On Fri, 30 May 2008 20:39:14 -0400, DonLogan <navajo@neonfeather.com>
put finger to keyboard and composed:
>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
I would try to obtain a warranty replacement. I recently took a
Seagate drive out of service after living with bad sectors for several
years. Towards the end it started to grow new defects on a weekly
basis. It still had only 130 bad sectors, which is well short of
Seagate's SMART threshold. Some people will retire a drive with a
single bad sector because they worry that a new defect may appear in a
critical area. It's your choice, but I definitely wouldn't continue to
use your drive.
How do I interpret SMART diagnostic utilities results?
------------------------------------------------------
As a matter of policy, Seagate does not publish attributes and
thresholds.
The SMART values that might be read out by third-party SMART software
are not based on how the values may be used within the Seagate hard
drives. Seagate does not provide support for software programs that
claim to read individual SMART attributes and thresholds. There may
be some historical correctness on older drives, but new drives, no
doubt, will have incorporated newer solutions, attributes and
thresholds.
Seagate uses the general SMART Status, pass or fail. The individual
attributes and threshold values are proprietary and we do not offer a
utility that will read out the values. If the values that you are
seeing with a third party SMART utility are not displaying properly or
seem to be false, please contact your software vendor for further
explanation of the values.
================================================== =================
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Rod Speed wrote in news:6aboi7F3710vlU1@mid.individual.net
> 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. ]------------------------------------------------------------
[snip more unreadable stuff ]
> > >
> > > <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,
Sort of. And it's not just 'OK', it is 'OK: description' where description
depends on the Pre-fail/Advisory bit. It's a characterization of how the
drive regards these values when deciding on the drive's SMART status.
Each attribute has it's own internal SMART status, the significance of
which depends on the attribute's Prefail/Advisory bit and on whether
the normalized value has dipped below the threshold value.
If a value has dipped below threshold it will cause a SMART RETURN STATUS
of "threshold exceeded" which -depending on the Pre-fail/Advisory bit- is
'OK' or 'NotOK'. Some drives will only look at the values with pre-fail set.
So each individual attribute's SMART status is characterized as something
like OK: always passing (advisory) or OK: Value is normal (pre-fail) or
NotOK: Value exceeded threshold (pre-fail)
Other apps may use different wording, like old_age and pre-fail.
> and that OK should be ignored.
Not ignored but judged in the proper context.
>
> > or is there a standard?
>
> Nope.
>
> > & wasn't there a dos command we could issue to do write verify?
> Nope.
Nope, Rodbots?
> And it isnt relevant to a drive thats dying anyway.
IF it's dying.
>
> > 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.
So no. And IDE drives have no Write Verify commands.
>
> > (is that the hardware EEC Recovered - 160 millions)
>
> No, that what all drives do all the time.
All the time, Rodbots?
>
> > or can you start it?
>
> Its not relevant to a dying drive.
So what if it's *not* dying, Rodbots?
>
> > > > --------------------------
[snip]
>
> > > 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.
And when completed you can do the same for the Samsung as it must be dying too.
That is, if you *must* believe the Rod- and Babblebots.
>
> > 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,
It won't fix it if you don't fix the drive too,
fixing the pending bad sectors first.
> but I bet it wont.
Which is short for
'please don't do it so I won't run the chance of looking a fool'.
>
> > > > 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
Arno Wagner wrote in news:6acko8F36hactU1@mid.individual.net
> 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 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 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
> You definitely should.
You listen to the Babblebot now, you hear, boy.
He makes an awful lot of sense, as always.
Franc Zabkar wrote in news:48g344hroia0p96pls66fj997tdmkro561@4ax.com
> On Fri, 30 May 2008 20:39:14 -0400, DonLogan <navajo@neonfeather.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
> > 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.
> > > >
[snip]
> >
> > Franc
> > So should I return to seagate or what?
> > tia
>
> I would try to obtain a warranty replacement. I recently took a Seagate
> drive out of service after living with bad sectors for several years.
> Towards the end it started to grow new defects on a weekly basis.
> It still had only 130 bad sectors, which is well short of Seagate's SMART
> threshold. Some people will retire a drive with a single bad sector
> because they worry that a new defect may appear in a critical area.
> It's your choice, but I definitely wouldn't continue to use your drive.
Right, good advice again, retire the drive and get a new one.
While time progresses, it should be fun to watch and see it
gather new defects again, just like that Samsung does already.
Who cares what data you'll loose on the new drive.
It will be a new drive and that's what counts, obviously.
You can always retire the new drive too, right, as long
as the warranty on your current one doesn't run out.
