How to avoid data loss due to disk bad sectors?How Good RAID is in Protecting Us from Data Loss?Continuous...
Lay out the Carpet
Integer addition + constant, is it a group?
Proof of work - lottery approach
Return the Closest Prime Number
How do I go from 300 unfinished/half written blog posts, to published posts?
I'm in charge of equipment buying but no one's ever happy with what I choose. How to fix this?
Is a stroke of luck acceptable after a series of unfavorable events?
How does the UK government determine the size of a mandate?
Is there a good way to store credentials outside of a password manager?
What is the intuitive meaning of having a linear relationship between the logs of two variables?
Pre-amplifier input protection
How to check is there any negative term in a large list?
How did Arya survive the stabbing?
Inappropriate reference requests from Journal reviewers
Why not increase contact surface when reentering the atmosphere?
Opposite of a diet
How to run a prison with the smallest amount of guards?
How does Loki do this?
What is the opposite of 'gravitas'?
How do I find the solutions of the following equation?
Why escape if the_content isnt?
Sort a list by elements of another list
Avoiding estate tax by giving multiple gifts
Why are there no referendums in the US?
How to avoid data loss due to disk bad sectors?
How Good RAID is in Protecting Us from Data Loss?Continuous scanning of hard disk for bad sectorsRecover affected text files from damaged hard disk (bad sectors)is it safe to copy data from hard disk having bad sectorCould there be data loss on hard drive due to reallocated sectors?Bad sectors on hard drive = corrupted files?Unable to Write Zeros to Bad Sectors/Hard Disk Not Counting Reallocated SectorsBad sectors vs spare/reserve sectors and how the OS and disk interpret themCan BSOD cause bad sectors on a hard drive?When a sector of HDD is marked as bad, how to 'move' the data to a safest point?
As the title says, I am concerning about, how can we avoid data loss due to harddisk (either mechanical HDD or SSD) bad sectors.
More information
Question is well defined. Question ends here. Let me try to provide more information. Storage device failure (hardware failure, excluding virus thingy first) mainly split into two types.
Entire disk fault. Anything mechanically and/or electronically goes wrong inside the disk, makes the disk not accessible.
Bad sector. Only a certain part is fault. The entire disk appears to be working fine. If that certain bad sector is not accessed/checked, we will never know there is a bad sector.
RAID cannot avoid data loss due to bad sectors
RAID1, RAID5 or RAID6 can avoid data loss due to case 1. However, as far as I know, standard RAID will not scan and check all the data regularly, which means RAID cannot avoid data loss due to case 2. For example, in the case of RAID1 mirror. If a bad sector appears in the first disk, a file is corrupted in the first disk. At that time, we still have the mirrored file in the second disk. But we do not know there is a bad sector. Thus, the RAID1 array will not indicate a disk fault, and will not trigger a recovery. Then time goes on and on, more and more bad sectors appears. (Every hardware worn out, it is just a matter of time.) There is definitely a chance that the exact mirrored bit / mirrored part in the second disk suffer from a bad sector too. At this time, there are no more redundant copies. The affected data will be loss forever. Similarly, we will not notice this immediately. We will only find out this loss until we access that piece of data.
Is ZFS (a filesystem with checksum) a solution?
Because of the concern that I wish to avoid data loss due to bad sectors, I started looking into the file checksum thingy. It seems that not many popular filesystems include checksum of every file. I have some knowledge with Gentoo Linux. Thus I am planning to use ZFS on Gentoo Linux.
The ideas of ZFS that "Administration of storage should be simple" and "Redundancy should be handled by the filesystem" are good. It seems to me that if a bad sector occurs in a ZFS disk, it will recovery it silently (Isn't it? I cannot confirm this yet). If more and more bad sectors arise in a ZFS disk, does it mean the size of that ZFS disk will shrink? If not, how can I notice when a bad sector happens? How do I know when the harddisk bad sectors are too many and I have to replace it with another healthy harddisk? I guess I need some ZFS monitors and ZFS utilities, which I cannot find much information on the Internet.
hard-drive raid data-recovery zfs bad-sectors
asked 9 mins ago
midnitemidnite
1852412
add a comment |
As the title says, I am concerning about, how can we avoid data loss due to harddisk (either mechanical HDD or SSD) bad sectors.
