On 30 May 2008 10:51:13 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> put finger
to keyboard and composed:
>Previously DonLogan <navajo@neonfeather.com> wrote:
>> My config is
>> c = 80 gig
>> d = 200 gig problem
>> both running ntfs
>
>> looked at smart from, everes,t first thing and saw no problems
>> recognizable by me.
>
>The Seagate Drive has a serious problem:
>
>> [ ST3200822A (3LJ16KS3) ]
>
>> 01 Raw Read Error Rate 6 55 46 160374848
>> OK: Value is normal
>> 05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 98 98 84
>> OK: Value is normal
>> 07 Seek Error Rate 30 87 60 561379378
>> OK: Always passing
>> C3 Hardware ECC Recovered 0 55 46 160374848
>> OK: Always passing
>> C5 Current Pending Sector Count 0 100 100 667
>> OK: Always passing
>> C6 Off-Line Uncorrectable Sector Count 0 100 100 667
>> --------------------------
>
>Attribute 01 is very low. In addition you already have 84 reallocated
>sectors and 667 sectors the dive cannot read that will likely
>be reallocated on the bnext write. Also a lot of sectors are marginal
>(attribute C3) and can only be read using ECC.
That's normal even for a new Seagate drive.
> This may be an
>external problem as the seek error rate (07) ia also pretty baed.
No, the high "seek error rate" number is normal even for a new Seagate
drive. In fact the attribute is a seek *count*, not an error, and not
a rate.
>A bad PSU or strong vibration can do this occasionally. It may also
>be a sign of the read-amplifier dying, as it is needed for positioning.
>Damaged drive heads are also possible.
>
>Anyways: Make a backup NOW. This drive is very likely dying. You will
>loose more data and it can die catastrophically at any moment.
>
>> I've got a probable reproduceable app error on a specific file. This
>> should identify file name and can maybe map soft/bad spot(s)?
>
>Modern drives do not have soft/bad spots anymore. This type
>of indicates bad heads or electronics, i.e. impeding complete
>drive failure.
>
>> So, good looking smart & who knows what? I don't think it's any
>> inboard strange interface issue. Gotta surface spot on the platter
>> going bad, i think. Works good on 1,000s of i/os otherwise.
>
>It is not an interface issue, the ATA error counts are normal
>and very low or zero.
>
>> Too bad Check-Disk didn't spit out info.
>
>Checkdisk works on filesystem level. It cannot deal with this.
I would have thought that at least some of the 667 pending sectors
would have been associated with filesystem errors.
>> Just replace/warranty drive, but always like to use cadavers for
>> forensics. But smart looks ok?
>
>No, it looks pretty bad. Dont take any stock in the thresholds.
>HDD manufacturers set these often far too high.
>
>Arno
My testing suggests that Seagate drives can accumulate around 2600
reallocated sectors before the SMART status is reported as bad.
Previously Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
> On 30 May 2008 10:51:13 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> put finger
> to keyboard and composed:
>>Previously DonLogan <navajo@neonfeather.com> wrote:
>>> My config is
>>> c = 80 gig
>>> d = 200 gig problem
>>> both running ntfs
>>
>>> looked at smart from, everes,t first thing and saw no problems
>>> recognizable by me.
>>
>>The Seagate Drive has a serious problem:
>>
>>> [ ST3200822A (3LJ16KS3) ]
>>
>>> 01 Raw Read Error Rate 6 55 46 160374848
>>> OK: Value is normal
>>> 05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 98 98 84
>>> OK: Value is normal
>>> 07 Seek Error Rate 30 87 60 561379378
>>> OK: Always passing
>>> C3 Hardware ECC Recovered 0 55 46 160374848
>>> OK: Always passing
>>> C5 Current Pending Sector Count 0 100 100 667
>>> OK: Always passing
>>> C6 Off-Line Uncorrectable Sector Count 0 100 100 667
>>> --------------------------
>>
>>Attribute 01 is very low. In addition you already have 84 reallocated
>>sectors and 667 sectors the dive cannot read that will likely
>>be reallocated on the bnext write. Also a lot of sectors are marginal
>>(attribute C3) and can only be read using ECC.
> That's normal even for a new Seagate drive.
Again, yes, some ECC is normal, but a ****ed value of 55 is not.
This is way to much ECC usage.
>> This may be an
>>external problem as the seek error rate (07) ia also pretty baed.
