Re: HD 'Analysis'

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Sean Kamath
Date: Thursday, May 7, 2009 - 10:12 pm

On May 7, 2009, at 4:50 PM, Tony Abernethy wrote:

Not with a modern disk.  The drives now essentially lie about where on  
the disk any given block is, you'll never know if block N is anywhere  
(physically) near block N-1 or N+1.

Starting about 15 years ago, the most reasonable check I could find  
was the 'verify' command in solaris' 'format' command (which I've yet  
to find/write a simple alternative to).  Anything else is just a waste  
of time.

What this did was basically write a block of random bits, then read  
and compare.  You need to do both, because some blocks are readable,  
but not writable, and vice versa. If you get a mismatch, the block was  
unreadable, and was (hopefully) remapped, so try again.  The OS  
usually logs read and write errors (soft and/or hard) and you'd have  
some idea of the relative 'health' of the disk.

Frankly, we would verify a disk if we hit a bad block, and if that  
remapped the bad block and produced no other errors over two passes,  
we'd keep using it (disks weren't that cheap then).  If we got another  
error, we'd replace the disk.  We got so many new disks that would  
encounter a bad block (and the OS would log the error) that we started  
verifying the disk when we got them to map out any bad blocks. . .

Sean

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pkcs7-signature which had a name of smime.p7s]
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
HD 'Analysis', L. V. Lammert, (Mon May 4, 2:56 pm)
Re: HD 'Analysis', STeve Andre', (Mon May 4, 3:06 pm)
Re: HD 'Analysis', L. V. Lammert, (Mon May 4, 3:29 pm)
Re: HD 'Analysis', STeve Andre', (Mon May 4, 3:34 pm)
Re: HD 'Analysis', Jose Quinteiro, (Mon May 4, 3:36 pm)
Re: HD 'Analysis', Tony Abernethy, (Mon May 4, 3:45 pm)
Re: HD 'Analysis', Steve Shockley, (Mon May 4, 7:32 pm)
Re: HD 'Analysis', Hannah Schroeter, (Tue May 5, 4:46 am)
Re: HD 'Analysis', L. V. Lammert, (Tue May 5, 8:49 am)
Re: HD 'Analysis', L. V. Lammert, (Tue May 5, 9:11 am)
Re: HD 'Analysis', L. V. Lammert, (Tue May 5, 9:35 am)
Re: HD 'Analysis', José Quinteiro, (Tue May 5, 9:50 am)
Re: HD 'Analysis', STeve Andre', (Tue May 5, 10:09 am)
Re: HD 'Analysis', Steve Shockley, (Wed May 6, 3:45 am)
Re: HD 'Analysis', Steve Shockley, (Wed May 6, 3:52 am)
Re: HD 'Analysis', Martin Schröder, (Wed May 6, 8:24 am)
Re: HD 'Analysis', ropers, (Wed May 6, 4:10 pm)
Re: HD 'Analysis', Steve Shockley, (Wed May 6, 7:03 pm)
Re: HD 'Analysis', Marco Peereboom, (Thu May 7, 5:39 am)
Re: HD 'Analysis', ropers, (Thu May 7, 1:19 pm)
Re: HD 'Analysis', Tony Abernethy, (Thu May 7, 4:50 pm)
Re: HD 'Analysis', Sean Kamath, (Thu May 7, 10:12 pm)
Re: HD 'Analysis', Marco Peereboom, (Wed May 13, 3:42 pm)
Re: HD 'Analysis', Tobias Walkowiak, (Mon May 18, 6:21 am)
Re: HD 'Analysis', Otto Moerbeek, (Mon May 18, 6:28 am)
Re: HD 'Analysis', Hannah Schroeter, (Mon May 18, 6:37 am)
Re: HD 'Analysis', David Vasek, (Mon May 18, 6:50 am)