WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-users

Re: Broken Harddisk (Was: [Xen-users] Memory mess-up with xen-3.0.3 and

To: Ulrich Windl <ulrich.windl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Broken Harddisk (Was: [Xen-users] Memory mess-up with xen-3.0.3 and 3.0.4)
From: Jacques Normand <jnormand@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 21:12:08 -0600
Cc: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 19:12:10 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <45B9C29C.10471.54919AD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-users@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Mail-followup-to: Ulrich Windl <ulrich.windl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
References: <20070104235751.GD19466@mayhem> <45B9C29C.10471.54919AD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 08:58:01AM +0100, Ulrich Windl wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2007 at 17:12, Jacques Normand wrote:
> 
> > OK, this is a solved issue. It was a bad hard-drive, but broken in a way
> > which did not show up in smart. But now, with new hd, no more debsums
> > going crazzy nor random segfaults :-)
> 
> actually that put's S.M.A.R.T. in question: I had a (almost new) disk where 
> SMART 
> reported "Good", although there was an increasing number of read errors and 
> remapped sectors. The "drive fitness test" of the vendor classified the disk 
> as 
> "defective" with two different codes (excessive shock, too many defective 
> sectors).
> 
> Sorry for this off-topic, but I'd recommend to everyone to check newly 
> shipped 
> disks if the packaging seems not suitable.

Well, I never trust the overall health value reported by smart. I
usually look for the read error rate and ecc correction as well as the
relocation count and the udma crc one. If those move too much, I trash
the drive (the drive is cheaper than the possible data loss). But in
that case, all were normal and the surface test reported ok...

jacques

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>