similar to: scrub implies failing drive - smartctl blissfully unaware

I've got a 1Tb USB disc that appears to be dying - eg it took about 10 days (!) to run 'badblocks -nsv /dev/sdc' and it only did less than 2% in that time. Read access became _really_ slow. So there's definitely something amiss and I've got it offline. There's no drama about the content as I have other backups and I'm resigned to junking the thing, but I'm curious

I've seen similar cases where a USB drive appears to fail but the SMART reports success. The most recent was a 500 GB disk which had internally a Seagate Barracuda SATA drive. It appeared to work well until I sent it a largish (7GB) tarball. As well as SMART I ran a surface check and exercise, all passed. The tar kept failing. I can't test further, the disk has been broken up for

I finally fixed my drive error problem. This has been going on quite a while. I've posted before with no success on getting this fixed. I was getting these errors. Dec 4 04:03:10 bikesn4x4s kernel: hda: dma_intr: status=0x51 { DriveReady SeekComplete Error } Dec 4 04:03:10 bikesn4x4s kernel: hda: dma_intr: error=0x84 { DriveStatusError BadCRC } And now for the amazing smartctl -a

Two days ago I installed a brand new SSDNow E50 series (Enterprise) disk on a server. I intend to move the OS there. I just did the physical install and copied a few files to and from it just to see if it was OK. I left it there, waiting for an opportunity to configure it to do real work. Now I have looked at it with smartctl -a and it gives me the following info: 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate

Il 24/10/2016 14:05, Leonard den Ottolander ha scritto: > Hi, > > On Mon, 2016-10-24 at 12:07 +0200, Alessandro Baggi wrote: >> === START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION === >> SMART Error Log not supported > > I reckon there's a <snip> between those lines. The line right after the > first should read something like: > > SMART overall-health self-assessment

In a server with raid1 a first smart error was reported. Smart attributes: SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 16 Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds: ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000f 200 200 051 Pre-fail Always - 0 3 Spin_Up_Time

> -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Pyeron > Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 22:54 > > NOTE: this is happening on Centos 6 x86_64, > 2.6.32-504.3.3.el6.x86_64 not Centos 5 > > Dell PowerEdge 2970, Seagate SATA drive, non-raid. > > I have this server which has been dying randomly, with no logs. Here is a console picture. http://i.imgur.com/ZYHlB82.jpg

Il 27/10/2016 19:38, Yamaban ha scritto: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:25, Alessandro Baggi wrote: >> Il 24/10/2016 14:05, Leonard den Ottolander ha scritto: >>> On Mon, 2016-10-24 at 12:07 +0200, Alessandro Baggi wrote: >>> > === START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION === >>> > SMART Error Log not supported >>> >>> I reckon there's a

Hello, I'm running FreeBSD 9.0/amd64, pure ZFS setup, one Seagate disk ST2000NM0011 SN02 on LSI Logic (mpt) controller. Yes, I know that running one disk on RAID controller is a bit weird, I have to find yet if it is possible to connect disk to internal SATA controller. About two days ago, system became SLOW. Disk usage is constantly 100%, and sometimes I'm getting swap_pager:

I'm not used to using smartd, but have a new set of systems that don't have any sort of RAID on them, so I enabled smartd (18 systems 4 SATA drives each). Running CentOS 5.4 64-bit .. One of them has emailed me twice(despite it saying it would only email me once) saying it has 1 Offline uncorrectable sectors But when I try to find more information, smartctl seems to think everything is

Hi list, on my workstation I've a md raid (mirror) for / on md1. This raid has 2 ssd as members (each corsair GT force 120GB MLC). This disks are ~ 5 years old. Today I've checked my ssds smart status and I get: ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000f 100 100 050 Pre-fail Always -

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:25, Alessandro Baggi wrote: > Il 24/10/2016 14:05, Leonard den Ottolander ha scritto: >> On Mon, 2016-10-24 at 12:07 +0200, Alessandro Baggi wrote: >> > === START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION === >> > SMART Error Log not supported >> >> I reckon there's a <snip> between those lines. The line right after the >> first

On 19/03/18 14:01, Morgan Read wrote: > Hello list > > I've been running the following command, first in fc20 and then now > (since the beginning of March) in fc26: > now=$(date +"%Y%m%d-%H%M"); sudo rsync -ahuAESX -vi /home/ > /run/media/readlegal/Backup/home > > /run/media/readlegal/Backup/rsync-changes_$now > > Since the move to fc26, this

Il 17/01/2016 19:36, Alessandro Baggi ha scritto: > Il 17/01/2016 18:46, Brandon Vincent ha scritto: >> On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Matt Garman >> <matthew.garman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> I'm not sure what's going on with your drive. But if it were mine, >>> I'd want >>> to replace it. If there are issues, that long smart check

Hi all. I have one server with problem in maillog: Feb 6 06:46:26 host1 postfix/qmgr[24296]: fatal: qmgr_move: update active/4DE015AC536 time stamps: Stale NFS file handle Feb 6 06:46:27 host1 postfix/master[4487]: warning: process /usr/libexec/postfix/qmgr pid 24296 exit status 1 Feb 6 06:46:27 host1 postfix/master[4487]: warning: /usr/libexec/postfix/qmgr: bad command startup -- throttling

My wife's box has a very intermittent problem, when booting from the Maxtor IDE hard drive. This has been going on for about 2 1/2 years.... The box is a Compaq EVO D300v for the Enterprise. When it boots, there is a SMART advisory from the BIOS that says failure is immenient. Occasionally, it will not boot, because the BIOS does not see the hard drive. I replaced the EIDE cable, but the

After having massive problems with a supermicro X7DBE box using AOC-SAT2-MV8 Marvell controllers and opensolaris snv79 (same as described here: http://sunsolve.sun.com/search/document.do?assetkey=1-66-233341-1) we just start over using new hardware and opensolaris 2008.05 upgraded to snv94. We used again a supermicro X7DBE but now with two LSI SAS3081E SAS controllers. And guess what? Now we get

Hi All, I am fairly certain that this disk is failing in my server, and I am replacing it straight away anyway. However, I'd appreciate the views of the list just to be sure as I value your opinion(s). I got these errors, once only so far, in /var/log/messages. This disk has / on it. Oct 5 08:34:47 server1 kernel: ata1.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x7 SErr 0x0 action 0x0 Oct 5 08:34:47

> -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Pyeron > Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 0:00 > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jason Pyeron > > Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 22:54 > > > > NOTE: this is happening on Centos 6 x86_64, > > 2.6.32-504.3.3.el6.x86_64 not Centos 5 > > > > Dell PowerEdge 2970, Seagate SATA drive,

Hi All, I know many of us here manage RAID on our Centos based servers so this may be of interest to us all. I ordered three new "Enterprise hard drives" this month from a well known UK online retailer. The drives arrived as new in their anti-static packaging. Before using one of the drives in a mission critical hardware raid I checked the SMART attributes and was amazed at what I