>
> Here are a few SMART reports for various drives:
> http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM
>
> This 120MB Seagate drive is perfectly good even though several
> attributes look very bad:
> http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/120GB.RPT
>
> This is the drive I retired:
> http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/13GB.RPT
>
> This is what Seagate's FAQ has to say about SMART:
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/3k34qc
>
> ================================================== =================
>
> How do I interpret SMART diagnostic utilities results?
> ------------------------------------------------------
> As a matter of policy, Seagate does not publish attributes and thresholds.
>
> The SMART values that might be read out by third-party SMART software
> are not based on how the values may be used within the Seagate hard
> drives. Seagate does not provide support for software programs that
> claim to read individual SMART attributes and thresholds. There may
> be some historical correctness on older drives, but new drives, no
> doubt, will have incorporated newer solutions, attributes and thresholds.
>
> Seagate uses the general SMART Status, pass or fail. The individual
> attributes and threshold values are proprietary and we do not offer a
> utility that will read out the values. If the values that you are
> seeing with a third party SMART utility are not displaying properly or
> seem to be false, please contact your software vendor for further
> explanation of the values.
> ================================================== =================
Well, so much for your own Seagate drive SMART observations and conclusions then.
>Rod Speed wrote in news:6aboi7F3710vlU1@mid.individual.net
>> 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. ]------------------------------------------------------------
>[snip more unreadable stuff ]
>> > >
>> > > <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,
>
>Sort of. And it's not just 'OK', it is 'OK: description' where description
>depends on the Pre-fail/Advisory bit. It's a characterization of how the
>drive regards these values when deciding on the drive's SMART status.
>
>Each attribute has it's own internal SMART status, the significance of
>which depends on the attribute's Prefail/Advisory bit and on whether
>the normalized value has dipped below the threshold value.
>If a value has dipped below threshold it will cause a SMART RETURN STATUS
>of "threshold exceeded" which -depending on the Pre-fail/Advisory bit- is
>'OK' or 'NotOK'. Some drives will only look at the values with pre-fail set.
>
>So each individual attribute's SMART status is characterized as something
>like
> OK: always passing (advisory) or
> OK: Value is normal (pre-fail) or
>NotOK: Value exceeded threshold (pre-fail)>
does this mean that
ok - always passing is best
ok - value is normal is oh oh
and NotOk - warranty
and do the values display as billions or roll over at 999 million?
SMART says OK, but it isn't. I'm getting read errors!
You said 'S.M.A.R.T attributes have been abandoned several specs ago
already.' Oh oh. I'll investigate when i can get onto a highspeed.
I'm on dial-up. Do we have a successful replacement?
I'll try FindBad
thanks
>Other apps may use different wording, like old_age and pre-fail.
>
>> and that OK should be ignored.
>
>Not ignored but judged in the proper context.
>
>>
>> > or is there a standard?
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> > & wasn't there a dos command we could issue to do write verify?
>
>> Nope.
>
>Nope, Rodbots?
>
>> And it isnt relevant to a drive thats dying anyway.
>
>IF it's dying.
>
>>
>> > 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.
>
>So no. And IDE drives have no Write Verify commands.
>
>>
>> > (is that the hardware EEC Recovered - 160 millions)
>>
>> No, that what all drives do all the time.
>
>All the time, Rodbots?
>
>>
>> > or can you start it?
>>
>> Its not relevant to a dying drive.
>
>So what if it's *not* dying, Rodbots?
>
>>
>> > > > --------------------------
>
>[snip]
>
>>
>> > > 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.
>
>And when completed you can do the same for the Samsung as it must be dying too.
>That is, if you *must* believe the Rod- and Babblebots.
>
>>
>> > 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,
>
>It won't fix it if you don't fix the drive too,
>fixing the pending bad sectors first.
>
>> but I bet it wont.
>
>Which is short for
>'please don't do it so I won't run the chance of looking a fool'.
>
>>
>> > > > 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
>>Rod Speed wrote in news:6aboi7F3710vlU1@mid.individual.net
>>> 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. ]------------------------------------------------------------
>>[snip more unreadable stuff ]
>>> > >
>>> > > <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,
>>
>>Sort of. And it's not just 'OK', it is 'OK: description' where description
>>depends on the Pre-fail/Advisory bit. It's a characterization of how the
>>drive regards these values when deciding on the drive's SMART status.
>>
>>Each attribute has it's own internal SMART status, the significance of
>>which depends on the attribute's Prefail/Advisory bit and on whether
>>the normalized value has dipped below the threshold value.
