good
> sign :-(

No.  It means the disk has probably been failing for a little while
before you noticed it or it got really bad really fast, neither of
which are good.

> I also run "badblocks /dev/hdh" and it did find 593 bad blocks
> before the kernel crashed (I suppose) with (like it did with "dd"):

i'm surpised it dies here,  what does sysrq-t say?

> According to the man-page of "dd" then "seek" and "skip" skips
> "ibs/obs-sized BLOCKS" and not "SECTORS". So am I typing the correct
> value (28117692)?

for bs=512 the 'dd BLOCKS' are sectors.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>