Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #233207 > unrolled thread

fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and Partition  1 does not start on physical sector boundary Robbi Nespu <robbinespu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-18 14:40 +0100
    Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and  Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary IL Ka <kazakevichilya@gmail.com> - 2021-03-18 15:00 +0100
      Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and  Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary IL Ka <kazakevichilya@gmail.com> - 2021-03-18 15:50 +0100
        Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and  Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2021-03-18 16:30 +0100
          Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and  Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary IL Ka <kazakevichilya@gmail.com> - 2021-03-18 17:00 +0100
            Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and  Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2021-03-18 17:30 +0100
          Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and  Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary Robbi Nespu <robbinespu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-19 03:00 +0100
        Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and  Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2021-03-18 16:40 +0100
          Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and  Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary IL Ka <kazakevichilya@gmail.com> - 2021-03-18 16:50 +0100
            Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and  Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2021-03-18 17:00 +0100
        Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and  Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary Robbi Nespu <robbinespu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-19 02:50 +0100
      Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and  Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary Robbi Nespu <robbinespu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-18 15:50 +0100
    Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and  Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary "Alexander V. Makartsev" <avbetev@gmail.com> - 2021-03-18 19:10 +0100
      Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and  Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary Robbi Nespu <robbinespu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-19 03:30 +0100
        Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and  Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary "Alexander V. Makartsev" <avbetev@gmail.com> - 2021-03-19 10:00 +0100
          Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and  Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2021-03-20 10:00 +0100
            Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and  Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary "Alexander V. Makartsev" <avbetev@gmail.com> - 2021-03-20 11:20 +0100
              Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and  Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary Robbi Nespu <robbinespu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-23 05:10 +0100
    Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and  Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary Jochen Spieker <ml@well-adjusted.de> - 2021-03-19 17:30 +0100
      Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and  Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary "Alexander V. Makartsev" <avbetev@gmail.com> - 2021-03-19 18:40 +0100
        Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and  Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary Jochen Spieker <ml@well-adjusted.de> - 2021-03-19 22:10 +0100
        Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and  Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2021-03-20 18:10 +0100
          Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and  Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary "Alexander V. Makartsev" <avbetev@gmail.com> - 2021-03-20 20:30 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#233207 — fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary

While doing my homework using  LibreOffice, suddenly it crash and hung.
then I execute "glance" to check system status but the program crash 
with debut log said my /tmp not available...

that so weird. I execute df -h and my drive are there. "ls /tmp" also 
work but writing anything not working, then I realize my system file 
become read only!

I reboot the computer and saw the reboot process said "ignoring 
read-only"..when the computer boot-up, all I see is a black terminal 
said " fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY; RUN fsck 
MANUALLY"

I execute "fsck -fy /dev/sda1" and it say fixing the issue.

What happen actully? Are my hdd suddenly got issue? I installed debian 
using netinst with standard utilities only and install 
"kde-plasma-desktop plasma-nm", as I want minimal KDE on my linux box.

I worried I might missing some package for hdd and sdd maintainance (coz 
I doing minimal install previously)

Question: Can you suggest what package should I install?

Note : Linux installed on sdb (ext4) and sda is a NTFS file system and

I don't want my SSD or HDD died suddenly

$ uname -a
Linux debian 5.10.0-4-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 5.10.19-1 (2021-03-02) x86_64 
GNU/Linux

$ cat /etc/os-release | grep Debian
PRETTY_NAME="Debian GNU/Linux bullseye/sid"
NAME="Debian GNU/Linux"

sdb <-- linux installed , ext4 partition
sda <-- just to store personal file, ntfs partition (mounted when 
necessary only)


fdisk output also said "Partition 1 does not start on physical sector 
boundary." on my sda1

Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes

But I guess, it safe to ignore since this is cause by Western Digital 
use Advanced Format of 4096 bytes per physical sector instead of the 
older 512 bytes/sector and that is a feature. Am I right?

-- 
Email : Robbi Nespu <robbinespu AT SPAMFREE gmail DOT com>
PGP fingerprint : D311 B5FF EEE6 0BE8 9C91 FA9E 0C81 FA30 3B3A 80BA
PGP key : https://keybase.io/robbinespu/pgp_keys.asc

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#233208 — Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

>
> I don't want my SSD or HDD died suddenly
>
You need to check smart.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.M.A.R.T.

