| 1 |
Nils Holland wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 11:29:53AM -0600, Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Well, I have dd'd the thing a few times and ran the tests again, it |
| 5 |
>> still gives errors. What's odd, they seem to move around. Is there a |
| 6 |
>> bug crawling around in my drive?? lol |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> # 1 Extended offline Completed: read failure 40% |
| 9 |
>> 21500 4032048552 |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> #12 Extended offline Completed: read failure 40% |
| 12 |
>> 21406 4032272464 |
| 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 |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
This drive did report issues a while back, year or so I guess, and I got |
| 50 |
them corrected by dd'ing the drive etc. Anyway, I bought a new drive to |
| 51 |
replace it but have been using the one here as a backup drive mostly to |
| 52 |
test and just see what it would do long term. Well, it did last a while |
| 53 |
at least but as you rightly point out, it started having more issues. |
| 54 |
At least in this case, once the drive reported errors, it went downhill |
| 55 |
from there. I was sort of hoping it would work fine like one would |
| 56 |
expect but I'm not surprised that it is failing again. One thing I have |
| 57 |
learned about drives over the years, if it ever gets a error, you better |
| 58 |
replace it, just to be safe if nothing else. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Since I already replaced this drive, nothing lost. We did learn |
| 61 |
something tho. Just because it claims to have fixed itself doesn't mean |
| 62 |
it will be a long term solution. ;-) |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
Dale |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
:-) :-) |
Archives