RAID-1 and bad sectors?
in [Hardware]
|
Prev: LCD Monitor display confusion
Next: HD replace problems
From: Folkert Rienstra on 12 Jan 2006 17:34 "Rod Speed" <rod_speed(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:41lj5mF1fgsduU1(a)individual.net > void(a)no.spam.com wrote Rod Speed rod_speed(a)yahoo.com wrote > > > > Use Everest to check the SMART data for the drive, post it here. > > > http://www.majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=4181 > > > I just installed this, and under Storage > SMART, > > it doesn't show anything. It's all gray. > > Yeah, you can get that result on some systems. Particularly those where the S.M.A.R.T. driver isn't installed or the driver isn't S.M.A.R.T. compatible. Usually the RAID drivers are not. > > There's another that isnt too bad on the knoppix bootable CD. > > Not as easy to use by quite effective. Bit more difficult to post > the results with that tho if you dont know anything about linux. > > See what SHDIAG says first. > > > And when I right click on SMART, it let's me do > > a Quick Report, but it prints stuff out about various > > other devices and nothing about the hard drive.
From: Folkert Rienstra on 12 Jan 2006 18:09 <void(a)no.spam.com> wrote in message news:5ukrr1h4058iipfka43g8u95sr46d9fgod(a)4ax.com > On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 06:30:27 +1100, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > So if I don't see any mention of errors in the SMART data, then > > > I'll know that no data has been read or written to a bad sector? > > > > Thats complicated by what has happened with the offline tests. > > Those will show the bad sectors that have been discovered by > > the offline tests and will end up in the SMART data. > > Yeah, since the offline test will read the entire disk, then if there are any > bad sectors, they'll definitely show up in the SMART data after running a > test. > > The only time a bad sector won't show up in the SMART data is if data has > never been read from or written to it. > > I hope I got that right. Sorry to disappoint you. No checks on writes unless the sector is blacklisted: is a bad sector candidate/pending bad sector.
From: Folkert Rienstra on 12 Jan 2006 19:15 "philo" <philo(a)privacy.net> wrote in message news:57Kdnb4YMY5BgSjeRVn-gQ(a)athenet.net > <void(a)no.spam.com> wrote in message news:46v9r195r6m540q3b8ef5ikn08kdjn6380(a)4ax.com... > > I just used BootItNG to resize the 2 NTFS partitions on my hard disk. I was > > increasing the size of the C drive, so I had to shrink the D drive and slide > > it down to the end of the disk. When I did the slide operation, I told it to > > slide everything including the unused areas. I ended up getting an "error > > reading from hard disk" message. So I retried the slide operation, but just > > told it to slide the data only. That worked, so maybe there was a bad sector > > in an unused area? > > > Go to the website of the HD's mfg and download the diagnostic utility > and run it. > If *any* errors are found..backup your data and replace the disc. > > At any rate...I'd never use a drive with bad sectors in a RAID situation Obvious lie. There is no such thing as a drive without bad sectors.
From: Folkert Rienstra on 12 Jan 2006 19:18 <void(a)no.spam.com> wrote in message news:18jhr1d1cs9iai5iad1q8r1dtjsq4vrenk(a)4ax.com > On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 17:46:49 +1100, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > I also need to determine how BootItNG deals with writing data to bad sectors, > > > > The hard drive should handle that behind BootItNG's back. > > > > > and how Windows deals with reading and writing data from bad sectors. > > > > The hard drive should handle the writing behind Win's back. > > So the hard drive will detect a bad sector and then find a good sector > to which to write the data? Kind of. > Based on what Chuck F. said, the hard drive will > just write the data to whichever sector, even if its bad. Basically yes, if it doesn't know about it being bad. No, if the sector is a socalled bad sector candidate. Then it will be write-checked and reallocated if necessary. > > > > > What will the SMART data tell me? > > > > Basically confirm that the drive is dying. > > Seems like a safe assumption. > > > > > I have no confidence that my new SP1213N > > > won't develop the same problems. > > > > None of mine have. And the storagereview reliablity database > > shows that plenty dont have any problems with their drives too. > > > > And the result with many of their competitors drives are > > much worse, particularly the maxtor drives of the same size. > > > > The seagate 7200.7s do better, but the 7200.8s are obscenely bad. > > Thanks for pointing out storagereview.com. Looks like the Samsungs are near > the bottom third. The Seagate 7200.7s are near the top. Maybe I'll get a > couple of those.
From: Folkert Rienstra on 12 Jan 2006 19:22
"Chuck F. " <cbfalconer(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cuGdnVVOkftcuSjeRVn-gg(a)maineline.net > void(a)no.spam.com wrote: > > > > I just used BootItNG to resize the 2 NTFS partitions on my hard > > disk. I was increasing the size of the C drive, so I had to > > shrink the D drive and slide it down to the end of the disk. > > When I did the slide operation, I told it to slide everything > > including the unused areas. I ended up getting an "error > > reading from hard disk" message. So I retried the slide > > operation, but just told it to slide the data only. That > > worked, so maybe there was a bad sector in an unused area? > > Which may mean that you wrote some of your actual data into a > failing "unused" area, It wouldn't be unused then, now would it. > and that that data is now lost or altered. Yup, that's why it is called "unused". > I wouldn't trust anything that was on that partition. |