Package is called "smartmontools"
https://packages.debian.org/sid/smartmontools



> fdisk output also said "Partition 1 does not start on physical sector
> boundary." on my sda1
>
>  run "$ fdisk /dev/sdb"
and then type "p"
At what sector does it start?

AFAIK partition must be aligned to 4K boundary (it is the best for both
HDD, advanced format HDD and SSD).
In my case it starts with sector 2048 which is 1048576 bytes (sector is
512b), so it is aligned.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233210 — Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 5:28 PM Robbi Nespu <robbinespu@gmail.com> wrote:

> May I know why you want to check sdb instead of sda?
>
Oops, I made a typo:)



>
> /dev/sdb1  *     2048 234440703 234438656 111.8G 83 Linux
>
Your sdb is aligned successfully

Device     Boot Start        End    Sectors   Size Id Type
> /dev/sda1          63 1953520456 1953520394 931.5G  7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
>

This one is wrong.
https://wiki.debian.org/DiskBlockAlignment

Old disk management tools did such alignment because they believed that any
drive uses 512 byte sectors.
But modern software (starting from Win7 I believe) uses 4KB alignment
because it is compatible with advanced format and SSD.

I think you  need to fix alignment.

The easiest way to do so is to delete the partition and create a new one,
but there are also tools to move the partition and preserve data (google
for them)

> <https://keybase.io/robbinespu/pgp_keys.asc>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233212 — Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary

On Thu 18 Mar 2021 at 17:45:55 (+0300), IL Ka wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 5:28 PM Robbi Nespu <robbinespu@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > May I know why you want to check sdb instead of sda?
> >
> Oops, I made a typo:)

Oh, I thought you said that because (from the OP):

   "that so weird. I execute df -h and my drive are there. "ls /tmp"
    also work but writing anything not working, then I realize my
    system file become read only!"

   "Note : Linux installed on sdb (ext4) and sda is a NTFS file system […]"

   "sdb <-- linux installed , ext4 partition"

and because the Subject line said "fsck error on boot" which might
imply that the OP was having difficulty rebooting the machine
(hopefully that isn't so), rather than just the system reporting the
presence of a bad disk partition at startup time.

> > /dev/sdb1  *     2048 234440703 234438656 111.8G 83 Linux
> >
> Your sdb is aligned successfully
> 
> Device     Boot Start        End    Sectors   Size Id Type
> > /dev/sda1          63 1953520456 1953520394 931.5G  7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
> 
> This one is wrong.
> https://wiki.debian.org/DiskBlockAlignment
> 
> Old disk management tools did such alignment because they believed that any
> drive uses 512 byte sectors.
> But modern software (starting from Win7 I believe) uses 4KB alignment
> because it is compatible with advanced format and SSD.
> 
> I think you  need to fix alignment.
> 
> The easiest way to do so is to delete the partition and create a new one,
> but there are also tools to move the partition and preserve data (google
> for them)
> 
> > <https://keybase.io/robbinespu/pgp_keys.asc>

Steady on. There's likely to be a load of personal data on this drive.
That partition table looks perfectly normal for disks of a certain vintage;
here's one of mine as it appeared when it was bought in 2010:

  Disk /dev/sda: 1500.3 GB, 1500301910016 bytes
  1 heads, 63 sectors/track, 46512336 cylinders, total 2930277168 sectors
  Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
  Disk identifier: 0x005aeb73

     Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
  /dev/sda1   *          63  2930272127  1465136032+   7  HPFS/NTFS

or, looked at differently:

                 First       Last
   # Type       Sector      Sector   Offset    Length   Filesystem Type (ID) Flag
  -- ------- ----------- ----------- ------ ----------- -------------------- ----
   1 Primary           0  2930272127     63  2930272128 HPFS/NTFS (07)       Boot
     Pri/Log  2930272128  2930277167      0        5040 Free Space           None

Of course, it's been reformatted since then, but not when it was
holding any data as yet unbacked-up.

The OP wrote "I don't want my SSD or HDD died suddenly".

