SCO Unix 5.0.6, errors - SCO

This is a discussion on SCO Unix 5.0.6, errors - SCO ; Hi, I am getting the error(s); HTFS: Inode 11915 on HTFS dev hd (1/43) has bad type 000000000000 HTFS: I/O failure occured accessing logical block 477364230 on HTFS dev hd (1/43) and then the system shuts down. Is there any ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: SCO Unix 5.0.6, errors

  1. SCO Unix 5.0.6, errors

    Hi,
    I am getting the error(s);

    HTFS: Inode 11915 on HTFS dev hd (1/43) has bad type 000000000000
    HTFS: I/O failure occured accessing logical block 477364230 on HTFS dev
    hd (1/43)

    and then the system shuts down.

    Is there any way to fix these? We have done the command 'unix auto' at
    the Boot: prompt and it goes through its file system checks and appears
    to correct some problems. We have had some corruption on the database
    but were able to fix the problems.

    Our next plan of action is to clone the drive, but if anyone has any
    other suggestions for a way to fix this issue I would appreciate it.

    Lori Calkins


  2. Re: SCO Unix 5.0.6, errors

    It would help if you'd provided disk information, such as how many
    partitions. I'm guessing from what you provided that the problem is on
    the root partition. By default 5.0.6 doesn't check the root file
    system on an auto boot. What you're seeing is the file system checks
    on the rest of the partitions.

    When you get the Boot: prompt just press enter. Eventually you'll be
    prompted for the root password to enter maintenance mode. Do that.
    Then type

    fsck /

    Ray Robert
    Three Star Software

    Lori wrote:
    > Hi,
    > I am getting the error(s);
    >
    > HTFS: Inode 11915 on HTFS dev hd (1/43) has bad type 000000000000
    > HTFS: I/O failure occured accessing logical block 477364230 on HTFS dev
    > hd (1/43)
    >
    > and then the system shuts down.
    >
    > Is there any way to fix these? We have done the command 'unix auto' at
    > the Boot: prompt and it goes through its file system checks and appears
    > to correct some problems. We have had some corruption on the database
    > but were able to fix the problems.
    >
    > Our next plan of action is to clone the drive, but if anyone has any
    > other suggestions for a way to fix this issue I would appreciate it.
    >
    > Lori Calkins



  3. Re: SCO Unix 5.0.6, errors

    ThreeStar wrote (on Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 03:51:52PM -0800):
    > It would help if you'd provided disk information, such as how many
    > partitions. I'm guessing from what you provided that the problem is on
    > the root partition. By default 5.0.6 doesn't check the root file
    > system on an auto boot. What you're seeing is the file system checks
    > on the rest of the partitions.
    >
    > When you get the Boot: prompt just press enter. Eventually you'll be
    > prompted for the root password to enter maintenance mode. Do that.
    > Then type
    >
    > fsck /
    >
    > Ray Robert
    > Three Star Software


    You may need to type 'fsck -ofull /' to get any useful results.

    --
    _________________________________________
    Nachman Yaakov Ziskind, FSPA, LLM awacs@ziskind.us
    Attorney and Counselor-at-Law http://ziskind.us
    Economic Group Pension Services http://egps.com
    Actuaries and Employee Benefit Consultants

  4. Re: SCO Unix 5.0.6, errors

    There is only one partition...I will try going into single user mode
    and running the fsck -ofull.

    Thank you,

    Lori
    Nachman Yaakov Ziskind wrote:
    > ThreeStar wrote (on Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 03:51:52PM -0800):
    > > It would help if you'd provided disk information, such as how many
    > > partitions. I'm guessing from what you provided that the problem is on
    > > the root partition. By default 5.0.6 doesn't check the root file
    > > system on an auto boot. What you're seeing is the file system checks
    > > on the rest of the partitions.
    > >
    > > When you get the Boot: prompt just press enter. Eventually you'll be
    > > prompted for the root password to enter maintenance mode. Do that.
    > > Then type
    > >
    > > fsck /
    > >
    > > Ray Robert
    > > Three Star Software

    >
    > You may need to type 'fsck -ofull /' to get any useful results.
    >
    > --
    > _________________________________________
    > Nachman Yaakov Ziskind, FSPA, LLM awacs@ziskind.us
    > Attorney and Counselor-at-Law http://ziskind.us
    > Economic Group Pension Services http://egps.com
    > Actuaries and Employee Benefit Consultants



  5. Re: SCO Unix 5.0.6, errors


    Lori wrote:
    > There is only one partition...I will try going into single user mode
    > and running the fsck -ofull.
    >
    > Thank you,
    >
    > Lori
    > Nachman Yaakov Ziskind wrote:
    > > ThreeStar wrote (on Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 03:51:52PM -0800):
    > > > It would help if you'd provided disk information, such as how many
    > > > partitions. I'm guessing from what you provided that the problem is on
    > > > the root partition. By default 5.0.6 doesn't check the root file
    > > > system on an auto boot. What you're seeing is the file system checks
    > > > on the rest of the partitions.
    > > >
    > > > When you get the Boot: prompt just press enter. Eventually you'll be
    > > > prompted for the root password to enter maintenance mode. Do that.
    > > > Then type
    > > >
    > > > fsck /
    > > >
    > > > Ray Robert
    > > > Three Star Software

    > >
    > > You may need to type 'fsck -ofull /' to get any useful results.


