Prev: The Windows 2000/XP USB 128 GB problem
Next: Hard drive failing? Reallocated Sector count warning
From: Franc Zabkar on 31 Aug 2007 20:04
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. 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. 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 signalling that the data in that sector is no
longer of any consequence.

FWIW, SeaTools Desktop v3.00 says the 13GB drive is OK, apart from one
bad sector.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
From: Arno Wagner on 1 Sep 2007 03:29
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.

> 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.

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.

> 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 signalling 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.

Arno
From: Franc Zabkar on 1 Sep 2007 20:53
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.
>
>> 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. 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".

>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 signalling 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.
>
>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
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
From: Arno Wagner on 2 Sep 2007 01:29
Previously Franc Zabkar <fzabkar(a)iinternode.on.net> wrote:
> 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:
[...]
>>> 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. 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".

Ok.

>>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.

Well. Personally I stop trustinf a disk around 10 or so, unless
they all happened in one burst. I have had one Maxtor disk with
something like 200 reallocated sectors in one event, which
did run fine without any additional ones for three years afterwards.

So, it could be a problem with power (spikes, I would suspect),
mechanical shock/vibration or the like. Or the disk could have
a problem. I would replace that one. Also, at some time the disk will
run out of spare sectors.

>>> 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 signalling 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.
>>
>>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.

This is a non-standardized field, AFAIK. Bogus readings are
no surprise here.

Arno
From: Franc Zabkar on 2 Sep 2007 02:58
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 said, I
haven't been able to find any detailed SMART documentation at any of
the manufacturers' web sites.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: The Windows 2000/XP USB 128 GB problem
Next: Hard drive failing? Reallocated Sector count warning