Well, that's the nature of the beast, and what backups are for.
Was your fsck successful? Can you now read the files on the disk?
If so, I would work on getting them backed up, but not necessarily
trusting their contents. Older files may need checking against
previously backed-up versions. Newer one may need their contents
checking for corruption.

Then ask yourself why you're using NTFS on this disk, and whether
it might be better to adopt a different filesystem. For myself,
I only use NTFS readonly, for reading disks written on Windows.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233216 — Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

>
>
> Steady on. There's likely to be a load of personal data on this drive.
>

Yes, backup should be done first!


> That partition table looks perfectly normal for disks of a certain vintage;
>
I agree, but from "fdisk" output I see 4K (advanced format).

Is your drive advanced-formatted?

Of course, it's been reformatted since then, but not when it was
> holding any data as yet unbacked-up.
>

Btw, reformatting is not enough.
To fix alignment one must delete the partition and create a new one.

AFAIK any modern tool (GNU parted, Windows Disk Manager, diskpart) will use
4K alignment by default for any drive.

Very old boot loader installed to the MBR may have problems with booting
(the one that uses CHS instead of LBA), but modern grub should deal with it.



>
> Then ask yourself why you're using NTFS on this disk, and whether
> it might be better to adopt a different filesystem. For myself,
> I only use NTFS readonly, for reading disks written on Windows.
>

+1.

NTFS support is not very stable in Linux, it is better to avoid it

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233222 — Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary

On Thu 18 Mar 2021 at 18:49:57 (+0300), IL Ka wrote:
> >
> > Steady on. There's likely to be a load of personal data on this drive.
> >
> 
> Yes, backup should be done first!
> 
> > That partition table looks perfectly normal for disks of a certain vintage;
> >
> I agree, but from "fdisk" output I see 4K (advanced format).
> 
> Is your drive advanced-formatted?

No. I'm not saying the disk is optimal, but only that it looks as if
it's of a certain vintage. I don't know whether the OP is the sort
of person to ascertain and archive the disk properties when acquired,
but I'm assuming they have had some period of successful use of the
disk in that state, whatever they were using it for.

BTW I'm not even certain what that version of fdisk was concerned
with, nor why it report blocks instead of sectors, but notice it
was careful to report tracks and cylinders!

> Of course, it's been reformatted since then, but not when it was
> > holding any data as yet unbacked-up.
> >
> 
> Btw, reformatting is not enough.
> To fix alignment one must delete the partition and create a new one.

Yes, confusing terminology, isn't it, having to "repartition" the disk
to conform with "advanced format".

But sure, it's been zeroed, repartitioned, reformatted, and contains
an encrypted filesystem:

  # fdisk -l /dev/sdz
  Disk /dev/sdc: 1.4 TiB, 1500301910016 bytes, 2930277168 sectors
  Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
  Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
  I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
  Disklabel type: gpt
  Disk identifier: 535847E6-C170-4B13-94C1-378A16323878

  Device     Start        End    Sectors  Size Type
  /dev/sdc1   2048 2930277134 2930275087  1.4T Linux filesystem
  # 

  # cryptsetup --align-payload 2048 luksFormat /dev/sdz1

> AFAIK any modern tool (GNU parted, Windows Disk Manager, diskpart) will use
> 4K alignment by default for any drive.

I habitually add   --align-payload   because of disks which report
  I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 33553920 bytes
which screws up the alignment for encryption. (33553920 is 65535*512.)

> Very old boot loader installed to the MBR may have problems with booting
> (the one that uses CHS instead of LBA), but modern grub should deal with it.

I don't know how the OP uses the NTFS disk, or whether they ever boot
from it, and, if so, what it boots with. AIUI, NTFS disks just come
that way from the shop, by default.

> > Then ask yourself why you're using NTFS on this disk, and whether
> > it might be better to adopt a different filesystem. For myself,
> > I only use NTFS readonly, for reading disks written on Windows.
> 
> +1.
> 
> NTFS support is not very stable in Linux, it is better to avoid it

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233237 — Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 10:23:57 -0500 David Wright 
<deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:

> Well, that's the nature of the beast, and what backups are for.
> Was your fsck successful? Can you now read the files on the disk?
the fsck are successful, not sure every files inside are readable or 
corrupt but the most files I accessed look fine.