> No, the high "seek error rate" number is normal even for a new Seagate
> drive. In fact the attribute is a seek *count*, not an error, and not
> a rate.
I was not looking at the count, but rather the ****ed value.
Is that value of 87 also normal? Anyways, the seek error rate
is not the real problem here.
>>A bad PSU or strong vibration can do this occasionally. It may also
>>be a sign of the read-amplifier dying, as it is needed for positioning.
>>Damaged drive heads are also possible.
>>
>>Anyways: Make a backup NOW. This drive is very likely dying. You will
>>loose more data and it can die catastrophically at any moment.
>>
>>> I've got a probable reproduceable app error on a specific file. This
>>> should identify file name and can maybe map soft/bad spot(s)?
>>
>>Modern drives do not have soft/bad spots anymore. This type
>>of indicates bad heads or electronics, i.e. impeding complete
>>drive failure.
>>
>>> So, good looking smart & who knows what? I don't think it's any
>>> inboard strange interface issue. Gotta surface spot on the platter
>>> going bad, i think. Works good on 1,000s of i/os otherwise.
>>
>>It is not an interface issue, the ATA error counts are normal
>>and very low or zero.
>>
>>> Too bad Check-Disk didn't spit out info.
>>
>>Checkdisk works on filesystem level. It cannot deal with this.
> I would have thought that at least some of the 667 pending sectors
> would have been associated with filesystem errors.
Not necessarily. With large files there is very little metadata
on disk, compared to actual data.
>>> Just replace/warranty drive, but always like to use cadavers for
>>> forensics. But smart looks ok?
>>
>>No, it looks pretty bad. Dont take any stock in the thresholds.
>>HDD manufacturers set these often far too high.
>>
>>Arno
> My testing suggests that Seagate drives can accumulate around 2600
> reallocated sectors before the SMART status is reported as bad.
>On 30 May 2008 10:51:13 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> put finger
>to keyboard and composed:
>
>>Previously DonLogan <navajo@neonfeather.com> wrote:
>>> My config is
>>> c = 80 gig
>>> d = 200 gig problem
>>> both running ntfs
>>
>>> looked at smart from, everes,t first thing and saw no problems
>>> recognizable by me.
>>
>>The Seagate Drive has a serious problem:
>>
>>> [ ST3200822A (3LJ16KS3) ]
>>
>>> 01 Raw Read Error Rate 6 55 46 160374848
>>> OK: Value is normal
>>> 05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 98 98 84
>>> OK: Value is normal
>>> 07 Seek Error Rate 30 87 60 561379378
>>> OK: Always passing
>>> C3 Hardware ECC Recovered 0 55 46 160374848
>>> OK: Always passing
>>> C5 Current Pending Sector Count 0 100 100 667
>>> OK: Always passing
>>> C6 Off-Line Uncorrectable Sector Count 0 100 100 667
>>> --------------------------
>>
>>Attribute 01 is very low. In addition you already have 84 reallocated
>>sectors and 667 sectors the dive cannot read that will likely
>>be reallocated on the bnext write. Also a lot of sectors are marginal
>>(attribute C3) and can only be read using ECC.
>
>That's normal even for a new Seagate drive.
>
>> This may be an
>>external problem as the seek error rate (07) ia also pretty baed.
>
>No, the high "seek error rate" number is normal even for a new Seagate
>drive. In fact the attribute is a seek *count*, not an error, and not
>a rate.
>
>See the results of my own testing:
>http://groups.google.com/group/comp....5?dmode=source
>
>>A bad PSU or strong vibration can do this occasionally. It may also
>>be a sign of the read-amplifier dying, as it is needed for positioning.
>>Damaged drive heads are also possible.
>>
>>Anyways: Make a backup NOW. This drive is very likely dying. You will
>>loose more data and it can die catastrophically at any moment.
>>
>>> I've got a probable reproduceable app error on a specific file. This
>>> should identify file name and can maybe map soft/bad spot(s)?
>>
>>Modern drives do not have soft/bad spots anymore. This type
>>of indicates bad heads or electronics, i.e. impeding complete
>>drive failure.
>>
>>> So, good looking smart & who knows what? I don't think it's any
>>> inboard strange interface issue. Gotta surface spot on the platter
>>> going bad, i think. Works good on 1,000s of i/os otherwise.
>>
>>It is not an interface issue, the ATA error counts are normal
>>and very low or zero.
>>
>>> Too bad Check-Disk didn't spit out info.
>>
>>Checkdisk works on filesystem level. It cannot deal with this.
