Re: fsck


Maybe I can mount a dirty partition..... I just need the data off it...
Mount it read-only and get the data off it IMMEDIATELY. I wouldn't try
fsck-ing on any disk with even a single read or write error. Fsck will
fail if it can't find a real sector to allocate, and I don't think it deals
well with bad sectors anyway. Point is: don't let it. "dd" the drive
ASAP and cut your losses...

also, just beware that the OS may panic when reading a corrupt FS (this
happened to me at least once). umount all other slices.
in case it panicks, use verbose cp (`cp -v`) to see which files are being
copied, note those which cause panic, and skip them

i would also suggest to dd the drive's contents, and then and then fool
around with it for some time (in order of a week) to get the most data
off of it. First, determine the cause of the failure (use smartmontools);
if it's electronics, you'll see smth like:

SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1
Num Test_Description Status Remaining LifeTime(hours) LBA_of_first_error
[...]
# 4 Short offline Completed: electrical failure 90% 13469 127

There's a good chance that the thing might heal itself somewhat (black
magic!). One of the ATA drives I'm using now had this failure, and it
persisted for a few days while I was subjecting the HDD to various
stresses (heat/cold, vibration, intense workout, manufacturer's test
program, etc). Then suddenly, after about a week, it started working,
and still works! (of course, all the data was long rewritten million
times :/)

If the cause is a media defect, I don't believe there's any chance of
recovering anymore data. If it failed because of a 'mild' head-crash,
you'd want to be very careful with the drive, and make a copy ASAP;
don't move it around too much.

[SorAlx] ridin' VN1500-B2
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What is the point of RAID?
    ... "adding more drives only increases the chances of the whole array to ... that's exactly what I mean by least chance of failure. ... RAID-5 always grows in storage not redundancy, and fails as soon as any two ...
    (Debian-User)
  • Re: FYI: RAID5 unusably unstable through 2.6.14
    ... add disks the probability of a single failure is grows linearly, but the probability of double failure grows much more slowly. ... If 1 disk has a 1/1000 chance of failure, ... After the first drive fails you have no redundancy, the chance of an additional failure is linear to the number of remaining drives. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: FYI: RAID5 unusably unstable through 2.6.14
    ... add disks the probability of a single failure is grows linearly, but the probability of double failure grows much more slowly. ... I was speaking in the case of a RAID-5 set, where the minimum is 3 drives, so every additional drive increases the chance of a double fault condition. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Building a file server - advice please
    ... > So if you have a 1% failure rate in one year of operation, ... > 4.9% chance of losing at least one drive in one year. ... >> important reason to use a RAID system. ... >> drive failing and still work, the odds of a system failure with 5 drives ...
    (comp.os.linux.setup)