> If so, I would work on getting them backed up, but not necessarily
> trusting their contents. Older files may need checking against
> previously backed-up versions. Newer one may need their contents
> checking for corruption.
> 
> Then ask yourself why you're using NTFS on this disk, and whether
> it might be better to adopt a different filesystem. For myself,
> I only use NTFS readonly, for reading disks written on Windows.

This partition actually created on windows 8. That time I only use 
windows and later on, I do dual boot but I keep the NTFS since I know 
Linux can access NTFS but windows not so I can reboot later to windows 
if I need to use proprietary tools such vs studio, illustrator, movie 
editor.

Later on, I just use Linux and lazy to change this partition to ext4 
because I think, If I need the data inside, I can just took it out from 
this machine and plug, read it on windows machine.

-- 
Email : Robbi Nespu <robbinespu AT SPAMFREE gmail DOT com>
PGP fingerprint : D311 B5FF EEE6 0BE8 9C91 FA9E 0C81 FA30 3B3A 80BA
PGP key : https://keybase.io/robbinespu/pgp_keys.asc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233213 — Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary

IL Ka composed on 2021-03-18 17:45 (UTC+0300):

> Robbi Nespu wrote:

> Device     Boot Start        End    Sectors   Size Id Type
>> /dev/sda1          63 1953520456 1953520394 931.5G  7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT

> This one is wrong.
> https://wiki.debian.org/DiskBlockAlignment

> Old disk management tools did such alignment because they believed that any
> drive uses 512 byte sectors.
> But modern software (starting from Win7 I believe) uses 4KB alignment
> because it is compatible with advanced format and SSD.

> I think you  need to fix alignment.

> The easiest way to do so is to delete the partition and create a new one,
> but there are also tools to move the partition and preserve data (google
> for them)										
This old alignment usually only reduces performance on a 4k sector HDD. It may
cause Grub2 to fail to install. Otherwise, it need not be corrected, which is
dangerous to the existing Windows installation, unless you purposely repartition
and reinstall Windows.
-- 
Evolution as taught in public schools, like religion,
	is based on faith, not on science.

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233215 — Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

>
>
> This old alignment usually only reduces performance on a 4k sector HDD.


Here is output from topic starter's fdisk:

===
Disk /dev/sda: 931.51 GiB, 1000204886016 bytes, 1953525168 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes

Device     Boot Start        End    Sectors   Size Id Type
/dev/sda1          63 1953520456 1953520394 931.5G  7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
===

>4096
>63
It seems that we have an unaligned advanced format here, isn't it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233217 — Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary

IL Ka composed on 2021-03-18 18:40 (UTC+0300):

>> This old alignment usually only reduces performance on a 4k sector HDD.

> Here is output from topic starter's fdisk:
...
> Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes
> I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes

> Device     Boot Start        End    Sectors   Size Id Type
> /dev/sda1          63 1953520456 1953520394 931.5G  7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
> ===

>>4096
>>63
> It seems that we have an unaligned advanced format here, isn't it? 
										
Textbook case. Expect noticeably reduced write performance degradation, nominal
read performance degradation, and complaints from partitioning tools.
-- 
Evolution as taught in public schools, like religion,
	is based on faith, not on science.

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233236 — Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 17:45:55 +0300 L Ka <kazakevichilya@gmail.com> wrote:
> Old disk management tools did such alignment because they believed that any drive uses 512 byte sectors.
> But modern software (starting from Win7 I believe) uses 4KB alignment because it is compatible with advanced format and SSD.
Do you mean linux disk management old and not following new changes like 
windows?

this sda is actually created on windows 8 long time ago. that time I 
still do dual boot with linux and windows

> The easiest way to do so is to delete the partition and create a new one, but there are also tools to move the partition and preserve data (google for them)

That cost money, but nvm. I need new disk too to store new files 
(nowadays, file getting bigger and bigger especially movies)

