| 1 |
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 11:29:53AM -0600, Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Well, I have dd'd the thing a few times and ran the tests again, it |
| 4 |
> still gives errors. What's odd, they seem to move around. Is there a |
| 5 |
> bug crawling around in my drive?? lol |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> # 1 Extended offline Completed: read failure 40% |
| 8 |
> 21500 4032048552 |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> #12 Extended offline Completed: read failure 40% |
| 11 |
> 21406 4032272464 |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Well, the location of the first unreadable error is before the |
| 14 |
location of the second one, so it's entirely possible that the drive |
| 15 |
was eventually able to read the first bad sector and subsequently |
| 16 |
remapped it to a sparse sector. Of, depending on what other actions |
| 17 |
may have been done to the drive between the two tests shown, a write |
| 18 |
may have been done to the sector, which would also result immediately |
| 19 |
in a sparse sector being taken if the original sector looks |
| 20 |
"suspicious" to the drive. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
All of that should - at least a little bit of it - be visible by |
| 23 |
looking at the other smart statictics. The reallocated sector count |
| 24 |
would have gone up in such a case, and the number of currently pending |
| 25 |
sectors could have gone down. Still, even though the first bad sector |
| 26 |
might have been appropriately dealt with, there's obviously more wrong |
| 27 |
with the drive, as the second test shows. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Personally, with the relatively low hard disk prices of recent years, |
| 30 |
I've always started distrusting drives as soon as they began showing |
| 31 |
bad / remapped sectors and failing self-tests, even though they still |
| 32 |
reported their own SMART status as fine. More times than not, just |
| 33 |
completely zeroing out a drive will fix the then-known bad sectors, as |
| 34 |
it triggers the drive's firmware to remap them, but in my experience a |
| 35 |
drive that started developing a few bad sectors will soon develop more |
| 36 |
of the same. So at least in environments dealing with important data, |
| 37 |
I'd quickly exchange such a drive and probably only continue to use it |
| 38 |
for less important stuff, like transferring data from one machine to |
| 39 |
another, where the failure of the transpoting drive would be harmless, |
| 40 |
as the data could at any time be gotten again from the original |
| 41 |
machine carrying it. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Greetings, |
| 44 |
Nils |
Archives