Groups > comp.os.linux.hardware > #2310 > unrolled thread

A dying very old HDD confirmed?

Started by	Ant <ant@zimage.comANT>
First post	2014-04-19 09:57 -0700
Last post	2014-04-20 06:55 +1000
Articles	20 on this page of 62 — 11 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.hardware

  A dying very old HDD confirmed? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-04-19 09:57 -0700
    Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-04-19 10:55 -0700
      Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-04-19 11:56 -0700
      Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-04-20 06:56 +1000
        Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-04-19 17:34 -0700
          Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-04-20 13:02 +1000
            Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-04-19 23:16 -0700
              Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Robert Nichols <SEE_SIGNATURE@localhost.localdomain.invalid> - 2014-04-20 07:19 -0500
                Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-04-20 09:54 -0700
                Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-04-20 09:57 -0700
                  Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Robert Nichols <SEE_SIGNATURE@localhost.localdomain.invalid> - 2014-04-21 07:56 -0500
                    Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-04-21 08:08 -0700
                      Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2014-04-22 01:31 +0200
                        Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-04-21 19:02 -0700
                          Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-04-23 05:24 +1000
                            Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2014-04-22 19:03 -0500
                              Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-04-23 14:42 +1000
                                Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-04-22 23:27 -0700
                                  Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Robert Nichols <SEE_SIGNATURE@localhost.localdomain.invalid> - 2014-04-23 09:03 -0500
                                    Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-04-24 06:32 +1000
                                      Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2014-04-24 00:26 +0200
                                        Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2014-04-23 18:47 -0500
                                          Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2014-10-19 21:05 -0500
                                            Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-10-21 05:13 +1100
                                              Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2014-10-20 16:04 -0500
                                                Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-10-22 07:01 +1100
                                                  Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2014-10-21 15:56 -0500
                                            Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2014-10-22 22:43 +0000
                                              Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-10-24 08:18 -0700
                                                Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2014-10-24 15:39 +0000
                                                  Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2014-10-24 20:23 -0500
                                        Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-04-24 11:20 +1000
                                          Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2014-04-24 09:47 +0200
                                  Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-04-24 06:35 +1000
                                Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2014-04-24 00:23 +0200
                                  Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-04-24 11:17 +1000
                                    Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2014-04-24 09:55 +0200
                                      Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-04-25 05:17 +1000
                                        Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2014-04-27 19:12 +0200
                                          Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-04-28 19:59 +1000
                      Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-04-23 05:22 +1000
            Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2014-04-20 11:08 +0200
              Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2014-04-20 10:13 +0100
                Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2014-04-20 12:28 +0200
                Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-04-21 05:52 +1000
              Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-04-21 05:50 +1000
                Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? cjt <cheljuba@prodigy.net> - 2014-04-20 19:35 -0500
            Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> - 2014-04-22 12:59 +0100
              Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Vic RR Garcia <VicGar007@at-gmail.dot.com> - 2014-04-22 13:23 -0400
                Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-04-23 05:30 +1000
                  Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> - 2014-04-22 20:57 +0100
                    Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-04-23 14:37 +1000
              Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-04-23 05:28 +1000
        Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2015-01-03 19:11 -0800
          Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Robert Nichols <SEE_SIGNATURE@localhost.localdomain.invalid> - 2015-01-04 12:11 -0600
            Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2015-01-04 12:38 -0800
              Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? mjb@signal11.invalid (Mike) - 2015-01-04 23:02 +0000
                Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2015-01-04 15:21 -0800
          Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 08:18 +1100
            Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2015-01-04 15:21 -0800
        Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2015-01-04 06:44 -0800
    Re: A dying very old HDD confirmed? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-04-20 06:55 +1000

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →

#2348

From	Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org>
Date	2014-04-24 00:26 +0200
Message-ID	<lj9ems$2jua$2@saria.nerim.net>
In reply to	#2345

Rod Speed a écrit :
> 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.