-- 
Email : Robbi Nespu <robbinespu AT SPAMFREE gmail DOT com>
PGP fingerprint : D311 B5FF EEE6 0BE8 9C91 FA9E 0C81 FA30 3B3A 80BA
PGP key : https://keybase.io/robbinespu/pgp_keys.asc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233211 — Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary

May I know why you want to check sdb instead of sda?

btw, this is output for both:

-------------------------------------------------------------
Disk /dev/sdb: 111.79 GiB, 120034123776 bytes, 234441648 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disklabel type: dos


Device     Boot Start       End   Sectors   Size Id Type
/dev/sdb1  *     2048 234440703 234438656 111.8G 83 Linux

-------------------------------------------------------------

Disk /dev/sda: 931.51 GiB, 1000204886016 bytes, 1953525168 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes
Disklabel type: dos


Device     Boot Start        End    Sectors   Size Id Type
/dev/sda1          63 1953520456 1953520394 931.5G  7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT

Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary.
-------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Email : Robbi Nespu <robbinespu AT SPAMFREE gmail DOT com>
PGP fingerprint : D311 B5FF EEE6 0BE8 9C91 FA9E 0C81 FA30 3B3A 80BA
PGP key : https://keybase.io/robbinespu/pgp_keys.asc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233228 — Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 18.03.2021 18:16, Robbi Nespu wrote:
>
> While doing my homework using  LibreOffice, suddenly it crash and hung.
> then I execute "glance" to check system status but the program crash 
> with debut log said my /tmp not available...
>
> that so weird. I execute df -h and my drive are there. "ls /tmp" also 
> work but writing anything not working, then I realize my system file 
> become read only!
>
> I reboot the computer and saw the reboot process said "ignoring 
> read-only"..when the computer boot-up, all I see is a black terminal 
> said " fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY; RUN 
> fsck MANUALLY"
>
> I execute "fsck -fy /dev/sda1" and it say fixing the issue.
>
> What happen actully? Are my hdd suddenly got issue? I installed debian 
> using netinst with standard utilities only and install 
> "kde-plasma-desktop plasma-nm", as I want minimal KDE on my linux box.
>
> I worried I might missing some package for hdd and sdd maintainance 
> (coz I doing minimal install previously)
>
> Question: Can you suggest what package should I install?
>
> Note : Linux installed on sdb (ext4) and sda is a NTFS file system and
>
> I don't want my SSD or HDD died suddenly
Partitions mounted with 'errors=remount-ro' option will be remounted as 
read-only automatically, if a kernel detects an error.
I suggest you to dig a little deeper, because there is a possibility a 
hardware problem is the source of inconsistency error.
You need to provide us with more information about your OS setup and 
hardware.
Output from these commands should be a good start:
     $ cat /etc/fstab
     $ sudo blkid
     $ sudo smartctl -iHA /dev/sda
     $ sudo smartctl -iHA /dev/sdb

"smartctl" is a tool from "smartmontools" package.
The output will be long, so you can post it at 
"https://paste.debian.net/" with reasonable expiration date and send us 
just a link to it.

-- 
With kindest regards, Alexander.

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233238 — Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 23:06:31 +0500 "Alexander V. Makartsev" 
<avbetev@gmail.com> wrote:
> Partitions mounted with 'errors=remount-ro' option will be remounted as read-only automatically, if a kernel detects an error.
> I suggest you to dig a little deeper, because there is a possibility a hardware problem is the source of inconsistency error.
> You need to provide us with more information about your OS setup and hardware.
> Output from these commands should be a good start:
>     $ cat /etc/fstab
>     $ sudo blkid
>     $ sudo smartctl -iHA /dev/sda
>     $ sudo smartctl -iHA /dev/sdb
> 
> "smartctl" is a tool from "smartmontools" package.
> The output will be long, so you can post it at "https://paste.debian.net/" with reasonable expiration date and send us just a link to it.

