Seagate SMART, Raw Read Error Rate, Seek Error Rate
in [Storage]
|
Prev: The Windows 2000/XP USB 128 GB problem
Next: Hard drive failing? Reallocated Sector count warning
From: Eric Gisin on 2 Sep 2007 12:11 "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar(a)iinternode.on.net> wrote in message news:b3mkd3t5rsfskeujhqmej21cu4igqs5lhm(a)4ax.com... > > I'm running Win98SE. While monitoring file accesses with Filemon (from > SysInternals), I used Everest Home Edition (ver 2.20.405) to monitor > the drive's SMART data. Every time I refreshed the SMART report (using > F5), the Seek Error Rate figure increased by 10 points. However the > Filemon capture window remained empty. How can a drive incur seek > errors if there are no file accesses? I would think that the SMART > data would be retrieved from the drive's RAM or flash EEPROM, so no > actual seeks would be required. > SMART diagnostic I/O does not show up as Windows I/O.
From: Arno Wagner on 2 Sep 2007 12:32 Previously Franc Zabkar <fzabkar(a)iinternode.on.net> wrote: > On 2 Sep 2007 05:29:04 GMT, Arno Wagner <me(a)privacy.net> put finger to > keyboard and composed: >>Previously Franc Zabkar <fzabkar(a)iinternode.on.net> wrote: >>> BTW, these are the SMART data for my Fujitsu 6GB drive: >>> http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/6GB.RPT >> >>> Notice the raw value for "Power On Hours Count". >> >>> 0000008EF98Ah = 9369994 dec >>> = 1069 years >> >>> In fact the figure appears to represent Power On Seconds. >> >>This is a non-standardized field, AFAIK. Bogus readings are >>no surprise here. >> >>Arno > I suspect that the figures aren't necessarily bogus, they may just > need to be interpreted differently between manufacturers. That is what I meant. The raw values ace accurate, but the interpreted figures are ofteh wrong. > That said, I > haven't been able to find any detailed SMART documentation at any of > the manufacturers' web sites. SMART is part of the ATA spec. You can find specs on the t13 comitte website here: http://www.t13.org/ Arno
From: Christian Franke on 2 Sep 2007 13:15 Arno Wagner wrote: > Previously Franc Zabkar <...> wrote: >> On 2 Sep 2007 05:29:04 GMT, Arno Wagner <me(a)privacy.net> put finger to >> keyboard and composed: > >>> Previously Franc Zabkar <...> wrote: > >>>> BTW, these are the SMART data for my Fujitsu 6GB drive: >>>> http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/6GB.RPT >>>> Notice the raw value for "Power On Hours Count". >>>> 0000008EF98Ah = 9369994 dec >>>> = 1069 years >>>> In fact the figure appears to represent Power On Seconds. Yes, the FUJITSU MPE3064AT Attribute 9 raw value counts seconds. Other drives use hours, minutes or half minutes. Some SMART tools handle these differences, most don't. See info about Attribute 9 in http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/#FAQ >>> This is a non-standardized field, AFAIK. Bogus readings are >>> no surprise here. >>> >>> Arno > >> I suspect that the figures aren't necessarily bogus, they may just >> need to be interpreted differently between manufacturers. > > That is what I meant. The raw values ace accurate, but the interpreted > figures are ofteh wrong. > >> That said, I >> haven't been able to find any detailed SMART documentation at any of >> the manufacturers' web sites. > > SMART is part of the ATA spec. You can find specs on the t13 comitte > website here: http://www.t13.org/ > Unlike SMART status, self-tests and logs, SMART attributes are *not* standardized in ATA-3...8. Even the general data format isn't standardized. Specific Attributes are only listed in a proposed informal annex for ATA-8. But it is still not included in the draft. See "ATA References" at http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/#references for links & comments. Christian
From: Folkert Rienstra on 2 Sep 2007 10:40 Franc Zabkar wrote in message news:b3mkd3t5rsfskeujhqmej21cu4igqs5lhm(a)4ax.com > On 1 Sep 2007 07:29:59 GMT, Arno Wagner <me(a)privacy.net> put finger to > keyboard and composed: > > > Previously Franc Zabkar <fzabkar(a)iinternode.on.net> wrote: > > > I'm trying to make sense of the SMART reports for my 13GB and 120GB > > > Seagate hard drives. Both have very high numbers for the Raw Read > > > Error Rate and Seek Error Rate. > > > > Raw read error is very hard to interpret and usually not > > important anyways. Seek errors are usually a poer problem > > or a vibration problem. They may also indicate a problem > > with the disk. > I'm running Win98SE. While monitoring file accesses with Filemon (from > SysInternals), I used Everest Home Edition (ver 2.20.405) to monitor > the drive's SMART data. Every time I refreshed the SMART report (using > F5), the Seek Error Rate figure increased by 10 points. However the > Filemon capture window remained empty. How can a drive incur seek > errors if there are no file accesses? What file access. > I would think that the SMART data would be retrieved from the > drive's RAM or flash EEPROM, so no actual seeks would be required. Well, guess what. > > - Franc Zabkar
