"Forever" fsck?
in [Linux Hardware]
|
Prev: SB Audigy SE and linux problems
Next: ata1 timeout
From: Andrew Gideon on 1 Sep 2006 12:47 On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:26:08 +0200, Thomas Richter wrote: > Yes. Please try to run the smarttools on the drive and see what they > report. It could be a dying hard disk. No joy. [root(a)archive0 etc]# smartctl -i /dev/sdc smartctl version 5.33 [i386-redhat-linux-gnu] Copyright (C) 2002-4 Bruce Allen Home page is http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/ Device: LaCie BiggerDisk G931 Version: 922 Device type: disk Local Time is: Fri Sep 1 12:42:46 2006 EDT Device does not support SMART [root(a)archive0 etc]# smartctl -i /dev/sdd smartctl version 5.33 [i386-redhat-linux-gnu] Copyright (C) 2002-4 Bruce Allen Home page is http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/ Device: LaCie BiggerDisk G931 Version: 922 Device type: disk Local Time is: Fri Sep 1 12:42:48 2006 EDT Device does not support SMART But thanks. BTW, I should add that the volume on which I've been getting these fsck errors is an LVM volume. It is in a volume group that is physically on the /dev/sdd drive. I doubt that this is relevant, but... - Andrew
From: John-Paul Stewart on 1 Sep 2006 13:41 Andrew Gideon wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:26:08 +0200, Thomas Richter wrote: > >> Yes. Please try to run the smarttools on the drive and see what they >> report. It could be a dying hard disk. > > No joy. > > [root(a)archive0 etc]# smartctl -i /dev/sdc > smartctl version 5.33 [i386-redhat-linux-gnu] Copyright (C) 2002-4 Bruce Allen > Home page is http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/ > > Device: LaCie BiggerDisk G931 Version: 922 > Device type: disk > Local Time is: Fri Sep 1 12:42:46 2006 EDT > Device does not support SMART > > [root(a)archive0 etc]# smartctl -i /dev/sdd > smartctl version 5.33 [i386-redhat-linux-gnu] Copyright (C) 2002-4 Bruce Allen > Home page is http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/ > > Device: LaCie BiggerDisk G931 Version: 922 > Device type: disk > Local Time is: Fri Sep 1 12:42:48 2006 EDT > Device does not support SMART > > But thanks. > > BTW, I should add that the volume on which I've been getting these fsck > errors is an LVM volume. It is in a volume group that is physically on the > /dev/sdd drive. I doubt that this is relevant, but... The relevant part is that it's on a LaCie "BiggerDisk" controller. AFAIK, those are either USB or FireWire devices. Last I heard, SMART simply didn't work on those interfaces. You *might* be able to get useful information from smartctl by removing the disk from the LaCie enclosure and attaching directly to an internal IDE (or SATA, whichever is appropriate) channel, if that's something you're willing to try and can accept the risks (voiding warranty, further data corruption, etc).
From: Andrew Gideon on 1 Sep 2006 18:09 On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 13:41:47 -0400, John-Paul Stewart wrote: > You *might* be able to get useful information from smartctl by removing > the disk from the LaCie enclosure and attaching directly to an internal > IDE (or SATA, whichever is appropriate) channel, if that's something > you're willing to try and can accept the risks (voiding warranty, further > data corruption, etc). Unfortunately, I've no reason to believe that this would leave me with a working disk at all. I've not a lot of faith in Lacie quality at the moment.
From: joseph2k on 2 Sep 2006 03:38 Andrew Gideon wrote: > On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:49:32 -0400, Andrew Gideon wrote: > >> I didn't use the -k option when I last ran fsck with the badblocks >> option. >> I've just started that now. I'm curious if it'll help (if the problem >> blocks will be marked bad and subsequently ignored). > > It looks like inode 7 is the "bad blocks inode". > > ... > Restarting e2fsck from the beginning... > Checking for bad blocks (read-only test): done > Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes > Bad block inode has an indirect block (4) that conflicts with > filesystem metadata. CLEARED. > > The bad block inode has probably been corrupted. You probably > should stop now and run e2fsck -c to scan for bad blocks > in the filesystem. > Continue? yes > > Inode 7 has illegal block(s). Clear? yes > > Illegal block #20494 (1156964847) in inode 7. CLEARED. > Illegal block #20495 (1137955446) in inode 7. CLEARED. > Illegal block #20496 (1156964847) in inode 7. CLEARED. > Illegal block #20526 (1156616080) in inode 7. CLEARED. > Illegal block #20527 (1156616064) in inode 7. CLEARED. > Illegal block #20528 (1156616064) in inode 7. CLEARED. > Illegal block #20686 (1137955446) in inode 7. CLEARED. > Illegal block #20687 (1137955446) in inode 7. CLEARED. > Illegal block #20688 (1137955446) in inode 7. CLEARED. > Illegal block #20689 (1156952934) in inode 7. CLEARED. > Illegal block #20719 (1137955448) in inode 7. CLEARED. > Too many illegal blocks in inode 7. > Clear inode? yes > > Restarting e2fsck from the beginning... > ... > > Again, it's in an infinite look. I don't see anything but to reformat. > Any other suggestions? > > - Andrew I personally am in favor of reformatting the partition to say NTFS then back to EXT3. After running smartmontools of course. -- JosephKK Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens. --Schiller
From: Andrew Gideon on 3 Sep 2006 11:04
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 07:38:23 +0000, joseph2k wrote: > I personally am in favor of reformatting the partition to say NTFS then > back to EXT3. After running smartmontools of course. I understand the benefit (and cost) of a reformat. But why "through" NTFS (or anything else other than ext3)? - Andrew |