[ale] SATA drive not recognized by BIOS

Steve Tynor stevejunk at iintiip.com
Wed Oct 25 11:55:46 EDT 2023


To follow up on how i managed to solve this...  The original failed 
drive was a WD 4T.  I tried two different Toshiba drives (8T and 4T) and 
neither were recognized by the Dell BIOS.   So I tried WD.   Their 8T 
was recognized by the BIOS, but its size was misidentified as 0T and the 
kernel refused to recognize it as a valid disk.   WD 6T, however, worked 
fine.  So I've build a new array with 6T WD.  Why the WD works and 
Toshiba didn't will remain a mystery.  I don't see anything significant 
in their spec sheets.

In any case, Hurray for RAID1 - I didn't lose any data and didn't have 
to resort to backups.

Steve


On 2023-10-15 8:50 PM, Steve Tynor via Ale wrote:
>
> Thanks Jim.    It's a software RAID via mdadm.   The array was 
> originally built with Ubuntu 18 - have kept it going through various 
> system upgrades - now on Ubuntu 22.  And you are right - I misspoke 
> when calling it LVM RAID - if my notes are right from back then, I 
> created it via the "full disk" partitions:
>
>     mdadm --create --verbose /dev/md0 --level=1 --raid-devices=2 
> /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1
>
> When these errors start happening, it brings the machine to its 
> knees.    Anything I can do to "repair" the array to avoid those 
> segments?  Even when the errors are happening, mdstat looks healthy:
>
>    ricotta:~> cat /proc/mdstat
>    Personalities : [raid1] [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid6] 
> [raid5] [raid4] [raid10]
>    md0 : active raid1 sdc1[0] sdb1[1]
>          3906884608 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU]
>          bitmap: 10/30 pages [40KB], 65536KB chunk
>
>    unused devices: <none>
>
> For now I've just removed the errant disk from the array again pending 
> inspiration...
>
> Steve
>
>
> On 2023-10-15 5:47 PM, Jim Kinney wrote:
>> The Errors look like the raid recognized a block/segment failure on 
>> sdb and handled it by redirects to a new location and copied in the 
>> data from the mirror.
>>
>> Is the the drive bad? Not yet. Sectors do fail in time.
>>
>> But raid system specified sdb, not sdb1, so the raid subsystem is 
>> either using the entire drive for sdb or there's a raid controlling 
>> hardware or software that is doing the low level hardware management 
>> and that layer needs to be worked on to recognize the new drive. It 
>> really sounds like there's a raid controller in there somewhere.
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2023, 2:40 PM Steve Tynor via Ale <ale at ale.org> wrote:
>>
>>     And I guess one more question...  I was not able to learn much
>>     about these errors from the interwebs, but perhaps they don't
>>     necessarily suggest an actual drive failure but some sort of soft
>>     problem with the array - perhaps repartition the bad drive and
>>     add it back to the array and hope the errors don't come back?  
>>     The errors look scary to me, but most people on this list have a
>>     lot more sysadm chops than I do...
>>
>>     Oct 13 21:11:48 ricotta kernel: [714090.323895] md/raid1:md0:
>>     read error correct
>>     ed (8 sectors at 7339070832 on sdb1)
>>     Oct 13 21:12:01 ricotta kernel: [714104.108320] md/raid1:md0:
>>     redirecting sector
>>      7338806424 to other mirror: sdb1
>>     Oct 13 21:12:09 ricotta kernel: [714111.347389] ata2.00:
>>     exception Emask 0x0 SAc
>>     t 0x140000 SErr 0x0 action 0x0
>>     Oct 13 21:12:09 ricotta kernel: [714111.347501] ata2.00: irq_stat
>>     0x40000008
>>     Oct 13 21:12:09 ricotta kernel: [714111.347558] ata2.00: failed
>>     command: READ FP
>>     DMA QUEUED
>>     Oct 13 21:12:09 ricotta kernel: [714111.347621] ata2.00: cmd
>>     60/78:90:98:5c:71/0
>>     1:00:b5:01:00/40 tag 18 ncq dma 192512 in
>>     Oct 13 21:12:09 ricotta kernel: [714111.347621]          res
>>     41/40:00:88:5d:71/0
>>     0:00:b5:01:00/00 Emask 0x409 (media error) <F>
>>     Oct 13 21:12:09 ricotta kernel: [714111.347809] ata2.00: status:
>>     { DRDY ERR }
>>     Oct 13 21:12:09 ricotta kernel: [714111.347860] ata2.00: error: {
>>     UNC }
>>     Oct 13 21:12:09 ricotta kernel: [714111.350759] ata2.00:
>>     configured for UDMA/133
>>     Oct 13 21:12:09 ricotta kernel: [714111.350801] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb]
>>     tag#18 FAILED
>>     Result: hostbyte=DID_OK driverbyte=DRIVER_OK cmd_age=7s
>>     Oct 13 21:12:09 ricotta kernel: [714111.350811] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb]
>>     tag#18 Sense K
>>     ey : Medium Error [current]
>>     Oct 13 21:12:09 ricotta kernel: [714111.350817] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb]
>>     tag#18 Add. Se
>>     nse: Unrecovered read error - auto reallocate failed
>>     Oct 13 21:12:09 ricotta kernel: [714111.350824] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb]
>>     tag#18 CDB: Re