>>If a value has dipped below threshold it will cause a SMART RETURN STATUS
>>of "threshold exceeded" which -depending on the Pre-fail/Advisory bit- is
>>'OK' or 'NotOK'. Some drives will only look at the values with pre-fail set.
>>
>>So each individual attribute's SMART status is characterized as something
>>like
>> OK: always passing (advisory) or
>> OK: Value is normal (pre-fail) or
>>NotOK: Value exceeded threshold (pre-fail)>
> does this mean that
> ok - always passing is best
> ok - value is normal is oh oh
> and NotOk - warranty
> and do the values display as billions or roll over at 999 million?
> SMART says OK, but it isn't. I'm getting read errors!
> You said 'S.M.A.R.T attributes have been abandoned several specs ago
> already.' Oh oh. I'll investigate when i can get onto a highspeed.
> I'm on dial-up. Do we have a successful replacement?
> I'll try FindBad
I would advise you to disregard what ''Squeeze'' says. He is
here for the posturing and dissing of others. His competence
is rather low. SMART attributes are perfectly fine, when
maintained in sync with the disks that are out there.
SMART thresholds are set by the vendores and they are typically
over-optimistic. Looking at the raw and cooked values still tells
a knowledgeable person a lot.
DonLogan wrote in news:4r6444d0e4ulb7qr481vag4jhuli14maq4@4ax.com
> "Squeeze" <rubberduck@duckies.au> wrote:
> > Rod Speed wrote in news:6aboi7F3710vlU1@mid.individual.net
> > > 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. ]------
> [snip more unreadable stuff ]
> > > > >
> > > > > <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,
> >
> > Sort of. And it's not just 'OK', it is 'OK: description' where description
> > depends on the Pre-fail/Advisory bit. It's a characterization of how the
> > drive regards these values when deciding on the drive's SMART status.
> >
> > Each attribute has it's own internal SMART status, the significance of
> > which depends on the attribute's Prefail/Advisory bit and on whether
> > the normalized value has dipped below the threshold value.
> > If a value has dipped below threshold it will cause a SMART RETURN STATUS
> > of "threshold exceeded" which -depending on the Pre-fail/Advisory bit- is
> > 'OK' or 'NotOK'. Some drives will only look at the values with pre-fail set.
> >
> > So each individual attribute's SMART status is characterized as something
> > like
> > OK: always passing (advisory) or
> > OK: Value is normal (pre-fail) or
> > NotOK: Value exceeded threshold (pre-fail)
> does this mean that
> ok - always passing is best
Not at all, only that this value won't ever give you a failure is imminent
status. When such a value drops below theshold it says that the drive is
nearing it's useful lifes end, getting old of age.
> ok - value is normal is oh oh
Depends on the value, of how far it deviated from the default value
that_it_started_out_life_with and towards the threshold value. All
'value is normal' means is that the normalized value is still above thres-
hold and that this value is not responsible for 'threshold exceeded'.
> and NotOk - warranty
Probably.
> and do the values display as billions or roll over at 999 million?
I have no idea where that comes from.
>
> SMART says OK, but it isn't.
Yes it is.
> I'm getting read errors!
No, really? Haven't you been explained why that is?
Oh wait, you were confused by the babblebots who said that it could
be caused by bad powersupply but then forgot all about that and said
that you *definetely* should replace the one drive though both your
drives have suffered from bad sectors and therefor the powersupply
should be the likely culprit. That didn't make sense, now did it.
>
> You said 'S.M.A.R.T attributes have been abandoned several specs
> ago already.' Oh oh.
It adds just some background to what Franc and Christian said.
I just posted an article on that subject in response to Christian.
> I'll investigate when i can get onto a highspeed. I'm on dial-up.
> Do we have a successful replacement?
What?
>
> I'll try FindBad
Yeah. And to stop new bads being made while you write to the drive,
have a good look at the powersupply and supply of power to the drives.
Christian Franke wrote in news:4842B029.7010104@t-online.de
> Squeeze wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
>
> AFIAK, the attributes itself were never specified in any ATA standard.
> The last spec of the attribute data format was in the last ATA-3 draft
> from 1997.
There is a proposal (e05148r0) by Jim Hatfield to add a SMART attributes list
as an informative annex to ATA8-ACS. It's about 3 years old already though.
Allow me my Franc Zabkar moment:
Quote
"2 Background
The documentation of how to access SMART attributes was removed before the final draft of ATA/ATAPI-3.
As I understand it, it was mainly a political issue. Drive vendors implemented attribute ‘X’ in different
ways, with different measurement scales and units. Customers (not understanding that) were trying to
compare vendor A with vendor B using the raw value of the attribute, and were making better/worse
judgements that were completely baseless.
