[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Resolved] Re: Disk problems or worse?



-- On 03 Jun 2010 19:22:48 -0400, Message-id: <[🔎] 4C083948.4090400@rcn.com>
I wrote --

On 06/03/2010 05:53 PM, Jochen Schulz wrote:
> Ralph Katz:
>> On 06/03/2010 01:45 PM, Jochen Schulz wrote:
>>> Which IDE controller? The controller I had problems with was:
>>>
>>> 00:1f.1 IDE interface: Intel Corporation 82801DBM (ICH4-M) IDE
Controller (rev 03)

>> You think those errors could come from the
>> controller?
>
> Yes and no. As far as I understand, it was the kernel having
> difficulties with that controller. But as I wrote, I don't know the
> specifics anymore. I just remember that I blamed the disk at first, but
> a replacement drive showed the same symptoms.
>
> You can easily rule this out by adding backports.org to your
> sources.list and trying their kernel.
>
> J.

ralph@spike ~$ lspci |grep IDE
00:1f.1 IDE interface: Intel Corporation 82801BA IDE U100 Controller
(rev 12)

I had not used that command in maybe 5 years, heh.  You get complacent
with stable.  Thanks for the kernel suggestion.

Ralph
-- end of last post --

[Apologies for bad paste and maybe bad threading; having difficulty
migrating mail.]

Jochen, the kernel upgrade to 2.6.32-bpo.5-686 seems to have fixed the
problem!  No system hang, no constant disk error messages, only this:

> zgrep -i attrib /var/log/syslog* |grep -v Temp
> /var/log/syslog:Jun 18 08:30:31 spike smartd[1990]: Device: /dev/sda, SMART Usag
> e Attribute: 196 Reallocated_Event_Count changed from 186 to 185
> /var/log/syslog:Jun 18 14:00:32 spike smartd[1990]: Device: /dev/sda, SMART Pref
> ailure Attribute: 7 Seek_Error_Rate changed from 200 to 100
> /var/log/syslog.1:Jun 17 21:08:35 spike smartd[1985]: Device: /dev/sda, SMART Pr
> efailure Attribute: 7 Seek_Error_Rate changed from 100 to 200
> /var/log/syslog.4.gz:Jun 14 15:27:14 spike smartd[1940]: Device: /dev/sda, SMART
>  Prefailure Attribute: 7 Seek_Error_Rate changed from 200 to 100
> 

Thank you again for your suggestion.

Ralph


Reply to: