Formatting a hard disk and handling of suspicious bad sectors
in [Storage]
|
Prev: Finding RAID controller for SSDs?
Next: mysterious discrepancy in the reported free space on two identical usb drives
From: Sjouke Burry on 16 Feb 2010 22:43 Yousuf Khan wrote: > Robin Bignall wrote: >> Another piece of software that will give you a SMART readout is >> Speedfan, even if you use it occasionally only for that purpose, not >> to control/monitor fans. It is free. > > Yeah, it does display SMART values, but does not make any sort of > analysis of that data. > > Yousuf Khan Everest Home edition does. Extract from report: > [ HDS722580VLAT20 (VNR21EC2T11N3M) ] > > 01 Raw Read Error Rate 60 100 100 0 OK: Value is normal > 02 Throughput Performance 50 100 100 0 OK: Value is normal > 03 Spin Up Time 24 113 113 11600047 OK: Value is normal > 04 Start/Stop Count 0 91 91 37210 OK: Always passing > 05 Reallocated Sector Count 5 100 100 0 OK: Value is normal > 07 Seek Error Rate 67 100 100 0 OK: Value is normal > 08 Seek Time Performance 20 100 100 0 OK: Value is normal > 09 Power-On Time Count 0 98 98 18847 OK: Always passing > 0A Spin Retry Count 60 100 100 0 OK: Value is normal > 0C Power Cycle Count 0 100 100 1853 OK: Always passing > C0 Power-Off Retract Count 50 69 69 37833 OK: Value is normal > C1 Load/Unload Cycle Count 50 69 69 37833 OK: Value is normal > C2 Temperature 0 148 148 17, 37 OK: Always passing > C4 Reallocation Event Count 0 100 100 0 OK: Always passing > C5 Current Pending Sector Count 0 100 100 0 OK: Always passing > C6 Off-Line Uncorrectable Sector Count 0 100 100 0 OK: Always passing > C7 Ultra ATA CRC Error Rate 0 200 200 0 OK: Always passing > > [ HDS722516VLAT80 (VNR43EC4GMYM6M) ] > > 01 Raw Read Error Rate 60 100 100 0 OK: Value is normal > 02 Throughput Performance 50 100 100 0 OK: Value is normal > 03 Spin Up Time 24 99 99 20185385 OK: Value is normal > 04 Start/Stop Count 0 95 95 23580 OK: Always passing > 05 Reallocated Sector Count 5 100 100 35 OK: Value is normal > 07 Seek Error Rate 67 100 100 0 OK: Value is normal > 08 Seek Time Performance 20 100 100 0 OK: Value is normal > 09 Power-On Time Count 0 98 98 18811 OK: Always passing > 0A Spin Retry Count 60 100 100 0 OK: Value is normal > 0C Power Cycle Count 0 100 100 1838 OK: Always passing > C0 Power-Off Retract Count 50 81 81 23735 OK: Value is normal > C1 Load/Unload Cycle Count 50 81 81 23735 OK: Value is normal > C2 Temperature 0 177 177 18, 31 OK: Always passing > C4 Reallocation Event Count 0 100 100 40 OK: Always passing > C5 Current Pending Sector Count 0 100 100 0 OK: Always passing > C6 Off-Line Uncorrectable Sector Count 0 100 100 0 OK: Always passing > C7 Ultra ATA CRC Error Rate 0 200 200 0 OK: Always passing
From: Yousuf Khan on 16 Feb 2010 04:42 Man-wai Chang to The Door (24000bps) wrote: >> Get one of the many utilities that will write zeros to the entire HD, >> then repartition, then reformat (the high-level format). >> >> The other way to get a newly formatted HD is to buy a new one. > > How could I tell the utility not to retry a bad sector to save time? I > want it to mark a sector as bad when it fails to read it on the FIRST > TIME (aka, NO MERCY)! There's always little errors happening with modern drives, e.g. line errors. There could be 100's of these per minute. If it weren't for the fact that the drive's own electronics understood this situation, under your system we'd be marking perfectly good sectors bad for no reason. It sounds like you're frustrated with one particular drive that may be giving you these errors. I'm sure if you analysed it with SMART tools, you'll find that this drive may actually be failing and it's slow because it's run out of spare sectors to replace. The best way to find out is to post the SMART report right here on the newsgroup and let the experts here take a look at it. A utility called Everest will save a file with this info in it, which you can then copy'n'paste here. Yousuf Khan
