Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:35:33 +0100 From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> To: =?UTF-8?B?RGFnLUVybGluZyBTbcO4cmdyYXY=?= <des@des.no> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A tool for remapping bad sectors in CURRENT? Message-ID: <4BA0BE85.8030206@quip.cz> In-Reply-To: <86pr338bak.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <20100308102918.GA5485@localhost> <4B94DDC8.5080008@quip.cz> <20100308115052.GA31896@office.redwerk.com> <4B94FBA6.5090107@quip.cz> <861vfq995i.fsf@ds4.des.no> <4B9BF957.4060507@quip.cz> <86eijn3of2.fsf@ds4.des.no> <4B9CB287.9080205@quip.cz> <86pr338bak.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Miroslav Lachman<000.fbsd@quip.cz> writes: >> The LBA of bad sector is *79725167* [...] s1 starts 63 sectors from >> the beginning of the drive and /var/db has offset 39845888. So am I >> right that I need to find block number *39879105* by findblk command? > > Uh, 79725167 - 63 = 79725104 and 79725104 - 39845888 = 39879216. How > did you arrive at 39879105? I am sorry, it was my confusion. My calculation was for *LBA=79725056* reported in messages: ad4: FAILURE - READ_DMA status=51<READY,DSC,ERROR> error=40<UNCORRECTABLE> LBA=79725056 79725056 - 63 - 39845888 = *39879105* Your calculation is for LBA reported by SMART log 40 51 00 6f 82 c0 44 Error: UNC at LBA = 0x04c0826f = *79725167* That's why I get different result ;) I must pay more attention to the numbers next time! It is interesting that there are two different LBAs for "same" error (appeared at the same time) Miroslav Lachman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4BA0BE85.8030206>