>>     ad(16) 88 00 00 00 00 01 b5 71 5c 98 00 00 01 78 00 00
>>     Oct 13 21:12:09 ricotta kernel: [714111.350827]
>>     blk_update_request: I/O error, d
>>     ev sdb, sector 7339072664 op 0x0:(READ) flags 0x0 phys_seg 47
>>     prio class 0
>>     Oct 13 21:12:09 ricotta kernel: [714111.351018] md/raid1:md0:
>>     sdb1: rescheduling
>>      sector 7338806424
>>     Oct 13 21:12:09 ricotta kernel: [714111.351111] ata2: EH complete
>>     Oct 13 21:12:20 ricotta kernel: [714122.174015] md/raid1:md0:
>>     redirecting sector
>>      7338806424 to other mirror: sdb1
>>     Oct 13 21:12:24 ricotta kernel: [714126.594981] ata2.00:
>>     exception Emask 0x0 SAc
>>     t 0x1000 SErr 0x0 action 0x0
>>     Oct 13 21:12:24 ricotta kernel: [714126.595089] ata2.00: irq_stat
>>     0x40000008
>>     Oct 13 21:12:24 ricotta kernel: [714126.595146] ata2.00: failed
>>     command: READ FP
>>     DMA QUEUED
>>     Oct 13 21:12:24 ricotta kernel: [714126.595209] ata2.00: cmd
>>     60/78:60:98:5c:71/0
>>     1:00:b5:01:00/40 tag 12 ncq dma 192512 in
>>     Oct 13 21:12:24 ricotta kernel: [714126.595209]          res
>>     41/40:00:78:5d:71/0
>>     0:00:b5:01:00/00 Emask 0x409 (media error) <F>
>>     Oct 13 21:12:24 ricotta kernel: [714126.603898] ata2.00: status:
>>     { DRDY ERR }
>>     Oct 13 21:12:24 ricotta kernel: [714126.608263] ata2.00: error: {
>>     UNC }
>>     Oct 13 21:12:24 ricotta kernel: [714126.615103] ata2.00:
>>     configured for UDMA/133
>>     Oct 13 21:12:24 ricotta kernel: [714126.615136] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb]
>>     tag#12 FAILED
>>     Result: hostbyte=DID_OK driverbyte=DRIVER_OK cmd_age=4s
>>     Oct 13 21:12:24 ricotta kernel: [714126.615145] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb]
>>     tag#12 Sense K
>>     ey : Medium Error [current]
>>     Oct 13 21:12:24 ricotta kernel: [714126.615151] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb]
>>     tag#12 Add. Se
>>     nse: Unrecovered read error - auto reallocate failed
>>     Oct 13 21:12:24 ricotta kernel: [714126.615158] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb]
>>     tag#12 CDB: Re
>>     ad(16) 88 00 00 00 00 01 b5 71 5c 98 00 00 01 78 00 00
>>     Oct 13 21:12:24 ricotta kernel: [714126.615162]
>>     blk_update_request: I/O error, d
>>     ev sdb, sector 7339072664 op 0x0:(READ) flags 0x0 phys_seg 47
>>     prio class 0
>>     Oct 13 21:12:24 ricotta kernel: [714126.619470] md/raid1:md0:
>>     sdb1: rescheduling
>>      sector 7338806424
>>     Oct 13 21:12:24 ricotta kernel: [714126.623671] ata2: EH complete
>>
>>     On 2023-10-15 3:01 PM, Steve Tynor via Ale wrote:
>>>
>>>     Forgot to include: the original WD drives are also "AF", so I
>>>     think that rules out sector size incompatibility.
>>>
>>>     Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>     On 2023-10-15 2:16 PM, Steve Tynor via Ale wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     I'm not certain how to be sure.  A quick duckduckgo search
>>>>     suggests that 4k native sector also being marketed as "Advanced
>>>>     Format" - is that right? Looking at the Toshiba spec page, I
>>>>     see AF listed as "Yes" for the 8T (the first drive I tried) and
>>>>     "No" for the 4T (which also didn't work).
>>>>
>>>>     https://storage.toshiba.com/docs/support-docs/toshiba_n300_salessheet_english_07-27-21.pdf?Status=Master
>>>>
>>>>     Steve
>>>>
>>>>     On 2023-10-15 2:08 PM, Robert Tweedy via Ale wrote:
>>>>>     Hi Steve,
>>>>>
>>>>>     Out of curiosity, are the new drives "4K native" sector
>>>>>     drives, and is this the same as the old drives you're
>>>>>     replacing? If the system's old enough its BIOS might not
>>>>>     support that & is expecting to have "512n" (512-native) or
>>>>>     "512e" (512-emulated) sector-size drives.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Other than that, I'm not sure what it could be beyond being
>>>>>     Toshiba brand (which I've personally never had good experience
>>>>>     with, but that's only anecdotal).
>>>>>
>>>>>     -Robert
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>     Ale mailing list
>>>>     Ale at ale.org
>>>>     https://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>>>>     See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
>>>>     http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     Ale mailing list
>>>     Ale at ale.org
>>>     https://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>>>     See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
>>>     http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Ale mailing list
>>     Ale at ale.org
>>     https://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>>     See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
>>     http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> https://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20231025/223ef825/attachment.htm>


More information about the Ale mailing list