>
>I would have thought that at least some of the 667 pending sectors
>would have been associated with filesystem errors.
>
>>> Just replace/warranty drive, but always like to use cadavers for
>>> forensics. But smart looks ok?
>>
>>No, it looks pretty bad. Dont take any stock in the thresholds.
>>HDD manufacturers set these often far too high.
>>
>>Arno
>
>My testing suggests that Seagate drives can accumulate around 2600
>reallocated sectors before the SMART status is reported as bad.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/comp....a?dmode=source
>
>- Franc Zabkar
>DonLogan <navajo@neonfeather.com> wrote:
>
>> My config is
>> c = 80 gig
>> d = 200 gig problem
>> both running ntfs
>
>> looked at smart from, everes,t first thing and saw no problems recognizable by me.
>
>There are real problems tho, particularly with the second drive.
>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> --------[ EVEREST Home Edition (c) 2003-2005 Lavalys, Inc.
>> ]------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Version EVEREST
>> v2.20.405
>> Homepage
>> http://www.lavalys.com/
>> Report Type Quick Report
>> Computer P4STATION
>> (Digital Lathe)
>> Generator malcolm
>> Operating System Microsoft
>> Windows XP Professional 5.1.2600 (WinXP Retail)
>> Date 2008-05-29
>> Time 22:55
>>
>>
>> --------[ SMART
>> ]-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> [ SAMSUNG SP0802N (S00JJ60Y558373) ]
>>
>> 01 Raw Read Error Rate 51 100 100 0
>> OK: Value is normal
>> 03 Spin Up Time 25 100 100 6208
>> OK: Value is normal
>> 04 Start/Stop Count 0 100 100 394
>> OK: Always passing
>> 05 Reallocated Sector Count 11 97 97 7
>> OK: Value is normal
>
>That number is getting up a bit, and since the other drive is much worse
>in that area, the actual problem might be the power supply, but likely isnt.
>
>> 07 Seek Error Rate 51 100 100 0
>> OK: Value is normal
>> 08 Seek Time Performance 15 100 100 0
>> OK: Value is normal
>> 09 Power-On Time Count 0 100 100 453320
>> OK: Always passing
>> 0A Spin Retry Count 51 100 100 0
>> OK: Value is normal
>> 0B Calibration Retry Count 0 100 100 0
>> OK: Always passing
>> 0C Power Cycle Count 0 100 100 212
>> OK: Always passing
>> C2 Temperature 0 121 97 39
>> OK: Always passing
>> C3 Hardware ECC Recovered 0 100 100 1326755
>> OK: Always passing
>> C4 Reallocation Event Count 0 97 97 7
>> OK: Always passing
>
>Thats just reporting the previous one again effectively.
>
>> C5 Current Pending Sector Count 0 100 100 0
>> OK: Always passing
>> C6 Off-Line Uncorrectable Sector Count 0 100 100 0
>> OK: Always passing
>> C7 Ultra ATA CRC Error Rate 0 200 200 0
>> OK: Always passing
>> C8 Write Error Rate 51 100 100 0
>> OK: Value is normal
>> C9 <vendor-specific> 51 100 100 0
>> OK: Value is normal
>>
>> [ ST3200822A (3LJ16KS3) ]
>>
>> 01 Raw Read Error Rate 6 55 46 160374848
>> OK: Value is normal
>> 03 Spin Up Time 0 97 96 0
>> OK: Always passing
>> 04 Start/Stop Count 20 100 100 588
>> OK: Value is normal
>> 05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 98 98 84
>> OK: Value is normal
>
>Thats the reason you are getting so many bad files.
>
>> 07 Seek Error Rate 30 87 60 561379378
>> OK: Value is normal
>> 09 Power-On Time Count 0 89 89 9812
>> OK: Always passing
>> 0A Spin Retry Count 97 100 100 0
>> OK: Value is normal
>> 0C Power Cycle Count 20 100 100 424
>> OK: Value is normal
>> C2 Temperature 0 41 53 41
>> OK: Always passing
>> C3 Hardware ECC Recovered 0 55 46 160374848
>> OK: Always passing
>> C5 Current Pending Sector Count 0 100 100 667
>> OK: Always passing
>
>Urk, that drive is clearly dying, thats an obscenely high number.
>
>> C6 Off-Line Uncorrectable Sector Count 0 100 100 667
>> OK: Always passing
>
>Ditto.
