Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.hdd
Subject: Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed?
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 11:20:52 +1000
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <brr79pFe819U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <VLqdnVDGnrZrN8_OnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@earthlink.com>   <brg69qF4vtjU1@mid.individual.net> <bvSdnQ7C3eqai87OnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@earthlink.com> <brgrndF8umlU1@mid.individual.net> <oOedneCafrq5-87OnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@earthlink.com> <lj0e06$ivi$1@omega-3a.local> <xtidnRkVEbP7Yc7OnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@earthlink.com> <lj34ie$coj$1@omega-3a.local> <1OGdnVOCGsDgqcjOnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@earthlink.com> <lj49pd$up6$1@saria.nerim.net> <EbqdnQrrcZMyUMjOnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@earthlink.com> <brnu0oFnk6kU1@mid.individual.net> <p-CdncuVPob8nsrOnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@earthlink.com> <brov2fFttjgU1@mid.individual.net> <Hp-dneXPbOXTwMrOnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@earthlink.com> <lj8h6q$6gt$1@omega-3a.local> <brqmddFavmdU1@mid.individual.net> <lj9ems$2jua$2@saria.nerim.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-15"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net k4bMat96X5OGH/5XPFSM5gFavDyqGOvja6kMd+R9ZIqEF832s=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WbHBjunBeUE7mXdHJP1Px+Ssgrc=
In-Reply-To: <lj9ems$2jua$2@saria.nerim.net>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416
Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.hardware:2351 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage:5437

Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote 
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Robert Nichols <SEE_SIGNATURE@localhost.localdomain.invalid> wrote
 
>>> There's no "great hole" in my theory, Rod.  You were looking at the
>>> history of tests that were run _before_ the bad sector was reallocated.
 
>> Dunno, his original list, which still had the offline 
>> uncorrectable showing, had got quite a few extended 
>> tests that had completed without error
 
> Check the timestamps. The previous successful extended tests were 
> run much earlier, probably before the bad sector was detected.

I wasn't talking about the previous successful extended tests,
I was talking about the latest successful extended tests that
were still happening when the drive had one pending sector
and one offline uncorrectable sector, most obviously in the
first of Ants posts that included the extended tests.