From: Man-wai Chang to The Door (24000bps) on 16 Feb 2010 04:54 > There's always little errors happening with modern drives, e.g. line > errors. There could be 100's of these per minute. If it weren't for the > fact that the drive's own electronics understood this situation, under > your system we'd be marking perfectly good sectors bad for no reason. Like I said: No mercy! The data is more valuable than a tiny tiny spot on a disk platter. > It sounds like you're frustrated with one particular drive that may be > giving you these errors. I'm sure if you analysed it with SMART tools, > you'll find that this drive may actually be failing and it's slow > because it's run out of spare sectors to replace. The best way to find > out is to post the SMART report right here on the newsgroup and let the > experts here take a look at it. A utility called Everest will save a > file with this info in it, which you can then copy'n'paste here. I understood. Same "no mercy" policy when it comes to the reliability of the whole disk drive! -- @~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY. / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you! /( _ )\ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.32.8 ^ ^ 17:52:01 up 1 day 2:42 0 users load average: 1.19 1.12 1.06 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
From: Yousuf Khan on 16 Feb 2010 11:02 Man-wai Chang to The Door (24000bps) wrote: >> There's always little errors happening with modern drives, e.g. line >> errors. There could be 100's of these per minute. If it weren't for the >> fact that the drive's own electronics understood this situation, under >> your system we'd be marking perfectly good sectors bad for no reason. > > Like I said: No mercy! The data is more valuable than a tiny tiny spot > on a disk platter. But that's just it, it's not errors on the recording medium, it could be errors of timing and other things. The error only occurs because something is too busy or some cluster on the disk didn't rotate around fast enough for the head to read it the first time. >> It sounds like you're frustrated with one particular drive that may be >> giving you these errors. I'm sure if you analysed it with SMART tools, >> you'll find that this drive may actually be failing and it's slow >> because it's run out of spare sectors to replace. The best way to find >> out is to post the SMART report right here on the newsgroup and let the >> experts here take a look at it. A utility called Everest will save a >> file with this info in it, which you can then copy'n'paste here. > > I understood. Same "no mercy" policy when it comes to the reliability of > the whole disk drive! I'd say get the report of that drive posted here, and we can tell you what's going on with it. Yousuf Khan
From: Jonathan de Boyne Pollard on 16 Feb 2010 05:14
> >>>> >>>> Oh yes ... I remember DOS ... and floppy disks too! >>>> >>>> Most of today's disks are way too big to do a DOS format without >>>> first setting up lots of logical partitions. >>>> >>> Wrong. You can format the entire drive with one partition if you want. >>> >> ... as long as one is prepared to use partition types that most >> versions of MS/PC/DR-DOS won't be able to cope with. This, of >> course, was M. Bryce's point. And even then that is presuming that >> one's disc is below the 2TiB limit, beyond which one has to do things >> like switch from the MBR partitioning scheme to the EFI partitioning >> scheme, which no version of MS/PC/DR-DOS at all can cope with. >> > Modern versions of Win handle [partition types that most versions of > MS/PC/DR-DOS won't be able to cope with] fine. > "Modern versions of Win" are not DOS, of course. > Not it was not [M. Bryce's point]. > I'm confident that if asked xe would state xyrself that it was. What xe wrote wasn't particularly unclear. > Only fools run dinosaurs like that. > Whether it's foolish to run MS/PC/DR-DOS is besides the point. The premise is that one is, and the consequence of the premise is that it's difficult to handle today's disc sizes with MS/PC/DR-DOS, given their comparatively small partition size limits and the 2TiB limit of the old MBR partitioning scheme (the only partitioning scheme that they understand) itself. |