>
>> C7 Ultra ATA CRC Error Rate 0 200 200 0
>> OK: Always passing
>> C8 Write Error Rate 0 100 253 0
>> OK: Always passing
>> CA <vendor-specific> 0 100 253 0
>> OK: Always passing
>
><snipped stuff we didnt need>
>
>> sorry if formating an issue
>
>Yeah, thats one real downside with Everest, along with the very
>misleading OKs on those obscenely bad results with the bad sectors.
So the drive reports smart #s and the app, Everest, decides if it's OK
& passes, or is there a standard?
& wasn't there a dos command we could issue to do write verify? Is it
now done automatically (is that the hardware EEC Recovered - 160
millions) or can you start it?
>
>> --------------------------
>
>> I've got a probable reproduceable app error on a specific file. This
>> should identify file name and can maybe map soft/bad spot(s)?
>
>No point in doing that with so many uncorrectable bad sectors.
>
>Just have the drive replaced under warranty.
>
>> So, good looking smart
>
>Nope, one of the worst thats been posted here, actually.
>
>> & who knows what? I don't think it's any inboard strange interface issue.
>
>Correct.
>
>> Gotta surface spot on the platter going bad, i think.
>
>Nope, that doesnt happen. There's some other very fundamental
>problem with the drive, likely a poor connection somewhere or a
>cracked flexible connection to the heads etc.
>
>> Works good on 1,000s of i/os otherwise.
>
>Nope, its dying.
>
>> Too bad Check-Disk didn't spit out info.
>
>> Just replace/warranty drive, but always like to use cadavers for forensics.
>
>What ?
I am going to replace or retire based on seagate accepting the smart
as proof of failure. So thought it could be a testbed for anyone that
thought it could be recovered, and I'm OK if it destroyed data. Crazy
thought
>
>> But smart looks ok?
>
>Nope, one of the worst ever posted here.
>
>
>> DonLogan <navajo@neonfeather.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have a 200 gig ide hard drive that's giving me read errors.
>>> I write lots of files, daily, to the drive then use other
>>> applications to read the files. The read applications are hiccuping
>>> with their various errors.
>>> I run xp pro so I ran Properties-Tools-Error-Checking. Took about 24
>>> hours and seemed to be correcting but never gave me an analysis or
>>> report. Now new files are also erroring.
>>> I'd like to run a repair utility, free?, to correct problems.
>>> Ideally i'd like to keep the existing files but not absolutely
>>> necessary.
>>> Would appreciate recommendations.
>>> thanks
>
>Previously DonLogan <navajo@neonfeather.com> wrote:
>> My config is
>> c = 80 gig
>> d = 200 gig problem
>> both running ntfs
>
>> looked at smart from, everes,t first thing and saw no problems
>> recognizable by me.
>
>The Seagate Drive has a serious problem:
>
>> [ ST3200822A (3LJ16KS3) ]
>
snip
>
>No, it looks pretty bad. Dont take any stock in the thresholds.
>HDD manufacturers set these often far too high.
>Arno
Yes, that's now my question. If seagate reports thresholds to Everest
is Seagate going to warranty the drive based on SMART?
Or should i work/test it a little more?
thanks
DonLogan <navajo@neonfeather.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> DonLogan <navajo@neonfeather.com> wrote
>>> My config is
>>> c = 80 gig
>>> d = 200 gig problem
>>> both running ntfs
>>> looked at smart from, everes,t first thing and saw no problems
>>> recognizable by me.
>> There are real problems tho, particularly with the second drive.
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> --------[ EVEREST Home Edition (c) 2003-2005 Lavalys, Inc.
>>> ]------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Version EVEREST
>>> v2.20.405
>>> Homepage
>>> http://www.lavalys.com/
>>> Report Type Quick Report
>>> Computer P4STATION
>>> (Digital Lathe)
>>> Generator malcolm
>>> Operating System Microsoft
>>> Windows XP Professional 5.1.2600 (WinXP Retail)
>>> Date 2008-05-29
>>> Time 22:55
>>>
>>>
>>> --------[ SMART
>>> ]-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> [ SAMSUNG SP0802N (S00JJ60Y558373) ]
>>>
>>> 01 Raw Read Error Rate 51 100 100
>>> 0
>>> OK: Value is normal
>>> 03 Spin Up Time 25 100 100
>>> 6208
>>> OK: Value is normal
>>> 04 Start/Stop Count 0 100 100
>>> 394
>>> OK: Always passing
>>> 05 Reallocated Sector Count 11 97 97
>>> 7
>>> OK: Value is normal
>>
>> That number is getting up a bit, and since the other drive is much
>> worse
>> in that area, the actual problem might be the power supply, but
>> likely isnt.