    This might be a hard drive error rather than a fs confusion. Check
    /var/adm/messages for NOTICE messages. Of course it can also be bad
    ram or bad disk controller. But yes, start with fsck -o full.

    --
    Tony Lawrence
    Unix/Linux/Mac OS X Resources
    http://aplawrence.com


  6. Re: SCO Unix 5.0.6, errors

    Hi,
    I didn't see any 'NOTICE' messages except for the error messages that I
    prevously asked about.
    I did the 'fsck -ofull' and plan on cloning the drive, although this is
    a pc with raid 0 set up.

    Since I could not be on site, I had walked the customer through doing
    the filesystem check.

    Thank you for your help.

    Lori

    Lori wrote:
    > There is only one partition...I will try going into single user mode
    > and running the fsck -ofull.
    >
    > Thank you,
    >
    > Lori
    > Nachman Yaakov Ziskind wrote:
    > > ThreeStar wrote (on Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 03:51:52PM -0800):
    > > > It would help if you'd provided disk information, such as how many
    > > > partitions. I'm guessing from what you provided that the problem is on
    > > > the root partition. By default 5.0.6 doesn't check the root file
    > > > system on an auto boot. What you're seeing is the file system checks
    > > > on the rest of the partitions.
    > > >
    > > > When you get the Boot: prompt just press enter. Eventually you'll be
    > > > prompted for the root password to enter maintenance mode. Do that.
    > > > Then type
    > > >
    > > > fsck /
    > > >
    > > > Ray Robert
    > > > Three Star Software

    > >
    > > You may need to type 'fsck -ofull /' to get any useful results.
    > >
    > > --
    > > _________________________________________
    > > Nachman Yaakov Ziskind, FSPA, LLM awacs@ziskind.us
    > > Attorney and Counselor-at-Law http://ziskind.us
    > > Economic Group Pension Services http://egps.com
    > > Actuaries and Employee Benefit Consultants



  7. Re: SCO Unix 5.0.6, errors


    Lori لنشتم است:
    > Hi,
    > I am getting the error(s);
    >
    > HTFS: Inode 11915 on HTFS dev hd (1/43) has bad type 000000000000
    > HTFS: I/O failure occured accessing logical block 477364230 on HTFS dev
    > hd (1/43)
    >
    > and then the system shuts down.
    >
    > Is there any way to fix these? We have done the command 'unix auto' at
    > the Boot: prompt and it goes through its file system checks and appears
    > to correct some problems. We have had some corruption on the database
    > but were able to fix the problems.
    >
    > Our next plan of action is to clone the drive, but if anyone has any
    > other suggestions for a way to fix this issue I would appreciate it.
    >
    > Lori Calkins



  8. Re: SCO Unix 5.0.6, errors

    On 29 Dec 2006 08:06:01 -0800, "Lori" wrote:

    -I did the 'fsck -ofull' and plan on cloning the drive, although this is
    -a pc with raid 0 set up.

    Just as a matter of interest - why are you using RAID 0 at all?

    regards

    -Rob
    robatwork at mail dot com

  9. Re: SCO Unix 5.0.6, errors

    I am sorry, we are using RAID 1....It wasn't a decision I was included
    in on, it was recommended by our Corporate office (I think).

    -Lori
    Rob S wrote:
    > On 29 Dec 2006 08:06:01 -0800, "Lori" wrote:
    >
    > -I did the 'fsck -ofull' and plan on cloning the drive, although this is
    > -a pc with raid 0 set up.
    >
    > Just as a matter of interest - why are you using RAID 0 at all?
    >
    > regards
    >
    > -Rob
    > robatwork at mail dot com



  10. Re: SCO Unix 5.0.6, errors

    On 3 Jan 2007 05:34:30 -0800, "Lori" wrote:

    -I am sorry, we are using RAID 1....It wasn't a decision I was included
    -in on, it was recommended by our Corporate office (I think).
    -
    Raid 1 is entirely different to Raid 0 - and to be recommended.....

    I can't imagine any scenario in business where you would use Raid 0.


