Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 18:46:41 -0700 From: David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: drive selection for disk arrays Message-ID: <ad2d65c8-b3ef-de46-42b6-102794c33a9d@holgerdanske.com> In-Reply-To: <8e74482f-b951-ee97-50b8-04ea1f0d46a3@denninger.net> References: <20200325081814.GK35528@mithril.foucry.net> <713db821-8f69-b41a-75b7-a412a0824c43@holgerdanske.com> <20200326124648725158537@bob.proulx.com> <alpine.BSF.2.21.9999.2003261630030.47777@mail2.nber.org> <20200327104555.1d6d7cd9.freebsd@edvax.de> <1bcd7aa2-31e5-91f1-5151-926c9d16e16e@holgerdanske.com> <8e74482f-b951-ee97-50b8-04ea1f0d46a3@denninger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2020-03-27 17:45, Karl Denninger wrote: > > On 3/27/2020 19:39, David Christensen wrote: >> On 2020-03-27 02:45, Polytropon wrote: >> >>> When a drive _reports_ bad sectors, at least in the past >>> it was an indication that it already _has_ lots of them. >>> The drive's firmware will remap bad sectors to spare >>> sectors, so "no error" so far. >> >> If a drive detects an error, my guess is that it will report the error >> to the OS; regardless of the outcome of a particular I/O operation >> (data read, data written, data lost) or internal actions taken (block >> marked bad, block remapped, etc.). It is then up to the OS to decide >> what to do next. RAID and/or ZFS offer the means for shielding the >> application from I/O and drive failures. >> > Yes, but... > > Those drives that can do "SMART" will report (if you have a patrol > daemon for it running) if they do a "silent" sector reassignment. > Otherwise the OS is none the wiser and neither is ZFS (or anything > else.) I guess I need to RTFM: https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/technical-specifications/serial-ata-ahci-spec-rev1-3-1.pdf > Needless to say if reassignments increase you might want to > think about swapping the drive *before* it blows up! Agreed. > I have the daemon running on all my machines. It works nicely and has > warned me a few times over the years. With that said it doesn't ALWAYS > catch a drive before it pukes. Are you referring to periodic, smartd, or something else? # pkg install smartmontools Updating FreeBSD repository catalogue... FreeBSD repository is up to date. All repositories are up to date. The following 1 package(s) will be affected (of 0 checked): New packages to be INSTALLED: smartmontools: 7.0_2 Number of packages to be installed: 1 The process will require 2 MiB more space. 495 KiB to be downloaded. [1/1] Fetching smartmontools-7.0_2.txz: 100% 495 KiB 507.1kB/s 00:01 Checking integrity... done (0 conflicting) [1/1] Installing smartmontools-7.0_2... [1/1] Extracting smartmontools-7.0_2: 100% ===== Message from smartmontools-7.0_2: -- smartmontools has been installed To check the status of drives, use the following: /usr/local/sbin/smartctl -a /dev/ad0 for first ATA/SATA drive /usr/local/sbin/smartctl -a /dev/da0 for first SCSI drive /usr/local/sbin/smartctl -a /dev/ada0 for first SATA drive To include drive health information in your daily status reports, add a line like the following to /etc/periodic.conf: daily_status_smart_devices="/dev/ad0 /dev/da0" substituting the appropriate device names for your SMART-capable disks. To enable drive monitoring, you can use /usr/local/sbin/smartd. A sample configuration file has been installed as /usr/local/etc/smartd.conf.sample Copy this file to /usr/local/etc/smartd.conf and edit appropriately To have smartd start at boot echo 'smartd_enable="YES"' >> /etc/rc.conf David
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ad2d65c8-b3ef-de46-42b6-102794c33a9d>