>>
>>> 07 Seek Error Rate 51 100 100
>>> 0
>>> OK: Value is normal
>>> 08 Seek Time Performance 15 100 100
>>> 0
>>> OK: Value is normal
>>> 09 Power-On Time Count 0 100 100
>>> 453320
>>> OK: Always passing
>>> 0A Spin Retry Count 51 100 100
>>> 0
>>> OK: Value is normal
>>> 0B Calibration Retry Count 0 100 100
>>> 0
>>> OK: Always passing
>>> 0C Power Cycle Count 0 100 100
>>> 212
>>> OK: Always passing
>>> C2 Temperature 0 121 97
>>> 39
>>> OK: Always passing
>>> C3 Hardware ECC Recovered 0 100 100
>>> 1326755
>>> OK: Always passing
>>> C4 Reallocation Event Count 0 97 97
>>> 7
>>> OK: Always passing
>>
>> Thats just reporting the previous one again effectively.
>>
>>> C5 Current Pending Sector Count 0 100 100
>>> 0
>>> OK: Always passing
>>> C6 Off-Line Uncorrectable Sector Count 0 100 100
>>> 0
>>> OK: Always passing
>>> C7 Ultra ATA CRC Error Rate 0 200 200
>>> 0
>>> OK: Always passing
>>> C8 Write Error Rate 51 100 100
>>> 0
>>> OK: Value is normal
>>> C9 <vendor-specific> 51 100 100
>>> 0
>>> OK: Value is normal
>>>
>>> [ ST3200822A (3LJ16KS3) ]
>>>
>>> 01 Raw Read Error Rate 6 55 46
>>> 160374848
>>> OK: Value is normal
>>> 03 Spin Up Time 0 97 96
>>> 0
>>> OK: Always passing
>>> 04 Start/Stop Count 20 100 100
>>> 588
>>> OK: Value is normal
>>> 05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 98 98
>>> 84
>>> OK: Value is normal
>>
>> Thats the reason you are getting so many bad files.
>>
>>> 07 Seek Error Rate 30 87 60
>>> 561379378
>>> OK: Value is normal
>>> 09 Power-On Time Count 0 89 89
>>> 9812
>>> OK: Always passing
>>> 0A Spin Retry Count 97 100 100
>>> 0
>>> OK: Value is normal
>>> 0C Power Cycle Count 20 100 100
>>> 424
>>> OK: Value is normal
>>> C2 Temperature 0 41 53
>>> 41
>>> OK: Always passing
>>> C3 Hardware ECC Recovered 0 55 46
>>> 160374848
>>> OK: Always passing
>>> C5 Current Pending Sector Count 0 100 100
>>> 667
>>> OK: Always passing
>>
>> Urk, that drive is clearly dying, thats an obscenely high number.
>>
>>> C6 Off-Line Uncorrectable Sector Count 0 100 100
>>> 667
>>> OK: Always passing
>>
>> Ditto.
>>
>>> C7 Ultra ATA CRC Error Rate 0 200 200
>>> 0
>>> OK: Always passing
>>> C8 Write Error Rate 0 100 253
>>> 0
>>> OK: Always passing
>>> CA <vendor-specific> 0 100 253
>>> 0
>>> OK: Always passing
>>
>> <snipped stuff we didnt need>
>>
>>> sorry if formating an issue
>>
>> Yeah, thats one real downside with Everest, along with the very
>> misleading OKs on those obscenely bad results with the bad sectors.
> So the drive reports smart #s and the app, Everest, decides if it's OK & passes,
No, Everest reports the smart #s that the drive provides, and sticks
its own OK on the end of each line, and that OK should be ignored.
> or is there a standard?
Nope.
> & wasn't there a dos command we could issue to do write verify?
Nope. And it isnt relevant to a drive thats dying anyway.
> Is it now done automatically
A few drives do have write verify enabled for the first few power cycles, but
thats mainly some Maxtors what are conservative about marginal sectors.
> (is that the hardware EEC Recovered - 160 millions)
No, that what all drives do all the time.
> or can you start it?
Its not relevant to a dying drive.
>>> --------------------------
>>> I've got a probable reproduceable app error on a specific file. This
>>> should identify file name and can maybe map soft/bad spot(s)?
