Re: Shadow set problem finally solved

On Mar 14, 8:53 am, tadamsmar <tadams...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 13, 7:04 pm, moro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Moroney)
wrote:

tadamsmar<tadams...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Mar 13, 8:33=A0am,tadamsmar<tadams...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It worked! =A0I finally got a clean ANAL/DISK/SHADOW!
Opps, not quite there.  It ran clean on the single disk.  But when I
add the other disk to the shadowset it reported the 4 blocks with
errors.  VMS does not want to give these up without a fight.

Did you get those errors from $ ANAL/DISK/SHADOWor from when theshadow
copy was taking place?

From theshadowcopy.

If the latter, those bad blocks may already be
gone.

Due to speed/synchronization issues, ashadowcopy doesn't blindly copy
blocks from the source to the target.  It reads from the target and
compares them to the source.  If different, the source is copied to the
target.

Now, if the target had 4 blocks marked as bad, they would have been
reported during the read.  However, they would have been immediately
overwritten, and by now would be gone.

I guess you are saying that I got 4 read errors on the reads, but they
would have been overwritten, so that I would have never seen them
again.

Too late to confirm that idea on the disk that I have installed since
I erased it.  But I will probably reinstall the old disks and send the
new ones back to the vendor.  When  I put the old disk in, it will be
carrying 4 "bad" blocks, so I could confirm your idea.

This did confirm for one of the disks that I suspected was good. You
log errors during the merge, but never again. ANAL/DISK/SHAD runs
clean.

On a disk that I suspected of having some bad blocks (the one that
probably started this whole problem), I still get a parity errors on
the ANAL/DISK/SHAD.

This seems to be an ironic situation. If I were not shadowing, I
could run the bad block utility on this disk and then use it without
problems.
But in a shadow set, it will always a parity error for ANA/DISK/SHAD.
I could use it, but with spurious errors being reported for every full
merge and spurious failure on every run of ANAL/DISK/SHAD.

I have a good disk to replace this bad one, but I wonder if there is
some way around this, so I could use this disk without all the
spurious error reports. I might want to keep the disk, it just has a
few bad blocks.


I forgot about that.  If they're
reported by $ ANAL/DISK/SHADOW, I guess I don't know.

|

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Disk Partition Alignment aendern
    ... Server maximal 4 Disk verwednet werden koennen. ... gewünschten Antwortzeiten bei welchen Benutzerverhalten? ... welche ueber ISS und einen Webclient von Simultan Reports abfragen koennen. ... verwenden bei SQL, da der SQL dies selber besser handeln koenne. ...
    (microsoft.public.de.german.windows.server.general)
  • Re: Blank Documents
    ... "Jay Freedman" wrote: ... > doing -- if you save an empty document in Word, ... This is more probable if the disk is formatted as FAT16 or ... > Try running CHKDSK to see if it reports any problems on the drive. ...
    (microsoft.public.word.application.errors)
  • Re: Strange problems with HP 340 with XP home OS
    ... This it does and 99.9 percent of the time it reports zero ... It has "repaired" the disk. ... at prompt enter: fsutil dirty query C: ... no you did not enter it correctly did you open command prompt ...
    (uk.comp.homebuilt)
  • Re: Disk defrag says chkdsk needs to run (NTFS volume) but it does
    ... Check Disk - Disk Checking Runs Upon Boot ... reports that the drive IS dirty. ... Is there a way to force a chkdsk run? ... NB - You can manually check the state of the dirty flag for your C: ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Followup re AntiVirus Scanners; Nod32, Kaspersky, etc
    ... DMON when you disable it does give a warning that it will be ... at a Zip disk and there was no disk in the drive. ... NOD32 often reports problems opening some ZIP or RAR files. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)