New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Tagging obscure OS fan @WWS
@deadbeef Solaris is hardly obscure, you scum.
This is likely running under SmartOS (looks like it), and no, there's no direct drive SMART access under that OS with the SCSI emulation layer AFAIK.
The wizard has spoken, thread can be closed.
Thank you @WSS !
Welp... with that SECOND screenshot..
I'd say there's a problem. Could be OS or hardware. Really looks like hardware.
What points you to that on the second screenshot? Or are you just pulling my leg?
Oh, the hard errors? I assume that's a bad value then?
I've never had errors in SmartOS, but I assume there is enough of a Solaris base that this is either a corrupt filesystem, or a dying drive. Solaris/x86 was always a joke, but I miss it these days.
If it isn't headless, I'd boot from CD and do a fsck on it. If you've only got ssh into it, consider
fsck -F ufs /dev/rdsk/c3t1d0s0
Thank you, just did and I suppose it doesn't look good.
What is the etiquette for these kinds of results? Asking for replacement?
Disk 1:
Disk 2:
That error_rate on 2 is strange. I'd back it up, then newfs it and see how it behaves.
It's a new, empty install
Check the SATA cable, then try a different port.
One sec, teleporting at @virmach 's location...
lol you requested SmartOS?
It came with CentOS and IPMI
No wonder the drive committed suicide.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
The output of your smartctl screenshots look fine. It's common to see numbers on multi and raw. You can run a short and long test on them to see the results of those too.
Here's one of my drives: