| 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1116429626.8348.63.camel@localhost> <20050518173436.GA12000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| 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 |
| <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] |