>> No point in doing that with so many uncorrectable bad sectors.
>> Just have the drive replaced under warranty.
>>> So, good looking smart
>> Nope, one of the worst thats been posted here, actually.
>>> & who knows what? I don't think it's any inboard strange interface issue.
>> Correct.
>>> Gotta surface spot on the platter going bad, i think.
>> Nope, that doesnt happen. There's some other very fundamental
>> problem with the drive, likely a poor connection somewhere or a
>> cracked flexible connection to the heads etc.
>>> Works good on 1,000s of i/os otherwise.
>> Nope, its dying.
>>> Too bad Check-Disk didn't spit out info.
>>> Just replace/warranty drive, but always like to use cadavers for forensics.
>> What ?
> I am going to replace or retire based on seagate accepting the smart as proof of failure.
Run Seagate's diagnostic on that drive to get a warranty replacement.
> So thought it could be a testbed for anyone that thought it could
> be recovered, and I'm OK if it destroyed data. Crazy thought
It can be interesting to play with a dying drive, but you'll
have to return the corpse to get a warranty replacement.
>>> But smart looks ok?
>> Nope, one of the worst ever posted here.
You could try replacing the power supply first
and see if that fixes the problem, but I bet it wont.
>>> DonLogan <navajo@neonfeather.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have a 200 gig ide hard drive that's giving me read errors.
>>>> I write lots of files, daily, to the drive then use other
>>>> applications to read the files. The read applications are hiccuping
>>>> with their various errors.
>>>> I run xp pro so I ran Properties-Tools-Error-Checking. Took about
>>>> 24 hours and seemed to be correcting but never gave me an analysis
>>>> or report. Now new files are also erroring.
>>>> I'd like to run a repair utility, free?, to correct problems.
>>>> Ideally i'd like to keep the existing files but not absolutely
>>>> necessary.
>>>> Would appreciate recommendations.
>>>> thanks
Previously DonLogan <navajo@neonfeather.com> wrote:
> Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
>>On 30 May 2008 10:51:13 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> put finger
>>to keyboard and composed:
>>
>>>Previously DonLogan <navajo@neonfeather.com> wrote:
>>>> My config is
>>>> c = 80 gig
>>>> d = 200 gig problem
>>>> both running ntfs
>>>
>>>> looked at smart from, everes,t first thing and saw no problems
>>>> recognizable by me.
>>>
>>>The Seagate Drive has a serious problem:
>>>
>>>> [ ST3200822A (3LJ16KS3) ]
>>>
>>>> 01 Raw Read Error Rate 6 55 46 160374848
>>>> OK: Value is normal
>>>> 05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 98 98 84
>>>> OK: Value is normal
>>>> 07 Seek Error Rate 30 87 60 561379378
>>>> OK: Always passing
>>>> C3 Hardware ECC Recovered 0 55 46 160374848
>>>> OK: Always passing
>>>> C5 Current Pending Sector Count 0 100 100 667
>>>> OK: Always passing
>>>> C6 Off-Line Uncorrectable Sector Count 0 100 100 667
>>>> --------------------------
>>>
>>>Attribute 01 is very low. In addition you already have 84 reallocated
>>>sectors and 667 sectors the dive cannot read that will likely
>>>be reallocated on the bnext write. Also a lot of sectors are marginal
>>>(attribute C3) and can only be read using ECC.
>>
>>That's normal even for a new Seagate drive.
>>
>>> This may be an
>>>external problem as the seek error rate (07) ia also pretty baed.
>>
>>No, the high "seek error rate" number is normal even for a new Seagate
>>drive. In fact the attribute is a seek *count*, not an error, and not
>>a rate.
>>
>>See the results of my own testing:
>>http://groups.google.com/group/comp....5?dmode=source
>>
>>>A bad PSU or strong vibration can do this occasionally. It may also
>>>be a sign of the read-amplifier dying, as it is needed for positioning.
>>>Damaged drive heads are also possible.
>>>
>>>Anyways: Make a backup NOW. This drive is very likely dying. You will
>>>loose more data and it can die catastrophically at any moment.
>>>
>>>> I've got a probable reproduceable app error on a specific file. This
>>>> should identify file name and can maybe map soft/bad spot(s)?
>>>
>>>Modern drives do not have soft/bad spots anymore. This type
>>>of indicates bad heads or electronics, i.e. impeding complete
>>>drive failure.
