xfs
[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

Re: Bad Sectors Behavior

from [Eric Sandeen] [Permanent Link][Original]
To: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Bad Sectors Behavior
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 09:12:40 -0500
Cc: Nir Dremer <mailing@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050518173436.GA12000@taniwha.stupidest.org>
References: <1116429626.8348.63.camel@localhost> <20050518173436.GA12000@taniwha.stupidest.org>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Macintosh/20050317)
Chris Wedgwood wrote: 
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 06:20:26PM +0300, Nir Dremer wrote:


I'm looking for official documentation explaining XFS behavior when
new Bad Sectors are detected on the file-system.



XFS doesn't handle bad sectors, if such an error occurs the filesystem
will barf and return EFSCORRUPTED (990 presently as Linux doesn't
define this).


The standard answer is usually that if you see bad sectors, your drive can no longer remap them, and it's time for a new drive.

-Eric


[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  Kernel bug on SLES 9, Deanan
Next by Date:  Re: Files >4GB in XFS realtime partition, Eric Sandeen
Previous by Thread:  Re: Bad Sectors Behavior, Chris Wedgwood
Next by Thread:  TAKE 936205 -, Russell Cattelan
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]