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

#2349

From	ANTant@zimage.com (Ant)
Date	2014-04-23 18:47 -0500
Message-ID	<RJydnTLZbL-SzMXOnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
In reply to	#2348

> >> 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.

Yeah, my Linux/Debian box's smartctld detected them on Saturday's early  
morning. I never had any issues before that. So far, I haven't gotten 
any new ones after that morning.
-- 
Quote of the Week: "Where there is sugar, there are bound to be ants." --Malay Proverb
  /\___/\   Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
 / /\ /\ \                 Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o   o| |
   \ _ /           Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail. If crediting,
    ( )          then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

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

#2545

From	ANTant@zimage.com (Ant)
Date	2014-10-19 21:05 -0500
Message-ID	<Rb6dnWOE1LWY89nJnZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@earthlink.com>
In reply to	#2349

In alt.comp.periphs.hdd Ant <ANTant@zimage.com> 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.

> Yeah, my Linux/Debian box's smartctld detected them on Saturday's early  
> morning. I never had any issues before that. So far, I haven't gotten 
> any new ones after that morning.

I'm back again. Yesterday, I decided to repartition my HDD to remove 
most of its old partitions and resize one of big one to make more free 
disk space with gtparted. The issue came back again after the long disk 
process (no errors seen) according to e-mails. So, I reran 
GSmartControl's tests. Short passed and long failed after a few minutes 
like before. Here are the results: 
http://pastie.org/pastes/9662092/text?key=cfat9p1fn8a740kx57qbja ... Is 
it me or is "SMART Self-test log structure" section out of chronological 
order based on its LifeTime(hours)? 

Thank you in advance. :)
-- 
Quote of the Week: "Even an ant can hurt an elephant." --Proverb
  /\___/\   Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
 / /\ /\ \                 Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o   o| |
   \ _ /           Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail. If crediting,
    ( )          then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

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

#2546

From	"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Date	2014-10-21 05:13 +1100
Message-ID	<cal1mtFoqm6U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#2545

Ant <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote
> Ant <ANTant@zimage.com> 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.

>> Yeah, my Linux/Debian box's smartctld detected them on
>> Saturday's early morning. I never had any issues before that.
>> So far, I haven't gotten any new ones after that morning.

> I'm back again.

How dare you ?

> Yesterday, I decided to repartition my HDD to remove most of
> its old partitions and resize one of big one to make more free
> disk space with gtparted. The issue came back again after the
> long disk process (no errors seen) according to e-mails. So,
> I reran GSmartControl's tests. Short passed and long failed
> after a few minutes like before. Here are the results:
> http://pastie.org/pastes/9662092/text?key=cfat9p1fn8a740kx57qbja ...
> Is it me or is "SMART Self-test log structure" section out
> of chronological order based on its LifeTime(hours)?

I think its just a very badly formatted report.

> Thank you in advance. :)

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

#2547

From	ANTant@zimage.com (Ant)
Date	2014-10-20 16:04 -0500
Message-ID	<65ednXXl4vRy5djJnZ2dnUU7-fudnZ2d@earthlink.com>
In reply to	#2546

> > I'm back again.

> How dare you ?

:P


> > Yesterday, I decided to repartition my HDD to remove most of
> > its old partitions and resize one of big one to make more free
> > disk space with gtparted. The issue came back again after the
> > long disk process (no errors seen) according to e-mails. So,
> > I reran GSmartControl's tests. Short passed and long failed
> > after a few minutes like before. Here are the results:
> > http://pastie.org/pastes/9662092/text?key=cfat9p1fn8a740kx57qbja ...
> > Is it me or is "SMART Self-test log structure" section out
> > of chronological order based on its LifeTime(hours)?

> I think its just a very badly formatted report.

Are you using a fixed width font (e.g., courier)?
-- 
Quote of the Week: "Above ground I shall be food for kites; below I 
shall be food for mole-crickets and ants. Why rob one to feed the 
other?" --Juang-zu (4th Century B.C.)
  /\___/\   Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
 / /\ /\ \                 Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o   o| |
   \ _ /           Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail. If crediting,
    ( )          then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

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

#2548

From	"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Date	2014-10-22 07:01 +1100
Message-ID	<cansd2Fh21rU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#2547


"Ant" <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote in message 
news:65ednXXl4vRy5djJnZ2dnUU7-fudnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>> > I'm back again.
>
>> How dare you ?
>
> :P
>
>
>> > Yesterday, I decided to repartition my HDD to remove most of
>> > its old partitions and resize one of big one to make more free
>> > disk space with gtparted. The issue came back again after the
>> > long disk process (no errors seen) according to e-mails. So,
>> > I reran GSmartControl's tests. Short passed and long failed
>> > after a few minutes like before. Here are the results:
>> > http://pastie.org/pastes/9662092/text?key=cfat9p1fn8a740kx57qbja ...
>> > Is it me or is "SMART Self-test log structure" section out
>> > of chronological order based on its LifeTime(hours)?
>
>> I think its just a very badly formatted report.
>
> Are you using a fixed width font (e.g., courier)?

I didn’t mean that, I meant the way the list of scans is numbered
and has a Lifetime column as well. Makes no sense.

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

#2549

From	ANTant@zimage.com (Ant)
Date	2014-10-21 15:56 -0500
Message-ID	<1M-dnTZ65Y8OVdvJnZ2dnUU7-LudnZ2d@earthlink.com>
In reply to	#2548

> >> > Yesterday, I decided to repartition my HDD to remove most of
> >> > its old partitions and resize one of big one to make more free
> >> > disk space with gtparted. The issue came back again after the
> >> > long disk process (no errors seen) according to e-mails. So,
> >> > I reran GSmartControl's tests. Short passed and long failed
> >> > after a few minutes like before. Here are the results:
> >> > http://pastie.org/pastes/9662092/text?key=cfat9p1fn8a740kx57qbja ...
> >> > Is it me or is "SMART Self-test log structure" section out
> >> > of chronological order based on its LifeTime(hours)?
> >
> >> I think its just a very badly formatted report.
> >
> > Are you using a fixed width font (e.g., courier)?

> I didn???t mean that, I meant the way the list of scans is numbered
> and has a Lifetime column as well. Makes no sense. 

Oh. Yeah, I find that weird. It must be a very old HDD SMART thing. Heh.
-- 
Quote of the Week: "Above ground I shall be food for kites; below I 
shall be food for mole-crickets and ants. Why rob one to feed the 
other?" --Juang-zu (4th Century B.C.)
  /\___/\   Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
 / /\ /\ \                 Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o   o| |
   \ _ /           Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail. If crediting,
    ( )          then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

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

#2551

From	Arno <me@privacy.net>
Date	2014-10-22 22:43 +0000
Message-ID	<caqq86F9unaU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#2545

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Ant <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote:
> In alt.comp.periphs.hdd Ant <ANTant@zimage.com> 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.

>> Yeah, my Linux/Debian box's smartctld detected them on Saturday's early  
>> morning. I never had any issues before that. So far, I haven't gotten 
>> any new ones after that morning.

> I'm back again. Yesterday, I decided to repartition my HDD to remove 
> most of its old partitions and resize one of big one to make more free 
> disk space with gtparted. The issue came back again after the long disk 
> process (no errors seen) according to e-mails. So, I reran 
> GSmartControl's tests. Short passed and long failed after a few minutes 
> like before. Here are the results: 
> http://pastie.org/pastes/9662092/text?key=cfat9p1fn8a740kx57qbja ... Is 
> it me or is "SMART Self-test log structure" section out of chronological 
> order based on its LifeTime(hours)? 

That one is simple: 64k hours maximum (16 bit unsigned) and
it rolled over.

