| 1 |
On Wednesday, 9 November 2022 16:53:13 GMT Laurence Perkins wrote: |
| 2 |
> > |
| 3 |
> >-----Original Message----- |
| 4 |
> >From: Michael <confabulate@××××××××.com> |
| 5 |
> >Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2022 12:47 AM |
| 6 |
> >To: gentoo-user@l.g.o |
| 7 |
> >Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] e2fsck -c when bad blocks are in existing file? |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> >On Tuesday, 8 November 2022 18:24:41 GMT Wols Lists wrote: |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> >> MODERN DRIVES SHOULD NEVER HAVE AN OS-LEVEL BADBLOCKS LIST. If they |
| 13 |
> >> do, something is seriously wrong, because the drive should be hiding |
| 14 |
> >> it from the OS. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> >If you run badblocks or e2fsck you'll find the application asks to write |
| 18 |
> >data to the disk, at the end of the run. Yes, the drive's firmware should |
| 19 |
> >manage badblocks transparently to the filesystem, but I have observed in |
| 20 |
> >hdparm output reallocations of badblocks do not happen in real time. |
| 21 |
> >Perhaps the filesystem level badblocks list which is LBA based, acts as an |
| 22 |
> >intermediate step until the hardware triggers a reallocation? Not sure. |
| 23 |
> >:-/ |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> > |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Badblocks doesn't ask to write anything at the end of the run. You tell it |
| 28 |
> whether you want a read test, a write-read test or a |
| 29 |
> read-write-read-replace test at the beginning. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Not to labour the point, but 'e2fsck -v -c' runs a read test and at the end it |
| 32 |
informs me "... Updating bad block inode", even if it came across no read |
| 33 |
errors (0/0/0) and consequently does not prompt for a fs repair. |
Archives