OK here comes the output:
https://paste.debian.net/1189948/

-- 
Email : Robbi Nespu <robbinespu AT SPAMFREE gmail DOT com>
PGP fingerprint : D311 B5FF EEE6 0BE8 9C91 FA9E 0C81 FA30 3B3A 80BA
PGP key : https://keybase.io/robbinespu/pgp_keys.asc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233239 — Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 19.03.2021 07:07, Robbi Nespu wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 23:06:31 +0500 "Alexander V. Makartsev" 
> <avbetev@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Partitions mounted with 'errors=remount-ro' option will be remounted 
>> as read-only automatically, if a kernel detects an error.
>> I suggest you to dig a little deeper, because there is a possibility 
>> a hardware problem is the source of inconsistency error.
>> You need to provide us with more information about your OS setup and 
>> hardware.
>> Output from these commands should be a good start:
>>     $ cat /etc/fstab
>>     $ sudo blkid
>>     $ sudo smartctl -iHA /dev/sda
>>     $ sudo smartctl -iHA /dev/sdb
>>
>> "smartctl" is a tool from "smartmontools" package.
>> The output will be long, so you can post it at 
>> "https://paste.debian.net/" with reasonable expiration date and send 
>> us just a link to it.
>
> OK here comes the output:
> https://paste.debian.net/1189948/
>
==
   5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct   0x0033   200 200   140    Pre-fail  
Always       -       0
==
197 Current_Pending_Sector  0x0032   200   200   000    Old_age 
Always       -       10
==
Raw values of these two SMART attributes should always be a 0 on a 100% 
healthy drive.
Currently there are 10 sectors marked as faulty by drive's firmware.
There is a possibility there are more, but not marked, since they were 
not accessed yet by the drive.
You can scan whole surface of a drive to be sure there are only those 10 
and they won't increase over time.
Scanning process could be destructive to a data on the drive, so before 
you perform surface scans make sure you've backed up all valuable data 
and stored it on another drive.

To perform surface scans you can use SMART short and long scans, and 
also a program called "badblocks" from the package "e2fsprogs".
Be sure to unmount "/dev/sda1" before performing the scans.
Short scan (a minute or so):
     $ sudo smartctl --test=short /dev/sda
Long scan (could take hours):
     $ sudo smartctl --test=long /dev/sda
To get status and results:
     $ sudo smartctl --log=selftest /dev/sda
Both tests should finish with "Completed without error" result.

Check out man page for "badblocks" for more information.
There are 3 options, read-only test, non-destructive read-write test and 
destructive write test.
Usualy a non-destructive read-only test is sufficient:
     $ sudo badblocks -s /dev/sda
A non-destructive read-write test will be checking both read and write 
operations on scanned sectors, so it is more risky to the data on the drive:
     $ sudo badblocks -n -s /dev/sda

If a bad sector is encountered during testing a drive could "freeze" to 
redo reading on a faulty sector, give it a time to recover and continue.
Once again, make sure you've backed up all valuable data and stored it 
on another drive before testing and tell us how it went.

-- 
With kindest regards, Alexander.

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233245 — Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary

On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 at 19:53, Alexander V. Makartsev <avbetev@gmail.com> wrote:

> To perform surface scans you can use SMART short and long scans, and also a program called "badblocks" from the package "e2fsprogs".
> Be sure to unmount "/dev/sda1" before performing the scans.

Hi, I wonder why you give this advice to unmount.
Are you aware of a smartmontools reference document
that gives this advice?

If not using captive mode --captive option then
I feel it is unnecessary.

If using captive mode then I would suggest to unmount
the entire drive, not just one partition.

This is my casual understanding, corrections with
authoritative sources are welcome.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233246 — Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 20.03.2021 13:50, David wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 at 19:53, Alexander V. Makartsev <avbetev@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> To perform surface scans you can use SMART short and long scans, and also a program called "badblocks" from the package "e2fsprogs".
>> Be sure to unmount "/dev/sda1" before performing the scans.
> Hi, I wonder why you give this advice to unmount.
> Are you aware of a smartmontools reference document
> that gives this advice?
>
> If not using captive mode --captive option then
> I feel it is unnecessary.
>
> If using captive mode then I would suggest to unmount
> the entire drive, not just one partition.
>
> This is my casual understanding, corrections with
> authoritative sources are welcome.
>
Normally, a SMART scans are non-destructive and would finish with an 
error as soon as first bad block is found.
But if HDD would encounter a real bad block or a long sequence of them 
during test scans, there is always a chance that HDD won't recover right 
away and as a consequence, kernel will remount partitions as read-only 
making OS unresponsive, even if later HDD's controller will return to 
normal state after processing bad blocks.
For me it is simply a proactive measure, to prevent tests from 
interrupting mid-scan and any external interference. This might prevent 
a huge time waste when you scan a multi-terrabyte drives.
Additionally, a manpage for "badblocks" program strongly recommends to 
unmount partitions before performing non-destructive read-write or 
destructive write tests on the device.

