| 1 |
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 11:27 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> So, thoughts? Did it mark that part as bad and all is well or is this |
| 4 |
> going to be trouble down the line? Should I just fill the thing up with |
| 5 |
> data and test the stuffin out of it to make sure? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
That is pretty typical. You wrote to every sector on the drive. You |
| 9 |
don't need to be able to read a sector to overwrite it, so doing this |
| 10 |
cleared out the drive's list of offline uncorrectable sectors. If |
| 11 |
you're fortunate it relocated those sectors in which case the drive is |
| 12 |
only using good sectors now. It can't relocate a sector unless it |
| 13 |
either gets a successful read, or it is overwritten, and you overwrote |
| 14 |
them. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Either way the extended offline test passing isn't unusual. Either it |
| 17 |
relocated the sectors in which case the drive is "completely good" or |
| 18 |
the data written to the bad sectors was readable when the test was |
| 19 |
run, which doesn't guarantee that it will still be readable a |
| 20 |
day/week/month/year from now. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Unfortunately I don't think there is any way to find out what the |
| 23 |
firmware is doing, or to predict the likelihood of another failure. |
| 24 |
The only thing we can say for sure that like all hard drives, it WILL |
| 25 |
fail sometime. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Rich |
Archives