Re: [SLE] frequent hard disk failures - 9.3?

From: Kevanf1 (kevanf1_at_gmail.com)
Date: 11/03/05

  • Next message: Kevanf1: "Re: [SLE] Suse 10 32-bit vs 64-bit"
    Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 16:20:53 +0000
    To: "suse-linux-e@suse.com" <suse-linux-e@suse.com>
    
    

    On 03/11/05, Carlos F Lange <carlos.lange@ualberta.ca> wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > Since I upgraded my 2 PCs at home and 9 PCs at the university
    > to SuSE 9.3 (clean install, all partitions ReiserFS) I had 4 hard
    > disks either crashing or showing bad sectors. In all cases the
    > failure is (I still need to confirm one case) hardware related
    > and there is no apparent pattern: they were Maxtor, Western Digital (2),
    > and Seagate disks, EIDE and SATA, new and old, on Intel and
    > on AMD boards, so I can't pin the blame on any particular
    > brand or type.
    >
    > But I can say that it is definitely an unusually high number of
    > hard disk failures. Since I am one of only 2 in the department
    > running SuSE and my colleague also had a hard disk crash
    > while running 9.3, whereas the rest of the MSerfs (and a couple
    > of Mac addicts) in the department may have lost one HD in
    > the same period, it is starting to look bad. :(
    >
    > I wonder if it is just here, or if someone else also noticed higher
    > number of crashes. I remember a previous thread from July,
    > where people tried to blame ReiserFS and others convinced them
    > it was mainly hardware. Well, hardware seems to be the case here,
    > but then again, SuSE and ReiserFS were the only things in common
    > among the 4 failed HDs I had in the past 4 months.
    > Am I seeing things, or what?
    >
    > Carlos
    > --

    Forgive me, but how on earth could a file system be held responsible
    for destroying a hard drive? I don't see how ext2, 3, ReiserFS, HFS,
    FAT, NTFS or any other could damage the drive. All they are doing is
    ordering the magnetic blocks of data on the platters. Aren't they?

    --
    ==============================================
    I am only human, please forgive me if I make a mistake it is not deliberate.
    ==============================================
    Take care.
    Kevan Farmer
    34 Hill Street
    Cheslyn Hay
    Staffordshire
    WS6 7HR
    -- 
    Check the headers for your unsubscription address
    For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com
    Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
    Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
    

  • Next message: Kevanf1: "Re: [SLE] Suse 10 32-bit vs 64-bit"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: [SLE] frequent hard disk failures - 9.3?
      ... Carlos F Lange wrote: ... > disks either crashing or showing bad sectors. ... SuSE and ReiserFS were the only things in common ... so guess under what conditions failures occur. ...
      (SuSE)
    • Re: Hardware vs software RAID these days...
      ... I was able to resurect the array and rebuild it. ... Just to add "flavour" to this, I have had a mid level hardware RAID box ... have a drive failure, we assumed something crapped on the internal (ie ... utility in C to recover the data off the disks after connecting the disks ...
      (uk.comp.os.linux)
    • Re: Again: fsck_ffs memory requirements
      ... (The price to pay for not having backups.) ... there's nothing an OS can do against hardware failure ... Disks are cheap these days. ... and store it in a safe place. ...
      (freebsd-questions)
    • Re: Building a file server - advice please
      ... > there really is no MTTF for raid arrays. ... > inverse of the failure rate, ... Sure - there's not even independence of the failures in different disks, ... repair and an expected failure time of at least 10000 days, ...
      (comp.os.linux.setup)
    • Re: Intel abandons USEnet news
      ... If one takes at face value the number offered up by manufacturers for the incidence of unreadable sectors, then the incidence of ... Since the vendors rate these disks for 24/7 operation, and we've previously calculated that you can read or write the entire surface at least every 5 hours, you could install them in a video surveillance setup and get an unrecoverable error every 3 days. ... Anyway, since their error numbers are based on actual read verification, with failing drives being flagged, we know that it must be possible to read everything at least every week for a year with close to zero ... It is still possible that what happens during the verification stage is relatively regular unrecoverable read errors that are fixed immediately by re-writing the missing data to the same drive, which would have remapped the sector upon the initial read failure. ...
      (comp.arch)