>>>
>>>> So, good looking smart & who knows what? I don't think it's any
>>>> inboard strange interface issue. Gotta surface spot on the platter
>>>> going bad, i think. Works good on 1,000s of i/os otherwise.
>>>
>>>It is not an interface issue, the ATA error counts are normal
>>>and very low or zero.
>>>
>>>> Too bad Check-Disk didn't spit out info.
>>>
>>>Checkdisk works on filesystem level. It cannot deal with this.
>>
>>I would have thought that at least some of the 667 pending sectors
>>would have been associated with filesystem errors.
>>
>>>> Just replace/warranty drive, but always like to use cadavers for
>>>> forensics. But smart looks ok?
>>>
>>>No, it looks pretty bad. Dont take any stock in the thresholds.
>>>HDD manufacturers set these often far too high.
>>>
>>>Arno
>>
>>My testing suggests that Seagate drives can accumulate around 2600
>>reallocated sectors before the SMART status is reported as bad.
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/group/comp....a?dmode=source
>>
>>- Franc Zabkar
> Franc
> So should I return to seagate or what?
> tia
Previously DonLogan <navajo@neonfeather.com> wrote:
> Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>Previously DonLogan <navajo@neonfeather.com> wrote:
>>> My config is
>>> c = 80 gig
>>> d = 200 gig problem
>>> both running ntfs
>>
>>> looked at smart from, everes,t first thing and saw no problems
>>> recognizable by me.
>>
>>The Seagate Drive has a serious problem:
>>
>>> [ ST3200822A (3LJ16KS3) ]
>>
> snip
>>
>>No, it looks pretty bad. Dont take any stock in the thresholds.
>>HDD manufacturers set these often far too high.
>>Arno
> Yes, that's now my question. If seagate reports thresholds to Everest
> is Seagate going to warranty the drive based on SMART?
> Or should i work/test it a little more?
> thanks
Just have a look at the RMA website. As far as I remember
Seagate will RMA without a failed SMART status.
Franc Zabkar wrote in news:art044t6bb4oi17d3bik8lb61smnc0adrq@4ax.com
> On 30 May 2008 10:51:13 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> put finger
> to keyboard and composed:
>
> > Previously DonLogan <navajo@neonfeather.com> wrote:
> > > My config is
> > > c = 80 gig
> > > d = 200 gig problem
> > > both running ntfs
> >
> > > looked at smart from, everes,t first thing and saw no problems
> > > recognizable by me.
> >
> > The Seagate Drive has a serious problem:
> >
> > > [ ST3200822A (3LJ16KS3) ]
> >
> > > 01 Raw Read Error Rate 6 55 46 160374848 OK: Value is normal
> > > 05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 98 98 84 OK: Value is normal
> > > 07 Seek Error Rate 30 87 60 561379378 OK: Always passing
> > > C3 Hardware ECC Recovered 0 55 46 160374848 OK: Always passing
> > > C5 Current Pending Sector Count 0 100 100 667 OK: Always passing
> > > C6 Off-Line Uncorrectable Sector Count 0 100 100 667 OK: Always passing
> > > --------------------------
> >
> > Attribute 01 is very low. In addition you already have 84 reallocated
> > sectors and 667 sectors the dive cannot read that will likely
> > be reallocated on the bnext write. Also a lot of sectors are marginal
> > (attribute C3) and can only be read using ECC.
> That's normal even for a new Seagate drive.
>
> > This may be an
> > external problem as the seek error rate (07) ia also pretty baed.
>
> No, the high "seek error rate" number is normal even for a new Seagate
> drive.
> In fact
Really.
> the attribute is a seek *count*, not an error, and not a rate.
In which case it accumulates and can't be normal for 'even a new' drive.
>
> > A bad PSU or strong vibration can do this occasionally. It may also
> > be a sign of the read-amplifier dying, as it is needed for positioning.
> > Damaged drive heads are also possible.
> >
> > Anyways: Make a backup NOW. This drive is very likely dying. You will
> > loose more data and it can die catastrophically at any moment.
> >
> > > I've got a probable reproduceable app error on a specific file. This
> > > should identify file name and can maybe map soft/bad spot(s)?
> >
> > Modern drives do not have soft/bad spots anymore. This type
> > of indicates bad heads or electronics, i.e. impeding complete
> > drive failure.
> >
> > > So, good looking smart & who knows what? I don't think it's any
> > > inboard strange interface issue. Gotta surface spot on the platter
> > > going bad, i think. Works good on 1,000s of i/os otherwise.