Arno


> Thank you in advance. :)
> -- 
> Quote of the Week: "Even an ant can hurt an elephant." --Proverb
>  /\___/\   Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
> / /\ /\ \                 Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
> | |o   o| |
>   \ _ /           Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail. If crediting,
>    ( )          then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

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

#2552

From	Ant <ant@zimage.comANT>
Date	2014-10-24 08:18 -0700
Message-ID	<54adnXeMN81E8NfJnZ2dnUU7-cWdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
In reply to	#2551

On 10/22/2014 3:43 PM PT, Arno typed:
>> I'm back again. Yesterday, I decided to repartition my HDD to remove
>> most of its old partitions and resize one of big one to make more free
>> disk space with gtparted. The issue came back again after the long disk
>> process (no errors seen) according to e-mails. So, I reran
>> GSmartControl's tests. Short passed and long failed after a few minutes
>> like before. Here are the results:
>> http://pastie.org/pastes/9662092/text?key=cfat9p1fn8a740kx57qbja ... Is
>> it me or is "SMART Self-test log structure" section out of chronological
>> order based on its LifeTime(hours)?
>
> That one is simple: 64k hours maximum (16 bit unsigned) and
> it rolled over.

Wow. Haha. I assume the newer drivers have this limitation removed. :D
-- 
"Ants. There's a size for every picnic, a colour for every occasion, and 
a bite to let you know that they are there. Apart from the bite, that 
could describe a Basenji pretty well." --Len Reddie
    /\___/\         Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
   / /\ /\ \                Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
  | |o   o| |
     \ _ /        If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
      ( )         If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

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

#2553

From	Arno <me@privacy.net>
Date	2014-10-24 15:39 +0000
Message-ID	<cava53FepohU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#2552

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Ant <ant@zimage.comant> wrote:
> On 10/22/2014 3:43 PM PT, Arno typed:
>>> I'm back again. Yesterday, I decided to repartition my HDD to remove
>>> most of its old partitions and resize one of big one to make more free
>>> disk space with gtparted. The issue came back again after the long disk
>>> process (no errors seen) according to e-mails. So, I reran
>>> GSmartControl's tests. Short passed and long failed after a few minutes
>>> like before. Here are the results:
>>> http://pastie.org/pastes/9662092/text?key=cfat9p1fn8a740kx57qbja ... Is
>>> it me or is "SMART Self-test log structure" section out of chronological
>>> order based on its LifeTime(hours)?
>>
>> That one is simple: 64k hours maximum (16 bit unsigned) and
>> it rolled over.

> Wow. Haha. I assume the newer drivers have this limitation removed. :D

May be the disk itself. Nothing to worry about as long as 
you remember it happens roughly all 8 years.

Arno

> -- 
> "Ants. There's a size for every picnic, a colour for every occasion, and 
> a bite to let you know that they are there. Apart from the bite, that 
> could describe a Basenji pretty well." --Len Reddie
>    /\___/\         Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
>   / /\ /\ \                Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
>  | |o   o| |
>     \ _ /        If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
>      ( )         If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
> Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

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

#2554

From	ANTant@zimage.com (Ant)
Date	2014-10-24 20:23 -0500
Message-ID	<OZ6dnXNwS4LhZtfJnZ2dnUU7-QWdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
In reply to	#2553

> >>> I'm back again. Yesterday, I decided to repartition my HDD to remove
> >>> most of its old partitions and resize one of big one to make more free
> >>> disk space with gtparted. The issue came back again after the long disk
> >>> process (no errors seen) according to e-mails. So, I reran
> >>> GSmartControl's tests. Short passed and long failed after a few minutes
> >>> like before. Here are the results:
> >>> http://pastie.org/pastes/9662092/text?key=cfat9p1fn8a740kx57qbja ... Is
> >>> it me or is "SMART Self-test log structure" section out of chronological
> >>> order based on its LifeTime(hours)?
> >>
> >> That one is simple: 64k hours maximum (16 bit unsigned) and
> >> it rolled over.

