HDD problems causing Kernel panics in Linux/Debian?
in [Linux Hardware]
|
Prev: Upgraded my old Debian box to Kernel 2.6.32, but missing sensors datas and can't compile the latest stable NVIDIA driver.
Next: Logs and dumps for kernel panics to collect and analyze?
From: Yousuf Khan on 7 Mar 2010 14:19 Pascal Hambourg wrote: > Rod Speed a �crit : >> Pascal Hambourg wrote >> >>> Aren't pending sectors sectors waiting to be remapped because of read errors ? >> Thats not the same thing as unreadable sectors. > > Aren't pending sectors unreadable, because of read errors ? Pending sectors are still readable, but they are weak when it comes time to write to them. So they are pending remapping during the next write to them. Yousuf Khan
From: Rod Speed on 7 Mar 2010 15:41 Pascal Hambourg wrote > Rod Speed wrote >> Pascal Hambourg wrote >>> Aren't pending sectors sectors waiting to be remapped because of read errors ? >> Thats not the same thing as unreadable sectors. > Aren't pending sectors unreadable, because of read errors ? Not necessarily.
From: Rod Speed on 7 Mar 2010 15:48 Pascal Hambourg wrote > Arno wrote >> Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam(a)plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote >>> Rod Speed wrote >>>> Pascal Hambourg wrote >>>>> Aren't pending sectors sectors waiting to be remapped because of read errors ? >>>> Thats not the same thing as unreadable sectors. >>> Aren't pending sectors unreadable, because of read errors ? >> A pending sector is one that the disk tried to read but failed. > "Tried to read but failed", that looks very much like the definition of "unreadable" to me. Nope, the difference is that a successful read varys, it isnt necessarily always unreadable to be a pending sector.
From: Rod Speed on 7 Mar 2010 15:54 Yousuf Khan wrote > Pascal Hambourg wrote >> Rod Speed wrote >>> Pascal Hambourg wrote >>>> Aren't pending sectors sectors waiting to be remapped because of read errors ? >>> Thats not the same thing as unreadable sectors. >> Aren't pending sectors unreadable, because of read errors ? > Pending sectors are still readable, Some of them are unreadable, just not all of them are. > but they are weak when it comes time to write to them. So they are pending remapping during the next write to them. Even unreadable sectors are marked as pending until the write, so you can attempt to get what data is in them before the write/reallocate. And to Pascal, this is a good example of what a mess your agressive snipping can produce, leaving it all in is much more readable.
From: David Brown on 7 Mar 2010 16:14
Ant wrote: > On 3/7/2010 9:20 AM PT, Arno typed: > >> You don't need to, no disk access is possible after a kernel >> panic, hence no loging. The only thing you can do, is to >> look at the screen or to enable the serial console output and >> log that on another machine. >> >> The reason no disk access is possible is simple: A kernel >> panic only hapens when the kernel internal state is regarded >> as seriously corrupted. A disk access could then cause serious >> filesystem corruption (at least writing) and is therefore >> not done. > > So Windows' blue screens with memory dumps are different? Yes - when windows discovers that things have gone so completely wrong that it BSOD's, it then takes the opportunity to risk greater havoc by writing to the disk. Linux cuts your loses by stopping any disk writes. |