From: Folkert Rienstra on 2 Sep 2007 10:41
Franc Zabkar wrote in message news:peqjd395h03laql0g2m7jcid0n76gdqqdt(a)4ax.com > On 1 Sep 2007 07:29:59 GMT, Arno Wagner <me(a)privacy.net> put finger to > keyboard and composed: > > > Previously Franc Zabkar <fzabkar(a)iinternode.on.net> wrote: > > > I'm trying to make sense of the SMART reports for my 13GB and 120GB > > > Seagate hard drives. Both have very high numbers for the Raw Read > > > Error Rate and Seek Error Rate. > > > > Raw read error is very hard to interpret and usually not important any > > ways. Seek errors are usually a poer problem or a vibration problem. > > They may also indicate a problem with the disk. > > > > > At the moment the Raw Read Error Rate > > > for the 13GB seems to be unchanging, but the Seek Error Rate increases > > > every time I look at it. Also, if I compare today's Raw Read Error > > > Rate with the result from two years ago, the number is actually much > > > lower today. Does anyone know how these figures are calculated, or > > > even if they mean what they appear to mean? > > > > > These are recent reports produced by SmartUDM: > > > http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/13GB.RPT > > > http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/120GB.RPT > > > > > These reports were produced by Everest: > > > http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/SMART_05.txt (2005) > > > http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/SMART_07.txt (2007) > > > http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/SMART_scandisk.txt > > > > > The first report was done in Sept 2005, the second in the last couple > > > of days. The last report is the result after running Scandisk. > > > > > BTW, the Current Pending Sector Count of 1 reflects a sector that has > > > been marked as bad by the OS. > > > > Not quite. It represents a sector that the drive has given up on, > > but not yet been able to replace, because it was not written to it. > > The OS does not factor into this. > Sorry, my statement was ambiguous. No it wasn't. Everybody else but the babblebot got it. > Maybe I should have written that "the Current Pending Sector Count > of 1 coincides with a sector that has been marked as bad by the OS". Which would have gotten the same response from the babblebot. > > > A bad sector marked by the disk (and invisible to the OS) can > > be counter as "reallocation event" or "reallocated sector count". > > If these numbers start growing, something is seriously wrong. > > The numbers *are* growing. In fact they've grown from 34 to 119 in > two years. I've been preparing to replace the drive for quite some > time now. However, it's only in the last month or so that the drive has > been making occasional noises, ie a very soft clink, probably from the > voice coil positioner. > > > > I suspect that the drive's controller is aware that it is bad, but it > > > cannot relocate it until such time as the OS writes to it, thereby sig- > > > nalling that the data in that sector is no longer of any consequence. > > > > Yes. > > > > > FWIW, SeaTools Desktop v3.00 says the 13GB drive is OK, apart > > > from one bad sector. > > One bad sector is no reason for concern. > > If they start to get more, that would be. Utter nonsense as always from the babblebot. > > > > Arno > > I now have a batch file that runs just prior to shutdown. Among other > things, it captures SMART data and appends it to a log file. It'll be > interesting to monitor the drive as it progresses toward total failure. :-) > > BTW, these are the SMART data for my Fujitsu 6GB drive: > http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/6GB.RPT > > Notice the raw value for "Power On Hours Count". > > 0000008EF98Ah = 9369994 dec > = 1069 years > > In fact the figure appears to represent Power On Seconds. > > - Franc Zabkar |