| 1 |
Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> [14-07-27 13:12]: |
| 2 |
> meino.cramer@×××.de wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> [14-07-27 12:32]: |
| 4 |
> >> On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 12:12:47 +0200, meino.cramer@×××.de wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> |
| 6 |
> >>> On the one hand, the surface test (extended offline and such) aborts |
| 7 |
> >>> as soon the first read fgailure happens. |
| 8 |
> >>> |
| 9 |
> >>> On the other hand it is said: If the count of bad sectors increases |
| 10 |
> >>> over time it is time to change the hd. |
| 11 |
> >>> |
| 12 |
> >>> How can the second happen, if the first is true??? |
| 13 |
> >> My understanding is that the test only aborts if the error is severe |
| 14 |
> >> enough to force it to do so. A simple bad block can be skipped and the |
| 15 |
> >> rest of the drive tested. |
| 16 |
> >> |
| 17 |
> >> I've had a couple of drives get to the stage where SMART tests abort at |
| 18 |
> >> an error and in both cases the manufacturer replaced them without |
| 19 |
> >> question. |
| 20 |
> >> |
| 21 |
> >> |
| 22 |
> >> -- |
| 23 |
> >> Neil Bothwick |
| 24 |
> >> |
| 25 |
> >> If at first you do succeed, try to hide your astonishment. |
| 26 |
> > Hi Dale, hi Neil, |
| 27 |
> > |
| 28 |
> > thanks for the infos. |
| 29 |
> > |
| 30 |
> > But it is slightly off the point I tried to explain (I am no native |
| 31 |
> > english speaker...sorry...:) |
| 32 |
> > |
| 33 |
> > Suppose - as in my case - I have not yert managed to urge the hd to |
| 34 |
> > map the bad sector off... |
| 35 |
> > |
| 36 |
> > Now...all tests abort after scanning 10% of the disk. Disk health |
| 37 |
> > status is reported as "PASSED"...cause only one bad sector has been |
| 38 |
> > found. |
| 39 |
> > |
| 40 |
> > But 90% of the space of the disk has never been scanned. |
| 41 |
> > |
| 42 |
> > Is this an implementation fault? |
| 43 |
> > And if YES...is it the implementation of the firmware? |
| 44 |
> > And: Is it my firmware or the one of the drive? |
| 45 |
> > ;) |
| 46 |
> > |
| 47 |
> > Best regards, |
| 48 |
> > mcc |
| 49 |
> > |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> Interesting. I was able to get mine to do a full test and give me a |
| 52 |
> clean result. If yours doesn't, well, I'd be diggin me out a box and |
| 53 |
> sending that puppy back to mommy. It seems to need some help. To me, |
| 54 |
> errors is one thing, errors that can't be corrected is a whole new |
| 55 |
> problem. It should fix it and pass the test. |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> Even with my drive passing the test, I don't trust it yet. If it was |
| 58 |
> still showing the error even after I did what I had done, I certainly |
| 59 |
> wouldn't trust it. If yours can't finish the long self test, it may |
| 60 |
> need repairs that are above our pay grade. |
| 61 |
> |
| 62 |
> Maybe Neil or someone will have more ideas. I hope. |
| 63 |
> |
| 64 |
> Dale |
| 65 |
> |
| 66 |
> :-) :-) |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
> |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
Back to the initial problem: |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
How can I offline test the rest of the disk if |
| 73 |
the first bad sector (10%) of the surface breaks |
| 74 |
the test with an error? |
| 75 |
|
| 76 |
Best regards, |
| 77 |
mcc |
Archives