    -Rob
    robatwork at mail dot com

  11. Re: SCO Unix 5.0.6, errors

    In article <459df990.11442546@giganews.nildram.co.uk>,
    Rob S wrote:
    >On 3 Jan 2007 05:34:30 -0800, "Lori" wrote:
    >
    >-I am sorry, we are using RAID 1....It wasn't a decision I was included
    >-in on, it was recommended by our Corporate office (I think).


    >Raid 1 is entirely different to Raid 0 - and to be recommended.....


    >I can't imagine any scenario in business where you would use Raid 0.


    In the past it was about the only way to gain large data spaces
    as the HD's were so much smaller. I ran a striped RAID 0 across
    three 600MB drives as there were no decently priced 1GB drives, and
    darned few of them.

    The speed increase is also a factor - not too significant now with
    the current drives.

    We knew the potential problems and there were nightly verified
    backups of BackupEdge - or whatever it's name then.

    The client was aware that he could lose any days work of any given
    day, but the space and speed were needed so that was approved.

    I guess it all depends upon the business model you use to determine
    which RAID model to use.

    Bill

    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

  12. Re: SCO Unix 5.0.6, errors

    On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 22:15:01 GMT, bv@wjv.com (Bill Vermillion) wrote:


    -
    -In the past it was about the only way to gain large data spaces
    -as the HD's were so much smaller. I ran a striped RAID 0 across
    -three 600MB drives as there were no decently priced 1GB drives, and
    -darned few of them.
    -

    Yep I suppose in the past limitations with disk price and BIOS support were
    factors. This kind of thing scares me:

    http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?pid=10188

    I would maintain now there isn't a sensible business model for plain Raid 0, now
    that 0+1, 1+0, 10 etc are available. Oh and I suppose Raid 0 should be aid 0,
    cos there's no element of R at all!

    rgds


    -Rob
    robatwork at mail dot com

  13. Re: SCO Unix 5.0.6, errors

    In article <459e5f49.20893109@giganews.nildram.co.uk>, Rob S
    wrote:

    >On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 22:15:01 GMT, bv@wjv.com (Bill Vermillion)
    >wrote:
    >
    >
    >-
    >-In the past it was about the only way to gain large data spaces
    >-as the HD's were so much smaller.


    That depends upon the business. And there are instances when
    having any RAID at all doesn't make good business sense. And that
    would be in a system that is primarily read-only

    Years ago when the drives were much smaller I saw a team of SGI
    engineers swapping out 400 - FOUR HUNDRED - 2GB drive for the same
    number of 4GB drives - as they were running out of space.
    THere were two rows of 6 foot tall racks with long differential
    SCSI cables connecting to the servers. Those cables were about 75
    feet long and EXPENSIVE.

    This was basically a running prototype system for what is now
    called VOD - Video On Demand.

    RAID in an instance like that would mean lost of total capacity in
    what is essentially a read-only system. In a place like that
    it would be easier and less costly to replace a failed drive
    and then restore from tape backups. The largest tape backup
    system I saw - at a server style show - held 12 PETABYTES - with
    robotic arms addressing hundred of cartridge tapes - all of which
    at that time were in the 90GB to 160GB capactiy. And when you
    needed more storage you just added another rack and more rails for
    the robotic arms to travel upon. The unit I saw was about
    10-12 feet wide.


    >I ran a striped RAID 0 across
    >-three 600MB drives as there were no decently priced 1GB drives,
    >-and darned few of them.


    >Yep I suppose in the past limitations with disk price and BIOS
    >support were factors. This kind of thing scares me:


    >http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?pid=10188


    What scares me about that is that is is USB 2.0. I just don't
    think that belongs in a performance environment. And I wonder who
    builds their HDs as there are only a handful HD manufactures
    extant.

    Go to www.apple.com and look under products for the Xraid devices.
    Sure it's more expensive - $5999 list for 1TB of hot-swappable
    drives - but uses a 2Gb fiber-channel transfer. All that in
    a rack-mount that looks to be a 4RU chassis. I guess it all
    depends on how much you value your data - as one costs
    10 times the other.

    >I would maintain now there isn't a sensible business model for
    >plain Raid 0, now that 0+1, 1+0, 10 etc are available. Oh and I
    >suppose Raid 0 should be aid 0, cos there's no element of R at
    >all!


    And one heavily used model is RAID-5, with RAID-6 popping up more
    often now.

    If you look at the specs for the RAID designations - and there are
    many - you will find that the standards group gratuitously gave
    the term RAID 0 to stripped arrays while admiting they weren't RAID
    arrays in the strict sense.

    >
    >rgds
    >
    >
    >-Rob
    >robatwork at mail dot com



    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

+ Reply to Thread