| 1 |
Wols Lists wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 12/04/2022 02:27, Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
>> The one I aborted was because it was stuck on 10% for well over a day. |
| 4 |
>> The whole test doesn't take that long, or shouldn't anyway. I restarted |
| 5 |
>> it shortly after that. I might add, the test did take many hours longer |
| 6 |
>> than it estimated which from my past experience is quite odd. It's |
| 7 |
>> usually pretty accurate. Still, it completed and shows it passed, just |
| 8 |
>> has a boo boo on it. I also did a file system check it fixed a couple |
| 9 |
>> problems and a bunch of little things I see corrected often on bootup. |
| 10 |
>> Something about length of something. Seems trivial. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Given that the firmware SOMETIMES gets its knickers in a twist, |
| 13 |
> especially consumer drives (not sure what yours are?), and read errors |
| 14 |
> are a dime a dozen, I wouldn't worry that much about ONE error. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Do another SMART test after your next reboot. Any NEW errors will be a |
| 17 |
> red flag, but just this one again? Don't worry. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
That seems to be what my google searches revealed. After all, nothing |
| 21 |
is perfect. I'm sometimes surprised that drives aren't shipped with a |
| 22 |
couple of these. I'll keep my backups up to date as usual tho. ;-) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
>> Given the low number and it showing it corrected that error, and then |
| 27 |
>> passed a short and long test, is this drive "safe enough" to keep in |
| 28 |
>> service? I have backups just in case but just curious what others know |
| 29 |
>> from experience. At least this isn't one of those nasty messages that |
| 30 |
>> the drive will die within 24 hours. I got one of those ages ago and it |
| 31 |
>> didn't miss it by much. A little over 30 hours or so later, it was a |
| 32 |
>> door stop. It would spin but it couldn't even be seen by the BIOS. |
| 33 |
>> Maybe drives are getting better and SMART is getting better as well. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> SMART is a lot better than it was, but remember, it only picks up wear |
| 36 |
> and tear. Mechanical failure is just as deadly, and usually strikes |
| 37 |
> out of the blue. I saw some stats somewhere it's something like 1/3, |
| 38 |
> 2/3 wear and tear picked up by SMART, and mechanical failure |
| 39 |
> undetectable by smart. Can't remember which stat was which. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
My understanding is that SMART detects media problems and sometimes even |
| 42 |
when a electronic component is getting out of spec. However, it is |
| 43 |
unlikely to detect that the spindle motor or the mechanism that moves |
| 44 |
the heads is about to go out. It can detect some things but not |
| 45 |
everything. From my understanding, it is mostly about monitoring the |
| 46 |
magnetic media itself. It is however, better than nothing at all. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
>> |
| 50 |
>> Thoughts. Replace as soon as drive arrives or wait and see? |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> If you get a couple of errors, then no more for months, the drive is |
| 53 |
> probably fine. If you get new errors every time you test, ditch it ASAP. |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> Either way, make sure it's backed up! |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> Cheers, |
| 58 |
> Wol |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
Sounds like a plan. Drive should be here Friday. I'll keep a eye on |
| 64 |
it. It's down to 10% on long selftest and no errors reported yet. I'll |
| 65 |
keep the drive unmounted until Friday tho, just in case. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
Thanks for the opinions. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
Dale |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
:-) :-) |
Archives