Since then, the industry has stabilized many of the attributes through common customer requirements
being made of multiple drive vendors. Customers are more aware of the differences.\
Occasionally, there is a need for new attributes. Customers may dictate to drive vendors to implement
attribute ‘X’, defined in such and such a way.
Sometimes, these attributes are intentionally kept undocumented to the public, in order to provide market
differentiation between major OEMs.
There is another class of device users, however, in the open source community. These people still do not
understand the differences, and they publish assertions and software claiming to tell you information that
you ‘need to know’ about your ‘own property’ that ‘the others’ don’t want you to know. This proposal
would at least make a clear statement about attributes (in the absence of any standard) about how to
access and use the SMART attributes.
3.1.1 Overview
The information in this section was obsoleted in ATA/ATAPI-3. It is re-documented here for convenience,
as it continues to be used by some devices. Clarification has been added, since the original text was too
vague in places, and did not represent actual usage.
In late 1995, parts of SFF-8035i revision 2 (now obsolete) were merged with ATA/ATAPI-3.
Starting with ATA/ATAPI-4, there was no longer a requirement that a device maintain an attribute table.
Devices from then on were only required to return (via SMART RETURN STATUS) an OK or NotOK to
queries about their health. A ‘NotOK’ response indicates that the device considers itself ‘likely to fail’
(whatever that means). This left the interpretation of the values and threshholds completely up to the
device itself, eliminating a major source of confusion for host software.
ATA/ATAPI-5 added SMART error logs and self-tests to enhance the ability of a drive to report on its
health.
Arno Wagner wrote in news:6afrq2F37fni6U1@mid.individual.net
> Previously DonLogan <navajo@neonfeather.com> wrote:
> > "Squeeze" <rubberduck@duckies.au> wrote:
>
> > > Rod Speed wrote in news:6aboi7F3710vlU1@mid.individual.net
> > > > 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.
> > > > > > > ]------------------------------------------------------------ [snip more unreadable stuff ]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <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,
> > >
> > > Sort of. And it's not just 'OK', it is 'OK: description' where description
> > > depends on the Pre-fail/Advisory bit. It's a characterization of how the
> > > drive regards these values when deciding on the drive's SMART status.
> > >
> > > Each attribute has it's own internal SMART status, the significance of
> > > which depends on the attribute's Prefail/Advisory bit and on whether
> > > the normalized value has dipped below the threshold value.
> > > If a value has dipped below threshold it will cause a SMART RETURN STATUS
> > > of "threshold exceeded" which -depending on the Pre-fail/Advisory bit- is
> > > 'OK' or 'NotOK'. Some drives will only look at the values with pre-fail set.
> > >
> > > So each individual attribute's SMART status is characterized as something
> > > like
> > > OK: always passing (advisory) or
> > > OK: Value is normal (pre-fail) or
> > > NotOK: Value exceeded threshold (pre-fail)>
>
> > does this mean that
> > ok - always passing is best
> > ok - value is normal is oh oh
> > and NotOk - warranty
> > and do the values display as billions or roll over at 999 million?
>
> > SMART says OK, but it isn't. I'm getting read errors!
>
> > You said 'S.M.A.R.T attributes have been abandoned several specs ago
> > already.' Oh oh. I'll investigate when i can get onto a highspeed.
> > I'm on dial-up. Do we have a successful replacement?
>
> > I'll try FindBad
>
> I would advise you
That's what our babblebot does best and we all love him for it.
> to disregard what ''Squeeze'' says.
> He is here for the posturing and dissing of others.
> His competence is rather low.
Sounds like that role fits you fine too, Babblebot.
> SMART attributes are perfectly fine, when
> maintained in sync with the disks that are out there.
Whatever that is supposed to mean.
Sounding academic without saying anything substantial.
A little bit of Babblebot posturing, perhaps?
>
> SMART thresholds are set by the vendores and they are typically
> over-optimistic.
> Looking at the raw and cooked values still tells a knowledgeable person a lot.
So you just ruled yourself out then, Babblebot, since Franc
showed you rather clueless on the high Seagate numbers.
snip
>
>> and do the values display as billions or roll over at 999 million?
>
>I have no idea where that comes from.
Rae Read Error Rate & Reallocated Sector Count was
160,374,848
now is
49,678,669
so looks like it rolls over at 999,999,999
>
>>
>> SMART says OK, but it isn't.
>
>Yes it is.
>
Re: read errors 
Linear Mode
