Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
flambot

Possible Hard Drive Failure?? New to V6 Need some Advice

9 posts in this topic Last Reply

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Greetings,

 

Not sure if this is in the right place but it did say "Disk Issues"

 

Just upgraded to V6. Was reviewing the smart info on my drives. I've never been able to see the smart info for 6Tb drives in V5 under unmenu (and couldn't seem to update unmenu).

 

Seagate ST6000VN0041  - 6tb drive @ 6188 hours showing...

 

Raw read error rate = 55158135

Command timeout = 4295032833

Hardware ECC recovered = 55158135

 

This seems bad and searching seems to indicate the same thing. It is still under warranty (supposedly had 3 years) (Actually my newest and least full drive)

 

The smart info is included.

 

Appreciate any assistance. Thanks

 

Question, if the HDD fails during a parity check...will that void the parity info? I ask this because I am due for another parity check and probably would be a good idea if I need it to rebuild this drive.

tower-smart-20190815-1904.zip

Edited by flambot

Share this post


Link to post

Those values are bit dependent on Seagate drives so the raw values are essentially meaningless.    The rest of the SMART values look fine.

 

it is recommended that any regularily scheduled parity checks are set to be non-correcting.     That way if any errors are reported you have a chance to decide if it is drive playing up that needs replacing and the parity should be assumed to be valid.   If not you can then manually initiate a correcting check to bring parity back into line with the data drives.

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, itimpi said:

Those values are bit dependent on Seagate drives so the raw values are essentially meaningless.    The rest of the SMART values look fine.

 

it is recommended that any regularily scheduled parity checks are set to be non-correcting.     That way if any errors are reported you have a chance to decide if it is drive playing up that needs replacing and the parity should be assumed to be valid.   If not you can then manually initiate a correcting check to bring parity back into line with the data drives.

@itimpi  - I searched online and the view was that these sorts of numbers meant the drive was failing - so I'm very glas for your input. I have no idea about such things as I been very lucky with HDD's

 

What I do know is that writing to that drive takes a long time to start (the very first write) - usually the network timeout happens first - but the unRAID gui shows the hard is being constantly read - but NOT written too. This has been troubling, but I thought it was something to do with the reiserfs system and large drives.  Writing to this drive can take many minutes to start, but once it has, all consecutive write seems to happen without a hitch...until the day I start a write.

 

I have sent the smart info to my purchase store and requested a replacement. Time will tell if they think its suspect.

 

Really appreciate the help.. I should have a spare drive on tap - but you know how it is 🙄

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, flambot said:

What I do know is that writing to that drive takes a long time to start (the very first write) - usually the network timeout happens first

Is that drive formatted with reiserfs?

Share this post


Link to post

ReiserFS performing badly with full drives (especially for writes) is a known limitation so it is possible that is the cause but it is worth keeping an eye on the drive.   That performance limitation is one of the reasons ReiserFS is deprecated.   Other reasons include:

  • ReiserFS has a hard limit on drive size of 16TB and consumer drives are about to reach that limit.
  • The original developer is in jail for murdering his wife so no longer active.
  • Linux kernel support work on ReiserFS is minimal so there is always a worry a new kernel will break something with nobody willing to fix it.

If you decide that you want to migrate away from ReiserFS there is a forum sticky on the process.   

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, johnnie.black said:

Is that drive formatted with reiserfs?

Yes. All my server is. I would like to migrate away to xfs (don't really know what this is), but it will take some effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

here

16 hours ago, itimpi said:

ReiserFS performing badly with full drives (especially for writes) is a known limitation so it is possible that is the cause but it is worth keeping an eye on the drive.   That performance limitation is one of the reasons ReiserFS is deprecated.   Other reasons include: 

  • ReiserFS has a hard limit on drive size of 16TB and consumer drives are about to reach that limit.
  • The original developer is in jail for murdering his wife so no longer active.
  • Linux kernel support work on ReiserFS is minimal so there is always a worry a new kernel will break something with nobody willing to fix it.

If you decide that you want to migrate away from ReiserFS there is a forum sticky on the process.   

Quote

ReiserFS performing badly with full drives (especially for writes) is a known limitation

I thought this was the case, but this was doing it even when the drive was only half full - even when the space on the drive was more than this. AS I said above, would like to migrate away, but it'll take more expense and some planning. Currently all my SATA ports are used. I need a spare slot to format a drive as xfs. Maybe some day.

 

Waiting to hear back what the supplier thinks of this suspect drive.

 

Edit: I was reading another thread and more websites today (Having more time) and the unRAID thread mentioned an ill-seated SATA cable. I'll re-seat the cable, but I also have hot swap boxes, so I'll re-seat the drive as well. Perhaps this will help??

 

2nd Edit: As I suspected, the drive supplier got back to me with an RMA request - they want the drive back before anything is done. I can't send the drive back until I have a replacement - and there is also the possibility it isn't even defective. I'll re-seat the cables etc and see what the result is first.

 

I did find this link here which is interesting. I think I'll listen to the advice and take a wait and see attitude.

 

Edited by flambot

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, flambot said:

Yes. All my server is.

That's the problem with the transfer taking a long time start, timeouts, etc, not the disk.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, johnnie.black said:

That's the problem with the transfer taking a long time start, timeouts, etc, not the disk.

I thought that's what the issue was. One day I'll get changed over to xfs.

 

I have re-seated the HDD and the cables. Probably too early to see any change if one is going to happen. I'll keep an eye on it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this