If you look through information OP gathered for us, you should notice 
"/dev/sda" has only one partition with NTFS filesystem.

-- 
With kindest regards, Alexander.

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233364 — Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary

On 3/20/21 6:10 PM, Alexander V. Makartsev wrote:

> If you look through information OP gathered for us, you should notice 
> "/dev/sda" has only one partition with NTFS filesystem.
> 
Yes both disk only have one partition

-- 
Email : Robbi Nespu <robbinespu AT SPAMFREE gmail DOT com>
PGP fingerprint : D311 B5FF EEE6 0BE8 9C91 FA9E 0C81 FA30 3B3A 80BA
PGP key : https://keybase.io/robbinespu/pgp_keys.asc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233242 — Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Robbi Nespu:
> 
> I worried I might missing some package for hdd and sdd maintainance (coz I
> doing minimal install previously)

There is no maintenance that needs to be done for hard disks or solid
state disks to increase longevity. It often makes sense to setup
smartmontools which can monitor things like bad blocks for you, but this
can only inform you about potential problems, not prevent them.

> Note : Linux installed on sdb (ext4) and sda is a NTFS file system and
> 
> I don't want my SSD or HDD died suddenly

But I am afraid that is exactly what is happening.

I would not worry about the alignment issues at all. The problem is that
one of your disks is having bad sectors which still need to be
reallocated. That means you may already have data loss. Chances are that
the number of bad sectors is going to increase over time which is going
to lead to more data loss.

My personal advice would be to replace the failing disk with a new one
and restore from a known-good backup. If you lack money, you can try to
find a used disk, but I would only pay for something which I have
checked with smartcl beforehand. If you lack a backup, you can only hope
that you have lost nothing of value and get a new disk as fast as
possible.

J.
-- 
Quite often I wonder why I am not more famous and/or more wealthy.
[Agree]   [Disagree]
                 <http://archive.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233243 — Re: fsck error on boot: /dev/sda1: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY and Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 19.03.2021 21:23, Jochen Spieker wrote:
>> Note : Linux installed on sdb (ext4) and sda is a NTFS file system and
>>
>> I don't want my SSD or HDD died suddenly
> But I am afraid that is exactly what is happening.
You can't be so sure, not until OP reports back with testing results.

> I would not worry about the alignment issues at all. The problem is that
> one of your disks is having bad sectors which still need to be
> reallocated. That means you may already have data loss. Chances are that
> the number of bad sectors is going to increase over time which is going
> to lead to more data loss.
>
> My personal advice would be to replace the failing disk with a new one
> and restore from a known-good backup. If you lack money, you can try to
> find a used disk, but I would only pay for something which I have
> checked with smartcl beforehand. If you lack a backup, you can only hope
> that you have lost nothing of value and get a new disk as fast as
> possible.
Personally, I don't think it is wise to throw away any HDD as soon as it 
gets a few pending bad blocks for whatever reason.
I had a drive with remapped bad blocks in SMART and that amount stayed 
the same for years, despite its workload and periodical full surface scan.
I mean platter surface with the modern sector density is not perfect. It 
simply can't be.
Even brand new drives are shipped with information about factory 
remapped sectors in special section inside their firmware, to cover up 
platter imperfections.
10 sectors are nothing compared to billions of them on a multi-terrabyte 
drive, if they don't grow in numbers over time, because say platter 
contamination,
and the drive is not failing mechanically, so each case should be 
examined carefully.
This is why performing regular backups and validating them is better, I 
mean you do it all anyway, than replacing drives as soon as they get a 
few bad sectors.

-- 
With kindest regards, Alexander.

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web