| 1 |
Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> [14-07-27 12:32]: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 12:12:47 +0200, meino.cramer@×××.de wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > On the one hand, the surface test (extended offline and such) aborts |
| 5 |
> > as soon the first read fgailure happens. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > On the other hand it is said: If the count of bad sectors increases |
| 8 |
> > over time it is time to change the hd. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > How can the second happen, if the first is true??? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> My understanding is that the test only aborts if the error is severe |
| 13 |
> enough to force it to do so. A simple bad block can be skipped and the |
| 14 |
> rest of the drive tested. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I've had a couple of drives get to the stage where SMART tests abort at |
| 17 |
> an error and in both cases the manufacturer replaced them without |
| 18 |
> question. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> -- |
| 22 |
> Neil Bothwick |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> If at first you do succeed, try to hide your astonishment. |
| 25 |
|
| 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 |
Archives