From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 18 10:30:37 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EDD816A4CE for ; Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:30:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pd3mo1so.prod.shaw.ca (shawidc-mo1.cg.shawcable.net [24.71.223.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A54FC43D49 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:30:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from soralx@cydem.org) Received: from pd2mr7so.prod.shaw.ca (pd2mr7so-qfe3.prod.shaw.ca [10.0.141.10])2004))freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Sat, 18 Dec 2004 03:30:36 -0700 (MST) Received: from pn2ml3so.prod.shaw.ca ([10.0.121.147]) by pd2mr7so.prod.shaw.ca (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0I8W00IIZYJ0VN80@pd2mr7so.prod.shaw.ca> for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Sat, 18 Dec 2004 03:30:36 -0700 (MST) Received: from 192.168.0.251 (S0106000103ce4c9c.ed.shawcable.net [68.149.254.167]) by l-daemon (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.18 (built Jul 28 2003)) with ESMTP id <0I8W00606YGV8P@l-daemon> for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Sat, 18 Dec 2004 03:30:36 -0700 (MST) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 03:29:16 -0700 From: soralx@cydem.org In-reply-to: <20041218042606.Q38974@odysseus.silby.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Message-id: <200412180329.16123.soralx@cydem.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline References: <41C3D62D.7000808@comcast.net> <20041218042606.Q38974@odysseus.silby.com> User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 Subject: Re: Multiple hard disk failures - coincidence ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:30:37 -0000 > > I've just had *THREE* Maxtor 250GB hard disk failures on my > > FreeBSD 4.10 server within a matter of days. One I could > > attribute to actual failure. Two made me suspicious. Three > > has me wondering if this is some software problem... (or > > a conspiracy (just kidding) ;-) ) > Are the errors occuring at around the same block numbers? I recall a > thread on -current talking about how some drives reported failures around > the 133GB mark. Soren recently committed a patch to -current changing the > point at which 48bit addressing is used to work around this. It may be > worth investigating. that would be different kind of error: ad0: FAILURE - READ_DMA status=51 error=10 LBA=268435455 Timestamp: 0x41C40644 [SorAlx] http://cydem.org.ua/ ridin' VN1500-B2