On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 12:11:36PM +0200, Erik Slagter wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-06-26 at 18:59 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Sad, 2005-06-25 at 09:35, Justin Piszcz wrote:
> > > > BTW2 could it be that somewhere a timeout has been lowered in recent
> > > > kernels? That must have been pre-2.6.11 then.
> >
> > Timeouts have not changed or have increased in fact.
>
> Never mind, the offending harddisk has ceased to be yesterday, it is no
> more.
>
> What really bothers me, though, is that until the very last moment it
> was alive, it didn't report any smart error, nor did any self test fail.
> I guess IBM is to blame here :-(
Most drives report no SMART problems until they die. I've seen several
drives who weren't able to read/write or at least remap bad sectors, and
still their SMART statistics were almost perfect. The SMART event log
included the errors, though.
--
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs, SuSE CR
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