> > Wow. Haha. I assume the newer drivers have this limitation removed. :D

> May be the disk itself. Nothing to worry about as long as 
> you remember it happens roughly all 8 years.

Oops, I meant to say drives and not drivers. DOH!
-- 
Quote of the Week: "Above ground I shall be food for kites; below I 
shall be food for mole-crickets and ants. Why rob one to feed the 
other?" --Juang-zu (4th Century B.C.)
  /\___/\   Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
 / /\ /\ \                 Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o   o| |
   \ _ /           Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail. If crediting,
    ( )          then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

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

#2351

From	"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Date	2014-04-24 11:20 +1000
Message-ID	<brr79pFe819U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#2348

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.

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

#2352

From	Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org>
Date	2014-04-24 09:47 +0200
Message-ID	<ljafif$2ulj$1@saria.nerim.net>
In reply to	#2351

Rod Speed a écrit :
> 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.  

At which lifetime ? AFAICS the last successful extended test was at 3165
hours, whereas the first with error was at 5499. No more successful
extended test since there until the bad sector was reallocated.

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

#2346

From	"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Date	2014-04-24 06:35 +1000
Message-ID	<brqmj5Fb0riU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#2343


"Ant" <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote in message 
news:Hp-dneXPbOXTwMrOnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> On 4/22/2014 9:42 PM PT, Rod Speed typed:
>
>>>> That one isnt getting worse, just the detail has changed, the
>>>> sector has been reallocated, because something wrote to it.
>>
>>> I meant for future. I remember it said 6 and then it was 7.
>>
>> Because the offline uncorrectable was
>> written to and became a reallocated sector.
>>
>> The pending sector turned out to be fine.
>
> Weird. I guess my brief usage of that HDD (VirtualBox's updated Windows XP 
> Pro. SP3 VM) yesterday caused that.
>
>
>> Interesting that the read failures are still there and that
>> blows a great hole in Bob Nichols' claim that the test just
>> stopped when it got to the offline uncorrectable sector.
>
> Hmm, I decided to run both short and long self tests again via gsmartctl 
> to see if the long test passed this time. Here are the latest results:
>
> # smartctl -a /dev/sda
> smartctl 5.41 2011-06-09 r3365 [x86_64-linux-3.2.0-4-amd64] (local build)
> Copyright (C) 2002-11 by Bruce Allen, http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net
>
> === START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
> Model Family:     Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 and 7200.7 Plus
> Device Model:     ST380011A
> Serial Number:    4JV5P7LN
> Firmware Version: 8.01
> User Capacity:    80,026,361,856 bytes [80.0 GB]
> Sector Size:      512 bytes logical/physical
> Device is:        In smartctl database [for details use: -P show]
> ATA Version is:   6
> ATA Standard is:  ATA/ATAPI-6 T13 1410D revision 2
> Local Time is:    Tue Apr 22 23:23:40 2014 PDT
> SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability.
> SMART support is: Enabled
>
> === START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION ===
> SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED
>
> General SMART Values:
> Offline data collection status:  (0x82) Offline data collection activity
>                                         was completed without error.
>                                         Auto Offline Data Collection: 
> Enabled.
> Self-test execution status:      (   0) The previous self-test routine 
> completed
>                                         without error or no self-test has 
> ever
>                                         been run.
> Total time to complete Offline
> data collection:                (  430) seconds.
> Offline data collection
> capabilities:                    (0x5b) SMART execute Offline immediate.
>                                         Auto Offline data collection 
> on/off support.
>                                         Suspend Offline collection upon 
> new
>                                         command.
>                                         Offline surface scan supported.
>                                         Self-test supported.
>                                         No Conveyance Self-test supported.
