Re: could someone plz explain those ext3/hard disk errors

[Bill Davidsen]

John Bradford wrote:
> Quote from Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>:
>
> > John Bradford wrote:
> >
> > > > now...hm, it all started when i upgraded from kernel 2.4.19 to 2.6.0
> > > > in late decemeber, the system worked very fine for a week or so
> > > > (having great response times!) but then all of a sudden the problems
> > > > started. 2 disks died. then my gigabit network card was only able to
> > > > transmit 200kb/s (but this was really a hardware problem, a new card
> > > > is working fine again, well...). a week later the next disks are
> > > > having problems and i have yet to RMA three disks. and now the next
> > > > two disks..., i'm getting insane ;) i can't see any EXT3 error anymore
> > > > *g* the next disks will be reiserfs only to see other error messages
> > > > ;) well, but that doesn't solve the problem of 6 disks within 2
> > > > months...this is so unlikely.
> > >
> > >
> > > Please read the FAQ, fix your mail application - you are sending long
> > > lines, and don't break the CC list.
> > >
> > > As to your problem, look at the LBA sector addresses in the error
> > > message:
> > >
> > > 280923064991615
> > >
> > > is your drive really over 100 EB?  No...
> >
> > I think we could assume that (a) he never told the kernel the disk was 
> > "over 100 EB" and (b) the kernel was trying to use that LBA anyway. 
> > Which could be due to either a kernel bug or memory corruption (or CPU 
> > problems, but unlikely).
>
>
> What I was trying to point out is that the error message is clearly
> the result of a problem elsewhere.  Unless the drive firmware is
> buggy, or something very strange is going on inside the drive, (bad
> internal RAM or something like that), then the kernel did send a
> request for a sector which is well out of range.  What caused that
> request we don't know - quite possibly corruption of some filesystem
> structure on the disk caused that request, but it's important to be
> clear that the error message is the expected response to a request for
> such a high block number, and doesn't within itself indicate a problem
> with the disk.
>
> I.E. Even though there is every chance that the drive is faulty, the
> posted error message doesn't indicate a drive failiure in itself, and
> you should look elsewhere.

Yes, I think we are saying the same thing, and by now hopefully the O.P. 
has gotten that. I suspect non-disk cause, just my guess.

--
bill davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
  CTO TMR Associates, Inc
  Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/