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: Folkert Rienstra on 4 Sep 2007 17:01 Christian Franke wrote in news:46DDB711.7060906(a)t-online.de > Franc Zabkar wrote: > > On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 21:06:25 +0200, Christian Franke <...> put finger to keyboard and composed: > > > > ... > > > > > > > Any attribute may be updated during a "Auto Offline Data Collection". > > > This is intended to update the SMART attributes marked "Offline". > > > > OK, but why does the Seek Error Rate increase by 10 points when this > > happens, if indeed that is what is happening? SmartUDM indicates that > > SMART error logging is not supported, nor is SMART self-test, so I > > can't see why the drive would be accessing the platters. > > "Offline Data Collection" is different from self-test and should be > supported by a drive with "offline" attributes. > > > > Wouldn't the SMART data be written to RAM or flash? > > Probably to disk platter itself;-) > > > > In any case it seems to me that > > the Seek Error Rate parameter is more like a count than a rate. > > > > Sounds reasonable. > > > > ... > > I can't get Smartctl to run on my Win98SE box. Everest Home Edition > > (Windows) has no problem, nor does SmartUDM (DOS). SMART is enabled in > > the BIOS setup. > > > > ===================================================================== > > smartctl -s on -a hda > > smartctl version 5.37 [i686-mingw32-98] Copyright (C) 2002-6 Bruce > > Allen > > Home page is http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/ > > > > === START OF INFORMATION SECTION === > > Model Family: Seagate U8 family > > Device Model: ST313021A > > Serial Number: 6CT0C4JE > > Firmware Version: 3.03 > > User Capacity: 13,022,324,736 bytes > > Device is: In smartctl database [for details use: -P show] > > ATA Version is: 5 > > ATA Standard is: Exact ATA specification draft version not indicated > > Local Time is: Tue Sep 04 13:50:44 2007 AUSEST > > SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability. > > SMART support is: Enabled > > > > === START OF ENABLE/DISABLE COMMANDS SECTION === > > SMART Enabled. > > SMART Disabled. Use option -s with argument 'on' to enable it. > Driver supports SMART, IDENTIFY works and reports SMART enabled, but > apparently SMART STATUS command returns an unexpected error. Oh? > The command "smartctl -r ioctl,2 -a hda" prints debug output including > I/O control parameters and return values. > > Christian
From: Franc Zabkar on 5 Sep 2007 18:19 On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 21:50:41 +0200, Christian Franke <Christian.Franke(a)t-online.de> put finger to keyboard and composed: >Franc Zabkar wrote: > > Wouldn't the SMART data be written to RAM or flash? > >Probably to disk platter itself;-) Running SmartUDM on my 120GB Seagate HD causes its Seek Error Rate statistic to increase by 8 rather than 10. The 120GB drive supports error logging and self test whereas the 13GB drive does not. This would suggest that it is the drive's internal activity that is causing this figure to rise rather than the software. As my 120GB drive is relatively new, and has no reallocated sectors, it seems to me that the Seek Error Rate: (1) is not a rate but a count. (2) does not count errors. (3) may represent a cumulative seek count. If (3), then ... SER / Power On Seconds = 238390167 / 9981 / 3600 = 6.6 seeks / second If the average seek time is ~10ms, then the drive would be capable of 100 seeks/sec. Does this result support the idea that SER is a cumulative seek count? I'm not sure, but in any case, even if it does, it shouldn't really play a part in determining the error rate. AFAICS, one should be measuring the rolling average seek error rate, ie the number of errors in the last 100 or 1000 seeks. As for why SMART diagnostic I/O results in 8 or 10 seeks, if indeed it does, I'm guessing that SMART data may be written to 8 or 10 redundant cylinders, probably at the outer, middle, and inner areas of the disc ??? - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