>                                         Selective Self-test supported.
> SMART capabilities:            (0x0003) Saves SMART data before entering
>                                         power-saving mode.
>                                         Supports SMART auto save timer.
> Error logging capability:        (0x01) Error logging supported.
>                                         General Purpose Logging supported.
> Short self-test routine
> recommended polling time:        (   1) minutes.
> Extended self-test routine
> recommended polling time:        (  58) minutes.
>
> SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 10
> Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds:
> ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME          FLAG     VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED 
> WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
>   1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate     0x000f   056   053   006    Pre-fail 
>        -       182708346
>   3 Spin_Up_Time            0x0003   098   098   000    Pre-fail 
>        -       0
>   4 Start_Stop_Count        0x0032   100   100   020    Old_age 
>        -       0
>   5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct   0x0033   100   100   036    Pre-fail 
>        -       7
>   7 Seek_Error_Rate         0x000f   089   060   030    Pre-fail 
>        -       936983316
>   9 Power_On_Hours          0x0032   019   019   000    Old_age 
>        -       71119
>  10 Spin_Retry_Count        0x0013   100   100   097    Pre-fail 
>        -       0
>  12 Power_Cycle_Count       0x0032   100   100   020    Old_age 
>        -       362
> 194 Temperature_Celsius     0x0022   040   053   000    Old_age   Always - 
> 40
> 195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered  0x001a   056   053   000    Old_age   Always - 
> 182708346
> 197 Current_Pending_Sector  0x0012   100   100   000    Old_age   Always - 
> 0
> 198 Offline_Uncorrectable   0x0010   100   100   000    Old_age 
> ne      -       0
> 199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count    0x003e   200   200   000    Old_age   Always - 
> 0
> 200 Multi_Zone_Error_Rate   0x0000   100   253   000    Old_age 
> ne      -       0
> 202 Data_Address_Mark_Errs  0x0032   100   253   000    Old_age   Always - 
> 0
>
> SMART Error Log Version: 1
> No Errors Logged
>
> SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1
> Num  Test_Description    Status                  Remaining LifeTime(hours) 
> LBA_of_first_error
> # 1  Extended offline    Completed without error       00%      5583 -
> # 2  Short offline       Completed without error       00%      5583 -
> # 3  Extended offline    Completed: read failure       60%      5502 
> 67691664
> # 4  Extended offline    Completed: read failure       60%      5501 
> 67691664
> # 5  Short offline       Completed without error       00%      5501 -
> # 6  Short offline       Completed without error       00%      5501 -
> # 7  Extended offline    Completed: read failure       60%      5501 
> 67691664
> # 8  Short offline       Completed without error       00%      5501 -
> # 9  Extended offline    Completed: read failure       60%      5499 
> 67691664
> #10  Extended offline    Completed without error       00%      3165 -
> #11  Extended offline    Completed without error       00%     48483 -
> #12  Extended offline    Completed without error       00%     43207 -
> #13  Extended offline    Interrupted (host reset)      90%     43201 -
> #14  Extended offline    Completed without error       00%     39844 -
> #15  Extended offline    Interrupted (host reset)      20%     38502 -
> #16  Extended offline    Completed without error       00%     35555 -
> #17  Extended offline    Completed without error       00%     31886 -
> #18  Extended offline    Completed without error       00%     22233 -
> #19  Extended offline    Completed without error       00%     18951 -
> #20  Extended offline    Completed without error       00%     18674 -
> #21  Extended offline    Completed without error       00%     15957 -
> 4 of 4 failed self-tests are outdated by newer successful extended offline 
> self-test # 1
>
> SMART Selective self-test log data structure revision number 1
>  SPAN  MIN_LBA  MAX_LBA  CURRENT_TEST_STATUS
>     1        0        0  Not_testing
>     2        0        0  Not_testing
>     3        0        0  Not_testing
>     4        0        0  Not_testing
>     5        0        0  Not_testing
> Selective self-test flags (0x0):
>   After scanning selected spans, do NOT read-scan remainder of disk.
> If Selective self-test is pending on power-up, resume after 0 minute 
> delay.
>
>
> That was interesting to see automatic reallocation made the tests work 
> again.

That still isnt clear, as I said elsewhere to Bob.

> I guess I should use the disk again if I see reallocation issues again?

Can't understand that question.

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

#2347

From	Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org>
Date	2014-04-24 00:23 +0200
Message-ID	<lj9eh3$2jua$1@saria.nerim.net>
In reply to	#2342

Rod Speed a écrit :
> 
> Because the offline uncorrectable was
> written to and became a reallocated sector.
> 
> The pending sector turned out to be fine.

What makes you think that it was not the same sector ?

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

#2350

From	"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Date	2014-04-24 11:17 +1000
Message-ID	<brr741Fe71rU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#2347

Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote 
> Rod Speed wrote
 
>> Because the offline uncorrectable was
>> written to and became a reallocated sector.
 
>> The pending sector turned out to be fine.
 
> What makes you think that it was not the same sector ?

They don't get double counted with those fields. 

A sector can not be both pending and offline uncorrectable.

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

#2353

From	Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org>
Date	2014-04-24 09:55 +0200
Message-ID	<ljag13$2v33$1@saria.nerim.net>
In reply to	#2350

Rod Speed a écrit :
> Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote 
>> Rod Speed wrote
>  
>>> Because the offline uncorrectable was
>>> written to and became a reallocated sector.
>  
>>> The pending sector turned out to be fine.
>  
>> What makes you think that it was not the same sector ?
> 
> They don't get double counted with those fields. 
> 
> A sector can not be both pending and offline uncorrectable.  

Why not ?

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

#2354

From	"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Date	2014-04-25 05:17 +1000
Message-ID	<brt6bpFr1rcU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#2353

Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote 
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote 
>>> Rod Speed wrote
  
>>>> Because the offline uncorrectable was
>>>> written to and became a reallocated sector.
  
>>>> The pending sector turned out to be fine.
  
>>> What makes you think that it was not the same sector ?
 
>> They don't get double counted with those fields. 
 
>> A sector can not be both pending and offline uncorrectable.  
 
> Why not ?

Because that is how those SMART fields are defined.

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

#2355

From	Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org>
Date	2014-04-27 19:12 +0200
Message-ID	<ljjdqi$2nsu$1@saria.nerim.net>
In reply to	#2354

Rod Speed a écrit :
> Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote 
>> Rod Speed wrote
>  
>>> A sector can not be both pending and offline uncorrectable.  
>  
>> Why not ?
> 
> Because that is how those SMART fields are defined.  

Since I was not able to find any thorough and authoritative definition
of these attributes, I cannot check whether they are mutually exclusive
or not. Can you please give the definitions and differences of these
attributes or provide any pointers ?

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

#2356

From	"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Date	2014-04-28 19:59 +1000
Message-ID	<bs6n5pFqhc4U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#2355

Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote 
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote 
>>> Rod Speed wrote

>>>> A sector can not be both pending and offline uncorrectable.  
  
>>> Why not ?
 
>> Because that is how those SMART fields are defined.  
 
> Since I was not able to find any thorough and 
> authoritative definition of these attributes, I cannot 
> check whether they are mutually exclusive or not. 

You can actually, from even the simple 
definition of those two types of sectors. 

> Can you please give the definitions 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.M.A.R.T.#Known_ATA_S.M.A.R.T._attributes

> and differences of these attributes or provide any pointers ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.M.A.R.T.#Known_ATA_S.M.A.R.T._attributes

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →

csiph-web

A dying very old HDD confirmed?

Contents

#2348

#2349

#2545

#2546

#2547

#2548

#2549

#2551

#2552

#2553

#2554

#2351

#2352

#2346

#2347

#2350

#2353

#2354

#2355

#2356