More information
Question is well defined. Question ends here. Let me try to provide more information. Storage device failure (hardware failure, excluding virus thingy first) mainly split into two types.
Entire disk fault. Anything mechanically and/or electronically goes wrong inside the disk, makes the disk not accessible.
Bad sector. Only a certain part is fault. The entire disk appears to be working fine. If that certain bad sector is not accessed/checked, we will never know there is a bad sector.
RAID cannot avoid data loss due to bad sectors
RAID1, RAID5 or RAID6 can avoid data loss due to case 1. However, as far as I know, standard RAID will not scan and check all the data regularly, which means RAID cannot avoid data loss due to case 2. For example, in the case of RAID1 mirror. If a bad sector appears in the first disk, a file is corrupted in the first disk. At that time, we still have the mirrored file in the second disk. But we do not know there is a bad sector. Thus, the RAID1 array will not indicate a disk fault, and will not trigger a recovery. Then time goes on and on, more and more bad sectors appears. (Every hardware worn out, it is just a matter of time.) There is definitely a chance that the exact mirrored bit / mirrored part in the second disk suffer from a bad sector too. At this time, there are no more redundant copies. The affected data will be loss forever. Similarly, we will not notice this immediately. We will only find out this loss until we access that piece of data.
Is ZFS (a filesystem with checksum) a solution?
Because of the concern that I wish to avoid data loss due to bad sectors, I started looking into the file checksum thingy. It seems that not many popular filesystems include checksum of every file. I have some knowledge with Gentoo Linux. Thus I am planning to use ZFS on Gentoo Linux.
The ideas of ZFS that "Administration of storage should be simple" and "Redundancy should be handled by the filesystem" are good. It seems to me that if a bad sector occurs in a ZFS disk, it will recovery it silently (Isn't it? I cannot confirm this yet). If more and more bad sectors arise in a ZFS disk, does it mean the size of that ZFS disk will shrink? If not, how can I notice when a bad sector happens? How do I know when the harddisk bad sectors are too many and I have to replace it with another healthy harddisk? I guess I need some ZFS monitors and ZFS utilities, which I cannot find much information on the Internet.
hard-drive raid data-recovery zfs bad-sectors
asked 9 mins ago
midnitemidnite
1852412
add a comment |
As the title says, I am concerning about, how can we avoid data loss due to harddisk (either mechanical HDD or SSD) bad sectors.
More information
Question is well defined. Question ends here. Let me try to provide more information. Storage device failure (hardware failure, excluding virus thingy first) mainly split into two types.
Entire disk fault. Anything mechanically and/or electronically goes wrong inside the disk, makes the disk not accessible.
Bad sector. Only a certain part is fault. The entire disk appears to be working fine. If that certain bad sector is not accessed/checked, we will never know there is a bad sector.
RAID cannot avoid data loss due to bad sectors
RAID1, RAID5 or RAID6 can avoid data loss due to case 1. However, as far as I know, standard RAID will not scan and check all the data regularly, which means RAID cannot avoid data loss due to case 2. For example, in the case of RAID1 mirror. If a bad sector appears in the first disk, a file is corrupted in the first disk. At that time, we still have the mirrored file in the second disk. But we do not know there is a bad sector. Thus, the RAID1 array will not indicate a disk fault, and will not trigger a recovery. Then time goes on and on, more and more bad sectors appears. (Every hardware worn out, it is just a matter of time.) There is definitely a chance that the exact mirrored bit / mirrored part in the second disk suffer from a bad sector too. At this time, there are no more redundant copies. The affected data will be loss forever. Similarly, we will not notice this immediately. We will only find out this loss until we access that piece of data.
