[j-nsp] SSD disks high failure ratio ?

[Paul Stewart]

Did you confirm by serial number that you were effected?  The reason I ask
is we had a pair of RE1800's that matched on part number but after JTAC
ran the serial numbers they re-assured us that we were not actually
effected (which is kind of scary in itself).

Paul


On 2013-10-07 7:58 PM, "Pierre-Yves Maunier" <j-nsp at maunier.org> wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I have affected REs, and before I had the knowledge of the KB, I found a
>workaround to repair the filesystem because the TAC was unable to tell me
>anything about this KB.
>
>After an upgrade from 12.2R1.8 to 12.3R4.6 I got this :
>
>=================== Bootstrap installer starting ===================
>Initialized the environment
>Routing engine model is RE-S-1800x4
>HW model is Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU           C5518  @ 1.73GHz
>[: kontron: unexpected operator
>Discovered that flash disk = ad0 , hard disk = ad1
>mount: /dev/ad1s1f : Invalid argument
>ERROR: mount_partition: Mount /dev/ad1s1f /mnt failed
>You are now in a debugging subshell (you may not see a prompt)Š
>#
>
>And after a reboot I got this :
>
>Automatic reboot in progress...
>** /dev/ad1s1a
>FILE SYSTEM CLEAN; SKIPPING CHECKS
>clean, 1673532 free (124 frags, 209176 blocks, 0.0% fragmentation)
>** /dev/ad1s1e
>FILE SYSTEM CLEAN; SKIPPING CHECKS
>clean, 201639 free (31 frags, 25201 blocks, 0.0% fragmentation)
>Cannot find file system superblock
>32 is not a file system superblock
>28740192 is not a file system superblock
>** /dev/ad1s1f
>
>
>LOOK FOR ALTERNATE SUPERBLOCKS? yes
>
>
>SEARCH FOR ALTERNATE SUPER-BLOCK FAILED. YOU MUST USE THE
>-b OPTION TO FSCK TO SPECIFY THE LOCATION OF AN ALTERNATE
>SUPER-BLOCK TO SUPPLY NEEDED INFORMATION; SEE fsck(8).
>tunefs: /var: could not read superblock to fill out disk
>mount: /dev/ad1s1f : Invalid argument
>WARNING:
>WARNING: /var mount failed, building emergency /var
>WARNING:
>Creating initial configuration...mgd: commit complete
>Setting initial options:  debugger_on_panic=NO debugger_on_break=NO.
>Starting optional daemons:  usbd.
>Doing initial network setup:
>.
>Initial interface configuration:
>
>
>So the /var partition on /dev/ad1s1f (SSD) needed a fsck but it failed
>because of a 'bad superblock'
>
>Going in the shell as root, I issued the following command to get a lisk
>of
>'backup' super-blocks :
>
>root at CORE-01% newfs -N /dev/ad1s1f
>/dev/ad1s1f: 18342.8MB (37566076 sectors) block size 16384, fragment size
>2048
>     using 100 cylinder groups of 183.69MB, 11756 blks, 23552 inodes.
>super-block backups (for fsck -b #) at:
> 32, 376224, 752416, 1128608, 1504800, 1880992, 2257184, 2633376, 3009568,
> 3385760, 3761952, 4138144, 4514336, 4890528, 5266720, 5642912, 6019104,
> 6395296, 6771488, 7147680, 7523872, 7900064, 8276256, 8652448, 9028640,
> 9404832, 9781024, 10157216, 10533408, 10909600, 11285792, 11661984,
>12038176,
> 12414368, 12790560, 13166752, 13542944, 13919136, 14295328, 14671520,
> 15047712, 15423904, 15800096, 16176288, 16552480, 16928672, 17304864,
> 17681056, 18057248, 18433440, 18809632, 19185824, 19562016, 19938208,
> 20314400, 20690592, 21066784, 21442976, 21819168, 22195360, 22571552,
> 22947744, 23323936, 23700128, 24076320, 24452512, 24828704, 25204896,
> 25581088, 25957280, 26333472, 26709664, 27085856, 27462048, 27838240,
> 28214432, 28590624, 28966816, 29343008, 29719200, 30095392, 30471584,
> 30847776, 31223968, 31600160, 31976352, 32352544, 32728736, 33104928,
> 33481120, 33857312, 34233504, 34609696, 34985888, 35362080, 35738272,
> 36114464, 36490656, 36866848, 37243040
>
>Then this command fixed the problem (376224 is the first super-block after
>'32' which seem to have an issue) :
>
>root at CORE-01% fsck_ufs -y -b 376224 /dev/ad1s1f
>
>Does anyone knows what is the 'software solution' that 'has also been
>developed to correct the affected REs in the field' as said in the KB ?
>
>Pierre-Yves
>
>
>
>2013/10/4 Phil Mayers <p.mayers at imperial.ac.uk>
>
>> Saku Ytti <saku at ytti.fi> wrote:
>> >On (2013-10-03 18:08 -0400), Paul Stewart wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Article is in review and not yet ready for viewing"
>> >
>> >http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=TSB16210
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> 
>>http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=S:TSB16164&smlogin
>>=
>> >
>> >--
>> >  ++ytti
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> >https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>>
>> Thanks, this is very useful - does look like our new REs are affected
>>:o(
>>
>> Will contact support to get the fix implemented.
>> --
>> Sent from my phone with, please excuse brevity and typos
>> _______________________________________________
>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>>
>_______________________________________________
>juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp