| 1 |
J. Roeleveld wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tuesday, July 01, 2014 06:52:10 AM Mick wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Sunday 29 Jun 2014 13:05:04 Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> What if I copied data to the drive until it was just about full. I'm |
| 6 |
>>>> thinking like maybe 90 or 95% or so. If I do that and run the test |
| 7 |
>>>> every few days, would it then catch a error after a few weeks or so of |
| 8 |
>>>> testing? I realize no one knows with 100% certainty... |
| 9 |
>>> As you already said, nobody knows with 100% certainty. |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> In the failures I've experienced I'd expect it to start catching |
| 12 |
>>> errors within a few days. However, on those drives the relocated |
| 13 |
>>> sector count never increases, which suggests that the firmware never |
| 14 |
>>> relocated those sectors when overwritten, which seems brain-dead to |
| 15 |
>>> me. |
| 16 |
>>> |
| 17 |
>>> If the drive relocates the sectors, then conceivably it could go quite |
| 18 |
>>> a long time until having errors, probably in an entirely different set |
| 19 |
>>> of sectors. |
| 20 |
>>> |
| 21 |
>>> Even if it doesn't relocate, the reliability of the bad sectors could |
| 22 |
>>> be high or low. |
| 23 |
>>> |
| 24 |
>>> Rich |
| 25 |
>> What triggers a relocation? I also have a drive which shows a sector |
| 26 |
>> relocation pending, but for a few days now and after some tests that showed |
| 27 |
>> no errors, it won't relocate it. |
| 28 |
> I think a write to that sector should force a relocation. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> -- |
| 31 |
> Joost |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I think you are right Joost. I should have tried some fixes that COULD |
| 36 |
be destructive to see if a) it fixes it and b) the data lives, other |
| 37 |
than the bad part at least. I forgot to do that and really wasn't sure |
| 38 |
how to do it either. One person posted a lot of info about it but it |
| 39 |
was a bit deep for me. It would have required some reading and because |
| 40 |
of health issues, I can't tackle that much at one time right now. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
What I did tho. I got the new drive, rsynced the data from old drive to |
| 43 |
new drive. Removed the LVM stuff from the old drive. I used dd to |
| 44 |
erase the whole old drive, which took a while for 3TBs. o_O After |
| 45 |
that, I ran the test. It came back fine. Check out this snippet: |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1 |
| 48 |
Num Test_Description Status Remaining |
| 49 |
LifeTime(hours) LBA_of_first_error |
| 50 |
# 1 Short offline Completed without error 00% |
| 51 |
16499 - |
| 52 |
# 2 Extended offline Completed without error 00% |
| 53 |
16498 - |
| 54 |
# 3 Short offline Completed without error 00% |
| 55 |
16475 - |
| 56 |
# 4 Extended offline Completed without error 00% |
| 57 |
16466 - |
| 58 |
# 5 Extended offline Aborted by host 90% |
| 59 |
16461 - |
| 60 |
# 6 Extended offline Completed: read failure 60% |
| 61 |
16451 2905482560 |
| 62 |
# 7 Extended offline Completed: read failure 60% |
| 63 |
16432 2905482560 |
| 64 |
# 8 Extended offline Completed: read failure 60% |
| 65 |
16427 2905482560 |
| 66 |
# 9 Extended offline Completed: read failure 60% |
| 67 |
16394 2905482560 |
| 68 |
#10 Extended offline Completed: read failure 60% |
| 69 |
16389 2905482560 |
| 70 |
#11 Short offline Completed without error 00% |
| 71 |
16380 - |
| 72 |
#12 Extended offline Completed: read failure 60% |
| 73 |
16365 2905482560 |
| 74 |
#13 Extended offline Completed: read failure 60% |
| 75 |
16352 2905482560 |
| 76 |
#14 Extended offline Completed without error 00% |
| 77 |
8044 - |
| 78 |
#15 Extended offline Completed without error 00% |
| 79 |
3121 - |
| 80 |
#16 Extended offline Completed without error 00% |
| 81 |
1548 - |
| 82 |
#17 Short offline Completed without error 00% |
| 83 |
1141 - |
| 84 |
#18 Extended offline Completed without error 00% |
| 85 |
719 - |
| 86 |
#19 Extended offline Completed without error 00% |
| 87 |
525 - |
| 88 |
#20 Short offline Completed without error 00% |
| 89 |
516 - |
| 90 |
#21 Extended offline Completed without error 00% |
| 91 |
18 - |
| 92 |
7 of 7 failed self-tests are outdated by newer successful extended |
| 93 |
offline self-test # 2 |
| 94 |
|
| 95 |
Note the very last line. You can see all the failures but the last line |
| 96 |
says the drive is good to go since the drive passed after the bad ones. |
| 97 |
So, while I'm not holding my breath, that is what SMART says. It may |
| 98 |
blow smoke and make horrible noises next week but right now, it says it |
| 99 |
is OK. |
| 100 |
|
| 101 |
In the end, it seems something has to write to that specific sector and |
| 102 |
then the drive will reallocate/move/whatever so that the bad part isn't |
| 103 |
used anymore. It seems dd did that but I bet there are other tools that |
| 104 |
could do it without losing data other than what is in the bad spot of |
| 105 |
course. That's my simple idea at least. |
| 106 |
|
| 107 |
Hope that helps. I wish I could have done the other stuff and kept |
| 108 |
notes on commands and such and then post the results. That MAY have |
| 109 |
helped someone in the future. My brain ain't what it used to be. ;-) |
| 110 |
|
| 111 |
Dale |
| 112 |
|
| 113 |
:-) :-) |
Archives