Re: About USB hard drives and errors
On 20100409_102442, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 2010-04-08 20:27, Ron Johnson wrote:
> >On 2010-04-08 19:44, Paul E Condon wrote:
> >>I want to use the low cost high capacity hard drives that are
> >>for sale in places like Best Buy and Costco. I have put ext3 on
> >>several of them and started experimenting. The results so far
> >>are puzzling.
> >>I do get errors. So I decided to do scans for bad blocks. The drives
> >>I'm using are all Western Digital because they have been the lowest
> >>cost at the times I buy at Costco. Also all are 500GB.
> >>e2fsck -c <device> is supposed to scan for bad blocks and allocate them
> >>to a special inode so that they cannot be used. It runs for 3 to 4
> >>hours and then says its finished with no indication of how many bad
> >>blocks it found.
> >>
> >[snip]
> >>
> >>Has anyone ever used these programs? Have you ever seen useful output?
> >>What SHOULD they do (with a little more specificity and believability)?
> >>
> >
> >Not a direct answer to your question, but: I never leave home
> >without -vfFC0. (The Unix Way is to "say something" only upon
> >failure, but I like continuous feedback.)
> >
>
> (The "dumpe2fs -b" command should show you all your bad blocks.)
>
> Here's the result of me checking for bad blocks:
>
> # e2fsck -c -vfFC0 /dev/mapper/main_huge_vg-main_huge_lv
> e2fsck 1.41.10 (10-Feb-2009)
> Checking for bad blocks (read-only test): done
>
> BIG_LV: Updating bad block inode. <<<<<<<<<< Note!!
> Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
> Pass 2: Checking directory structure
>
> Pass 3: Checking directory connectivity
>
> Pass 4: Checking reference counts
>
> Pass 5: Checking group summary information
>
>
>
> BIG_LV: ***** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED *****
>
> 301084 inodes used (0.12%)
> 14172 non-contiguous files (4.7%)
> 121 non-contiguous directories (0.0%)
> # of inodes with ind/dind/tind blocks: 0/0/0
> Extent depth histogram: 294700/6219
> 560591687 blocks used (58.03%)
> 0 bad blocks
> 128 large files
>
> 292926 regular files
> 7972 directories
> 0 character device files
> 0 block device files
> 0 fifos
> 0 links
> 177 symbolic links (155 fast symbolic links)
> 0 sockets
> --------
> 301075 files
>
Thanks Ron.
Your option strings will do wonders for future e2fsck runs.
But ... Why does the output say that the disk was modified
during the run? There were no badblocks found. What needed
modification?
Do you have similar magic for dumpe2fs?
Of course your output presented here indicates that
you HD is not one on which you can verify badblock
printing, since your disk has no badblocks.
--
Paul E Condon
pecondon@mesanetworks.net
Reply to: