[CentOS] CentOS-6.8 fsck report Maximal Count

Fri Mar 10 19:03:19 UTC 2017
Jay Hart <jhart at kevla.org>

I get up around 0630, u can come anytime after that. I want to hit the range that morning but if I
KNEW when you are arriving, I could plan around that...

> On Mar 10, 2017, at 9:28 AM, Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>> On Fri, March 10, 2017 9:52 am, Warren Young wrote:
>>> On Mar 10, 2017, at 6:32 AM, James B. Byrne <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, March 9, 2017 09:46, John Hodrien wrote:
>>>>> fsck's not good at finding disk errors, it finds filesystem errors.
>>>> If not fsck then what?
>>> badblocks(8).
>> And I definitely will unmount relevant filesystem(s) before using
>> badblocks…
> You don’t necessarily have to.  The default mode of badblocks is a non-invasive read-only test
> which is safe to run on a mounted filesystem.
> That said, a read-only badblocks pass can give a false “no errors” report in cases where a
> non-destructive read-then-write pass (-n) will show errors.
> Alternatively, a read-only pass may show an error that a read-then-write pass will silently bury
> by forcing the drive to relocate the bad sector.
> In extreme cases, you could potentially fix a problem with a read-random-random-write pass (-n -t
> random -t random) because that will statistically flip all the bits at least twice, which may rub
> the drive’s nose in a bad sector, forcing a reallocation where a normal read-then-write pass (-n
> alone) may not.
> Hard drives are weird.  It is only through the grace of ECC and such that they approximate
> deterministic behavior as well as they do.
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos