gerhard911 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 After upgrading my server from beta 13 to RC4 (edit-it was 5.0-RC8a) I ran a parity check. No sync errors were found but immediately after the check finished unRaid red balled disk 7 (of nine). I left the disk in the server but removed it from the array, rebooted the server and restarted the array with disk 7 unassigned. The array came up in unprotected mode and looked fine from a data standpoint. I stopped the array and attempted to reassign the original disk 7 but it showed as unformatted and unRaid had the Format option greyed out. So I decided to run a preclear on the disk (it had been precleared before being initially added to the array). Here are the results: ============================================================= 1.12 = unRAID server Pre-Clear disk /dev/sde = cycle 1 of 1, partition start on sector 1 = Disk Pre-Clear-Read completed DONE = Step 1 of 10 - Copying zeros to first 2048k bytes DONE = Step 2 of 10 - Copying zeros to remainder of disk to clear it DONE = Step 3 of 10 - Disk is now cleared from MBR onward. DONE = Step 4 of 10 - Clearing MBR bytes for partition 2,3 & 4 DONE = Step 5 of 10 - Clearing MBR code area DONE = Step 6 of 10 - Setting MBR signature bytes DONE = Step 7 of 10 - Setting partition 1 to precleared state DONE = Step 8 of 10 - Notifying kernel we changed the partitioning DONE = Step 9 of 10 - Creating the /dev/disk/by* entries DONE = Step 10 of 10 - Verifying if the MBR is cleared. DONE = Disk Post-Clear-Read completed DONE Disk Temperature: 37C, Elapsed Time: 62:40:10 ========================================================================1.12 == WDC WD30EZRX-00MMMB0 WD-WCAWZ2393453 == Disk /dev/sde has been successfully precleared == with a starting sector of 1 ============================================================================ ** Changed attributes in files: /tmp/smart_start_sde /tmp/smart_finish_sde ATTRIBUTE NEW_VAL OLD_VAL FAILURE_THRESHOLD STATUS RAW_VALUE Raw_Read_Error_Rate = 172 200 51 ok 28610 Spin_Up_Time = 253 225 21 ok 3108 Seek_Error_Rate = 100 200 0 ok 0 Temperature_Celsius = 115 116 0 ok 37 No SMART attributes are FAILING_NOW 0 sectors were pending re-allocation before the start of the preclear. 6 sectors were pending re-allocation after pre-read in cycle 1 of 1. 0 sectors were pending re-allocation after zero of disk in cycle 1 of 1. 1 sector is pending re-allocation at the end of the preclear, a change of 1 in the number of sectors pending re-allocation. 0 sectors had been re-allocated before the start of the preclear. 0 sectors are re-allocated at the end of the preclear, the number of sectors re-allocated did not change. I am concerned about the sectors pending reallocation. I have a second preclear running now but wanted to get some feedback from those with more knowledge. TIA Link to comment
Joe L. Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 I would use the most recent version of the preclear script. You are using an older version. It may not write a proper preclear signature on drives > 2.2TB. Now, that will not be an issue when re-constructing an existing drive, but it will be an issue if adding a disk to an existing array.. A sector pending re-allocation that shows up in the post-read is an issue to be dealt with by an additional preclear. If the disk keeps on having additional sectors pending re-allocation, it is a candidate for RMA, even if not yet failed. Link to comment
gerhard911 Posted September 22, 2012 Author Share Posted September 22, 2012 Thanks for the response, Joe. I restarted the second preclear (it was still in pre-read) using v1.13. So where my first preclear ended with "1 sector is pending re-allocation at the end of the preclear" I am looking for the next run to show "0 sectors pending re-allocation at the end of the preclear". Fingers crossed. edit: I just realized I indicated I upgraded to unRaid 5.0-RC4. I have no idea where that came from, it was RC8a. I did not try any of the previous release candidates. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.