[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       dragonfly-users
Subject:    Re: Hammer recover question
From:       Tim Darby <t+dfbsd () timdarby ! net>
Date:       2011-02-20 23:20:20
Message-ID: AANLkTi=Xu34swRvrDwuKuWmE3DQNNX7EdTNd=mBSHoHb () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Thanks, guys.  Yes, I can see how it would slow down on the bad spots.  I'm
just happy it's working as well as it is and I'll try to be patient.  Any
way you can add a progress bar to this thing? :-)

Tim


On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Justin C. Sherrill <
justin@shiningsilence.com> wrote:

> On Sun, February 20, 2011 4:28 pm, Tim Darby wrote:
> > The good news is that it's recovering a ton of data!  The
> > bad news is that it's taking an incredible amount of time.  So far it's
> been
> > running 24 hours.  Is that to be expected?  The bad disk had
> approximately
> > 50GB on it, as reported by the df utility, but I don't know how much of
> > that is snapshots.
>
> I've had disks that go bad, and reading the raw data for recovery ends up
> being very, very slow just when trying to read from the actual 'bad'
> portions of disk.  So this could take quite a while, just because of how
> the physical disk is responding.
>
>

[Attachment #3 (text/html)]

<font face="tahoma,sans-serif">Thanks, guys.  Yes, I can see how it would slow down \
on the bad spots.  I&#39;m just happy it&#39;s working as well as it is and I&#39;ll \
try to be patient.  Any way you can add a progress bar to this thing? :-)</font><div>

<div><br></div>Tim<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Justin C. Sherrill \
<span dir="ltr">&lt;<a \
href="mailto:justin@shiningsilence.com">justin@shiningsilence.com</a>&gt;</span> \
wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px \
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">

<div class="im">On Sun, February 20, 2011 4:28 pm, Tim Darby wrote:<br>
&gt; The good news is that it&#39;s recovering a ton of data!  The<br>
&gt; bad news is that it&#39;s taking an incredible amount of time.  So far \
it&#39;s<br> been<br>
&gt; running 24 hours.  Is that to be expected?  The bad disk had approximately<br>
&gt; 50GB on it, as reported by the df utility, but I don&#39;t know how much of<br>
&gt; that is snapshots.<br>
<br>
</div>I&#39;ve had disks that go bad, and reading the raw data for recovery ends \
up<br> being very, very slow just when trying to read from the actual \
&#39;bad&#39;<br> portions of disk.  So this could take quite a while, just because \
of how<br> the physical disk is responding.<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]