Is ZFS (a filesystem with checksum) a solution?
Because of the concern that I wish to avoid data loss due to bad sectors, I started looking into the file checksum thingy. It seems that not many popular filesystems include checksum of every file. I have some knowledge with Gentoo Linux. Thus I am planning to use ZFS on Gentoo Linux.
The ideas of ZFS that "Administration of storage should be simple" and "Redundancy should be handled by the filesystem" are good. It seems to me that if a bad sector occurs in a ZFS disk, it will recovery it silently (Isn't it? I cannot confirm this yet). If more and more bad sectors arise in a ZFS disk, does it mean the size of that ZFS disk will shrink? If not, how can I notice when a bad sector happens? How do I know when the harddisk bad sectors are too many and I have to replace it with another healthy harddisk? I guess I need some ZFS monitors and ZFS utilities, which I cannot find much information on the Internet.
hard-drive raid data-recovery zfs bad-sectors
asked 9 mins ago
midnitemidnite
1852412
As the title says, I am concerning about, how can we avoid data loss due to harddisk (either mechanical HDD or SSD) bad sectors.
More information
Question is well defined. Question ends here. Let me try to provide more information. Storage device failure (hardware failure, excluding virus thingy first) mainly split into two types.
Entire disk fault. Anything mechanically and/or electronically goes wrong inside the disk, makes the disk not accessible.
Bad sector. Only a certain part is fault. The entire disk appears to be working fine. If that certain bad sector is not accessed/checked, we will never know there is a bad sector.
RAID cannot avoid data loss due to bad sectors
RAID1, RAID5 or RAID6 can avoid data loss due to case 1. However, as far as I know, standard RAID will not scan and check all the data regularly, which means RAID cannot avoid data loss due to case 2. For example, in the case of RAID1 mirror. If a bad sector appears in the first disk, a file is corrupted in the first disk. At that time, we still have the mirrored file in the second disk. But we do not know there is a bad sector. Thus, the RAID1 array will not indicate a disk fault, and will not trigger a recovery. Then time goes on and on, more and more bad sectors appears. (Every hardware worn out, it is just a matter of time.) There is definitely a chance that the exact mirrored bit / mirrored part in the second disk suffer from a bad sector too. At this time, there are no more redundant copies. The affected data will be loss forever. Similarly, we will not notice this immediately. We will only find out this loss until we access that piece of data.
Is ZFS (a filesystem with checksum) a solution?
Because of the concern that I wish to avoid data loss due to bad sectors, I started looking into the file checksum thingy. It seems that not many popular filesystems include checksum of every file. I have some knowledge with Gentoo Linux. Thus I am planning to use ZFS on Gentoo Linux.
The ideas of ZFS that "Administration of storage should be simple" and "Redundancy should be handled by the filesystem" are good. It seems to me that if a bad sector occurs in a ZFS disk, it will recovery it silently (Isn't it? I cannot confirm this yet). If more and more bad sectors arise in a ZFS disk, does it mean the size of that ZFS disk will shrink? If not, how can I notice when a bad sector happens? How do I know when the harddisk bad sectors are too many and I have to replace it with another healthy harddisk? I guess I need some ZFS monitors and ZFS utilities, which I cannot find much information on the Internet.
hard-drive raid data-recovery zfs bad-sectors
hard-drive raid data-recovery zfs bad-sectors
asked 9 mins ago
midnitemidnite
1852412
asked 9 mins ago
midnitemidnite
1852412
asked 9 mins ago
midnitemidnite
1852412
asked 9 mins ago
midnitemidnite
1852412
asked 9 mins ago
midnitemidnite
1852412
1852412
add a comment |
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "3"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1418467%2fhow-to-avoid-data-loss-due-to-disk-bad-sectors%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1418467%2fhow-to-avoid-data-loss-due-to-disk-bad-sectors%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