From: Folkert Rienstra on 6 Sep 2007 11:10 Franc Zabkar wrote in news:9paud39vur83a8saqucvt8mckn5va0b2bl(a)4ax.com > On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 21:50:41 +0200, Christian Franke <Christian.Franke(a)t-online.de> put finger to keyboard and composed: > > > Franc Zabkar wrote: > > > > Wouldn't the SMART data be written to RAM or flash? > > > > Probably to disk platter itself;-) > > Running SmartUDM on my 120GB Seagate HD causes its Seek Error Rate > statistic to increase by 8 rather than 10. The 120GB drive supports > error logging and self test whereas the 13GB drive does not. This > would suggest that it is the drive's internal activity that is causing > this figure to rise rather than the software. Congratulations. You finally figured out what "SMART diagnostic I/O" is. And you know what, it only took you 3 days to do it. Must be a new australian record. [rest of bullshit flushed]
From: Christian Franke on 7 Sep 2007 16:10 Franc Zabkar wrote: > On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 21:50:41 +0200, Christian Franke > <...> put finger to keyboard and composed: >>> ... >>> SMART support is: Enabled >>> >>> === START OF ENABLE/DISABLE COMMANDS SECTION === >>> SMART Enabled. >>> SMART Disabled. Use option -s with argument 'on' to enable it. >> Driver supports SMART, IDENTIFY works and reports SMART enabled, but >> apparently SMART STATUS command returns an unexpected error. >> The command "smartctl -r ioctl,2 -a hda" prints debug output including >> I/O control parameters and return values. >> >> Christian > > Here is the output: > http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/Smartctl/smart_debug.txt > Thanks for the info. SMART STATUS returns function not implemented. Probably a driver issue. smartctl does not continue if this function fails. Christian
From: Franc Zabkar on 8 Sep 2007 06:06
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 22:10:35 +0200, Christian Franke <Christian.Franke(a)t-online.de> put finger to keyboard and composed: >Franc Zabkar wrote: >> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 21:50:41 +0200, Christian Franke >> <...> put finger to keyboard and composed: >>>> ... >>>> SMART support is: Enabled >>>> >>>> === START OF ENABLE/DISABLE COMMANDS SECTION === >>>> SMART Enabled. >>>> SMART Disabled. Use option -s with argument 'on' to enable it. >>> Driver supports SMART, IDENTIFY works and reports SMART enabled, but >>> apparently SMART STATUS command returns an unexpected error. >>> The command "smartctl -r ioctl,2 -a hda" prints debug output including >>> I/O control parameters and return values. >>> >>> Christian >> >> Here is the output: >> http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/Smartctl/smart_debug.txt >> > >Thanks for the info. >SMART STATUS returns function not implemented. According to section 3.1.4 of Seagate's U8 Product Manual, the "S.M.A.R.T. Return Status" command is implemented for this drive: http://www.seagate.com/support/disc/manuals/ata/u8pmb.pdf >Probably a driver issue. If I have read the SMART specs correctly, the Return Status command is a mandatory component of the SMART feature set. Therefore wouldn't it be odd if MS omitted this function from its smartvsd driver? >smartctl does not continue if this function fails. > >Christian Could you please indulge me by helping me understand the error report? I believe the Input line defines the command, features register, sector number, sector count, cyl low, cyl high for the Return Status subcommand (0xDA). But I don't understand the "errno=40". Does this reflect the Status or Error registers, or is it internal to the program? AIUI, the Status register should be set to 0x40 if there is no error, otherwise the Error register should be set to 0x04 "if the device does not support this command, or if SMART is disabled". =================================================================== REPORT-IOCTL: DeviceFD=0 Command=SMART STATUS SMART_SEND_DRIVE_COMMAND failed, Error=1 Input : CMD=0xb0, FR=0xda, SC=0x00, NS=0x00, CL=0x4f, CH=0xc2, SEL=0x00 REPORT-IOCTL: DeviceFD=0 Command=SMART STATUS returned -1 errno=40 [Function not implemented] =================================================================== - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email. |