> >
> > It is not an interface issue, the ATA error counts are normal
> > and very low or zero.
> >
> > > Too bad Check-Disk didn't spit out info.
> >
> > Checkdisk works on filesystem level. It cannot deal with this.
> I would have thought that at least some of the 667 pending sectors
> would have been associated with filesystem errors.
Better check your killfile.
The 667 pending sectors were found by offline scan, as reported earlier.
They were not in use when they were discovered by chance.
>
> > > Just replace/warranty drive, but always like to use cadavers for
> > > forensics. But smart looks ok?
> >
> > No, it looks pretty bad. Dont take any stock in the thresholds.
> > HDD manufacturers set these often far too high.
> >
> > Arno
>
> My testing suggests that Seagate drives can accumulate around 2600
> reallocated sectors before the SMART status is reported as bad.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp....a?dmode=source
>
> - Franc Zabkar
DonLogan wrote in news:rk8144l4r4341p6kil9ch6m8eugicgve16@4ax.com
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> > DonLogan <navajo@neonfeather.com> wrote:
> >
> > > My config is
> > > c = 80 gig
> > > d = 200 gig problem
> > > both running ntfs
> >
> > > looked at smart from, everes,t first thing and saw no problems recognizable by me.
> >
> > There are real problems tho, particularly with the second drive.
> >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[snip more unreadable ****]
> >
> > <snipped stuff we didnt need>
> >
> > > sorry if formating an issue
> >
> > Yeah, thats one real downside with Everest, along with the very
> > misleading OKs on those obscenely bad results with the bad sectors.
> So the drive reports smart #s
At the request of an(y) application.
> and the app, Everest, decides if it's OK & passes,
Yes and no. Whatever reads out the status can have an opinion on it.
The drive can return a status of 'threshold exceeded'.
It's up to the app to findout which one and whether that's serious.
But it can do that too at any time it wishes and decide by itself
which standard (own set of thresholds) it wants to apply.
> or is there a standard?
Yes, the standard is that there is no real standard.
S.M.A.R.T attributes have been abandoned several specs ago already.
>
> & wasn't there a dos command we could issue to do write verify?
> Is it now done automatically (is that the hardware EEC Recovered - 160 millions)
Nope.
> or can you start it?
Nope, not unless you are using an OS with drivers that can do it.
>
> >
> > > --------------------------
> >
> > > I've got a probable reproduceable app error on a specific file. This
> > > should identify file name and can maybe map soft/bad spot(s)?
> >
> > No point in doing that with so many uncorrectable bad sectors.
> >
> > Just have the drive replaced under warranty.
> >
> > > So, good looking smart
> >
> > Nope, one of the worst thats been posted here, actually.
> >
> > > & who knows what? I don't think it's any inboard strange interface issue.
> >
> > Correct.
> >
> > > Gotta surface spot on the platter going bad, i think.
> >
> > Nope, that doesnt happen. There's some other very fundamental
> > problem with the drive, likely a poor connection somewhere or a
> > cracked flexible connection to the heads etc.
> >
> > > Works good on 1,000s of i/os otherwise.
> >
> > Nope, its dying.
> >
> > > Too bad Check-Disk didn't spit out info.
> >
> > > Just replace/warranty drive, but always like to use cadavers for forensics.
> >
> > What ?
>
> I am going to replace or retire based on seagate accepting the smart
> as proof of failure. So thought it could be a testbed for anyone that
> thought it could be recovered, and I'm OK if it destroyed data.
> Crazy thought
Your quest(ion) was answered, run FindBad.
>
> >
> > > But smart looks ok?
> >
> > Nope, one of the worst ever posted here.
> >
> >
> > > DonLogan <navajo@neonfeather.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have a 200 gig ide hard drive that's giving me read errors.
> > > > I write lots of files, daily, to the drive then use other
> > > > applications to read the files. The read applications are hiccuping
> > > > with their various errors.
> > > > I run xp pro so I ran Properties-Tools-Error-Checking. Took about 24
> > > > hours and seemed to be correcting but never gave me an analysis or
> > > > report. Now new files are also erroring.
> > > > I'd like to run a repair utility, free?, to correct problems.
> > > > Ideally i'd like to keep the existing files but not absolutely necessary.
> > > > Would appreciate recommendations.
> > > > thanks
Re: read errors 
Linear Mode
